Attorney General Scott Pruitt hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on June 29 in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case in which Oklahoma was a plaintiff.
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Michigan v. EPA is a substantial victory for Oklahoma industry and consumers,” Pruitt said. “Thanks to our victory, the EPA can no longer ignore the substantial costs its rulemaking can heap on industry, and eventually ratepayers. The EPA routinely ignores statutes and congressional directive in order to pick winners and losers in the energy arena. This ruling will support Oklahoma’s continued challenges of the EPA’s attempts to act outside the authority granted to it by Congress and the law.”
The state of Oklahoma was a party to the litigation, joining Michigan and 20 other states. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided to set limits on the emissions of mercury and other pollutants from power plants without first considering the costs to utilities and others before doing so.
The 21 other states party to the lawsuit are Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Texas Public Utility Commission and the Railroad Commission of Texas also joined the plaintiffs.
In a related EPA item, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, reacted to China’s submitted pledge to the United Nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by or before 2030.
“China’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions is unattainable and unrealistic,” Inhofe said. “China brings a new coal-fired power plant online every 10 days to meet their electricity demands, and China’s commitment will allow the country to continue increasing its emissions for the next 15 years. As I warned before, this deal will allow China to continue to lure manufacturing and agriculture jobs away from the United States with the promise of affordable energy.
“The president should focus on more immediate threats posed by China, such as its aggressive and potentially dangerous actions in the South China Sea and what could be considered acts of war against the United States with cyber-attacks on DOD and other federal agencies.”