The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term last month with a series of high-profile and controversial decisions — including on the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In that opinion, a 6-3 majority determined the EPA does not have the authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants based on the “generation shifting” approach used in the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.

Conservative leaders applauded the decision for reigning in regulatory overreach, while liberals and environmentalists expressed shock and dismay at restrictions placed on rules to reduce emissions. What the Supreme Court case ultimately means for climate action is complex. There are regulations the EPA can still pursue. At the same time, a legal shadow now hangs over government agencies amid ongoing gridlock in Congress. 

To discuss the path forward, Political Climate hosts Julia Pyper and Shane Skelton are joined by Jay Duffy, an attorney with the Clean Air Task Force, who represented a diverse group of environmental and public health organizations in the West Virginia v. EPA case.

Listen and subscribe to Political Climate on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher or pretty much wherever you get podcasts! Follow us on Twitter at @Poli_Climate. While you're here, please leave a review! Thank you.

Recommended reading:

• Clean Air Task Force: Supreme Court takes key tool out of EPA’s toolbox, but multiple options remain for agency to regulate climate pollution
• Canary Media: Supreme Court hamstrings federal efforts to clean up US power sector
• Canary Media: Most voters support EPA limiting CO2 pollution from power plants 
• Politico: 'We don’t have to pretend anymore': Greens ready to bail on D.C. 

Political Climate is brought to you by MCE. Today, MCE offers nearly 40 Bay Area communities almost twice as much renewable energy as the state average. The power of MCE is about more than clean energy — it’s the power of people over profit. Learn more at mceCleanEnergy.org