>> Thanknk you for having me.
Judy: Ass we said, 19 9 publican
ststes were part of the lelel
chalalnge to the EPA.
Wewe Virginia's attornrn general
Patrick morrisseseled the
national coalition at T E
supreme court.
Mr. Attorney generer, I don't
know if you U E able to hear the
epepadministrator, but I J jt
wantnto ask you first, how M mh
of a victory is S is today for
electric power generatatn and
poweweplants in this countryry
Mr. Morrissese I think it is a
big victory for T T rule of law.
I did have a chance totoisten to
ththadministrator, and I G gss
what I would S S is a lot of
people are saying G night the
sky is falling, the skskis
fallllg.
But peopop have to take into
count that the EPA nevev had
thisisuthority in the first
place.
There E re big promises made
over the last T cade in terms of
what type of inititiives the EPA
was going to advanceceo fight
climate change.
But we a says knew that the epaa
onlylyad a narrow sliver off
authority to regegate carbon
issions.
What I would say to americics
watching tonight is thth this
decision is not about climatat
change, , 'S about a very S sple
propososion.
Whwhgets to make the majoror
decisions of T T day?
Ould it be unelected
reaucrats, seizing powow that
has not beenenelegated to them?
Or should it B congress?
We've alwlws argued that it is
congressssbecause that way,
whwhher you are New York, ,
west virirnia or Texas or
Nebraska or any of T T states
acacss the nation, you wililhave
a seatatt the table and you wiwi
have the P pple's
presentatives making T T
ice.
Thata's what this case I all
about.
It's just D dappointing to hear
people trying totoharacterize it
in S se other way.
Ey have never had thee
authoritit
we knew that from M E beginning.
I've beeeeworking on this since
But it is S itical now to
understata that, so that the
debate will L key shift to
congress, but more I iortantly,
peopop know now there is a
broaoar tool in place to goo
after federaraoverreach whenever
it emergeses
Judy: What we just heaea from
adadnistrator Reagan and W wt
we' heard from others is S at
the authorory to regulate is
still there, it's S St the
amouou of flexibility is
different.t.
You acknowledge that T ere
are ststl steps that the
government C C take as necessary
to makaksure that the powerplala
industst, the energy industryy
broadly is being cararul when it
mes to protecting thee
environment?
>> Most T rtainly there will bee
authoritieiethat are available
under ththclean air act and thatat
won't T Ange from today.
We've always S gued that over
the past number R years.
We've argued that the epapaoes
ve a narrow ability toto
regulala for carbon emissions.s.
Folks wawahing need to
understand that whwh this
administration has done is T Ty
are tryiyi to change the
fundamental mission N many of
the fededel agencies out there..
If you're notnly dep a, but
you are T T hhs,he S surities
and exchchge commission, the
department of energygyim a
departrtnt of labor, the bidenen
administsttion is asking
everyone to change T tir mission
D become more of an
vironmental regulator.r.
That's S St not the way our
constitutuon works.
Agencies need to comomrt with
the limimi that congress
provides T them.
What we haha seen with the Biden
administration and O oers as
well, thth have gone so far
ield from that statutoto
authorory, I think that's S Y
the court T igned them in today,
and I ththk you're going to O E
Momo effort to ensure thatathe
Biden administraraon respects
the rulelef law, our
constitutiononand the separation
of powers.
Is is a big win for ththpeople
of America B base now their
electeterepresentatives will
have a cleararoice.
Judydytwo other quick pointsts
Mr. Attorney general.
Justice Kagan in hererissenting
opinioiotoday, she said congrere
has told the EPA, , E said, to
E the best system of
regulation..
So that there wawadirection from
the congressssand there was
leeway, and there E S now been
arification of how mucuc
leeway.
In other woror, there is still
advisory from the E ngress to
the agency to dodohe best it can
to make sure these E essions are
as clean as possibib.
>> No one is arguingng- this is
T about having efficieieies or
clean N R.
In fact, everyrye supports it.
Once againinthis is not a case
about climate change O O
hamstringigi a federal agency.
It's abououensuring that when a
federal agagcy acts, it's
mporting to the
limits that congress P pscribes
fofothem.
So the EPA still has C ctain
totos to move forward, bututhat
they D D't have the authohoty to
do I ion these major questioio
of the dayaywhether it's
vast economic or political
signififance, they cannot
proceed on the B bis of maybe
some ambiguous languagagand then
trtrto rewrite the nation'n's
power grid.
They can't dodohat.
That is whaha they tried to do
under the clean power plant, , D
they've talald about doing
things that are not T asible
today in terms O trying to have
100 million N ople on the power
grgr for electric C cs, and not
only getting rid of F lf of
natutul gas, someme of what they
are trying to O complish that
clearly don't have the legal
authority to do.
So I would ask them M do, don't
promise ththgs to your
nstituents that you cac't
delilir.
Work W whin the constitutionalal
systems S order to deliver
things that arargood for the
people.
Think you will find a a T of
folks S re deeply about clean
air and cleaeawater, but we have
to make sure we E spect our
institutional system.
That'what today's casesetands
for.
Juju: I am S sry I im not having
time to Posto you the question
the administrator R commended at
the end.
He S sd to mention ththfact that
he hopes thahayou and others
realize that marketethave
already spokok.
Th markets wananthe power
industry to move in a aleaner
direction.
>> The mararts responded because
the governmentntut a gun to
their hehe and said the
regulations S E coming to wipe
you out.
The government shoululnever
posssss that kind of power T tbe
abusive.e.
That's why we F fght back.
Judy: The E torney general for