The Supreme Court recently decided against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a case about their Clean Protection Plan (CPP). The case, West Virginia v. EPA, resulted in handing off the question of how to reduce emissions to the state level rather than the federal. The CPP would have given the EPA the power to require new and existing power plants to "generation-shift" or invest in renewable energy sources more and more heavily over time. These regulations would allow plants to continue operating the coal side of the plant but would be required to dedicate space and resources to invest in wind, solar, or gas energy systems.

 
This strategy was designed around the EPA's newest "best system of emission reduction" (BSER) that essentially determines the means to reach the EPA's emissions reduction goals. The CPP was designed to reduce coal produced electricity from 38%, in 2014, to 27% by the year 2030. The Court ruled that the EPA was overstepping their bounds by enacting such sweeping change without Congress giving their consent.

In deciding the case, the Court applied the major questions doctrine finding that the EPA would be completely overhauling the American energy industry without any permission from Congress. The resulting consequence of the decision is that the power to enact sweeping reform in the energy industry will lie with the states, unless Congress decides to weigh in on the matter.

The National League of Cities (NLC) opposed the decision as they see it as a step back for the fight against carbon emissions. NLC CEO, Clarence Anthony, along with the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) CEO and Executive Director, Tom Cochran issued a statement regarding their disagreement with the Court.

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) see this Supreme Court ruling as a positive towards the interests of its members. The NAHB specifically points out that the major question doctrine used in the case would set a higher bar for courts in cases that involve agencies attempting to use current laws and statutes in new and unprecedented ways. Thus, builders will have less to worry about in the realm of sudden and unexpected regulations being put into practice.

On the other hand, the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) has reported they are disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court to limit the EPA's power. The ASLA urges Congress to grant the EPA the power it would need to override the Court's decision in the name of rapidly reducing carbon emissions. The association also reports that more than half of its members believe in the integration of climate solutions in their landscape architecture projects. They will continue to support climate change policies and will work towards empowering agencies to allow broad changes.