The Supreme Court recently delivered a seemingly significant ruling on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. The court concluded that a limit should be set on the EPA’s ability and authority to set regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. The decision was based on there not being a clear enough target for these regulations that were put in place by the EPA decades ago. The purpose of these regulations on CO2 output seems extremely clear now, but at the time the EPA was given a broad scope of power over these regulations with no real justification.

     How big of a blow to the battle against climate change is this? Although the Court has clearly revoked a vital right given to the EPA, the ruling has turned out to be a lot less detrimental to environmental protection regulations than initially assumed. What the EPA will need to do now instead of governing regulations themselves, is to obtain a clear statement of approval from congress that explicitly states instructions and permissions given. Even though this will not be an easy task given the current political environment, the Clean Air Act is still in place and many of its fossil fuel emissions regulations sit outside the scope of the ruling.

     You can find additional information on this topic here: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/07/11/what-scotus-ruling-epa-and-emissions-means-climate-change

By: Maya Vierra, student intern, and sophomore at New York University

Jack Schniepp is a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ (CFP®, ChFC®) and the owner of Cascade Financial Strategies. CFS is a registered investment advisor located in Bend, Oregon and licensed in Oregon, California, Washington, Arizona and Idaho. They specialize in socially responsible investing which integrates environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) criteria into portfolio construction.