U.S. Supreme Court Story Archives - Page 2 of 7 - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

As Mountain Valley Pipeline Debate Continues, Who Really Wants It?

Curtis Tate spoke with Suzanne Mattei of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis for her perspective.

Congress tried to have the last word on the Mountain Valley Pipeline, requiring all federal permits to be issued for the 300-mile natural gas pipeline in a deal lawmakers approved last month.

However, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in to block new construction on the project. Ultimately, the pipeline may get built. The pipeline’s builders have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, and a decision may come before the end of this month.

But some energy analysts question whether the pipeline is even needed. Curtis Tate spoke with Suzanne Mattei of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis for her perspective.

This interview was edited for clarity and length.

Tate: Who is pushing for this pipeline? Where is the gas ultimately going?

Mattei: We’ve said from the start, that this was not a good idea. This was a very expensive pipeline, going through very sensitive terrain. And that there was not a compelling need. There was not a big line of people saying we need this gas, bring this gas to us; the pipeline was driven by gas producers. So you know, when you think about energy need, there’s two ends of it. Someone has energy resources, they feel a need to extract those and sell them someplace to make money. But do the customers need it? Are they begging for it? This pipeline was not driven by utility need, it was driven by supplier need. That was our view, when we first analyzed the pipeline project back in 2016. And we haven’t really seen anything to change our view of that at this point.

Tate: What should have happened? Could any particular agency have given the project a more thorough examination?

Mattei: This project should have been much more thoroughly examined from the get go at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is supposed to actually evaluate need and alternatives. They’re the ones that are supposed to really do that right from the start. And they never did. So there was a whole lot of debate that just never happened. I saw the same problem with the Williams pipeline that was supposed to run from Pennsylvania to New York. And the good thing there was that the state public service commission did its own evaluation of alternatives in connection with deciding whether they were going to allow ratepayers to have to pay for the capital expenses of the pipeline, and that’s how it was stopped.

Tate: What’s changed in public perception since construction began on this pipeline?

Mattei: I think one thing that’s changing nationwide is that landowners are becoming a lot less tolerant of pipelines coming through their property. And that is changing the dynamic a lot. That was one of the things that started affecting the progress that was starting to be made on an extension to the Mountain Valley Pipeline. It was landowners that were really kicking up a fuss on that. So I think people are less tolerant, I think they know that there are other alternatives and ways to deal with things.

We know that there are ways to reduce energy demand, demand management, which can actually be surprisingly effective. So that people change the times of day that they do certain things, industries run certain operations at certain times of day, so that you reduce the peak load, because most of the time, when these things are being built, they’re not being built for the general day-to-day, they’re really being built for peaks. And there are other ways to shave a peak, than building a big, huge, gigantic infrastructure that you’re going to have to live with for 40 years whether you need it or not.

Tate: If there isn’t going to be demand for this gas domestically, what about overseas?

Mattei: We’re seeing this with liquefied natural gas. Also, our organization recently took a good look at what was happening with export because there was a huge rush to build liquefied natural gas terminals. We’re gonna supply Europe with a lot of natural gas. And it was just a huge rush to do that. And nobody planned it. How much is Europe really going to need? Do they even have the infrastructure to accept and manage that? None of that happened.

So what we projected ultimately was, first of all, Europe doesn’t really want to be so heavily dependent on energy imports, and they’re getting a lot smarter about energy efficiency, and wind and solar, and even geothermal. And so the demand isn’t going to be exactly what people expected. And number two, there’s already been so many terminals built and so many contracts and things going on that there’s going to be a glut. We’re looking at a really significant glut that will probably be surfacing between 2025 and 2027.

When all these things that are being built right now, they all come online, and then they all start pumping gas into the system, they’re gonna have financial problems. They’re gonna have a hard time selling the gas at prices that allow them to make a profit. We have a real problem in this country in terms of energy planning. It’s just not happening the way it should.

Mountain Valley Pipeline Seeks Ruling From Supreme Court

Congress last month passed a law that was supposed to allow construction to resume on the 300-mile natural gas pipeline.

The builders of the Mountain Valley Pipeline have filed an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a filing Friday, Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC asked Chief Justice John Roberts to reverse two recent federal appeals court decisions blocking construction of the project.

Congress last month passed a law that was supposed to allow construction to resume on the 300-mile natural gas pipeline.

But environmental groups and landowners convinced the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put the project on hold again.

Opponents say the pipeline threatens hundreds of streams and could cause soil erosion and methane leaks. They say the federal agencies tasked with permitting the project have not done a sufficient examination of those impacts.

Supporters say Congress unambiguously authorized the project to proceed. They’ve asked the court to make a decision by July 27.

W.Va. Universities React To Supreme Court Rulings

The Supreme Court’s ruling upends more than 40 years of affirmative action in the college admissions process and universities across the state are reacting.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Thursday morning that the admissions programs of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment by using race as a factor in admissions.

The ruling upends more than 40 years of affirmative action in the college admissions process and universities across the state are reacting.

In a written statement, West Virginia University (WVU) said it does not anticipate changes to their admissions process.

“West Virginia University’s commitment to diversity remains unchanged although the legal landscape governing college admissions is shifting. We will continue to follow the law, and our university values ensure that we will continue to attract students to our institution where we offer the best education and campus experience to those who choose to call WVU home. Undergraduate students who meet WVU’s academic criteria are currently admitted on a rolling basis, and we do not anticipate changes to this process based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision; however, we are reviewing all of our policies to ensure they comply with new admissions guidance.”

Marshall University said it does not apply affirmative action criteria to the enrollment process.

“Marshall University is reviewing the ruling and how it may affect us in the future. Currently, while the university encourages and promotes diversity in regard to our enrollment which enriches the learning experience for all students, we have not applied any affirmative action criteria to the enrollment process.”

Similarly, Shepherd University said it does not take race or ethnicity or country of origin into consideration in evaluating applications for admission to the university.

“As a public regional West Virginia institution, we [Shepherd University] are committed to providing access to all applicants who satisfy the State’s minimum standards of academic preparation for baccalaureate education.”

On Friday, the court ruled in another case, Biden v Nebraska, that the Biden administration does not have the authorization to forgive the student loan debts.

WVU said that it works to remove as many financial barriers as possible for students.

“We recognize the challenges student loan debt can create and we work to remove as many financial barriers as possible to allow students access to higher education. Our financial aid experts in the WVU Hub assist students and their families with a variety of programs, resources and support. Additional information is available at financialaid.wvu.edu.

As a result, average student loan debt for May 2022 WVU graduates earning bachelor’s degrees was well below the national average, and 41 percent graduated with zero debt.

We continue to look for opportunities to help navigate what can be a complex and confusing landscape. For example, the Center for Financial Literacy and Education, established in 2015 in the WVU John Chambers College of Business and Economics, offers a variety of programs, including student loan and credit seminars.”

Can EPA Still Cap CO2 Emissions After Ruling? AGs Split On Issue

The U.S. Supreme Court limited the agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. However, the legal battle may not be over.

The U.S. Supreme Court limited the federal government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. However, the legal battle may not be over.

Eight state attorneys general, all Democrats, wrote Michael Regan, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency late last month.

They urged him to issue limits for greenhouse gasses under another section of the Clean Air Act that allows the establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

They say that falls under the EPA’s authority and would not run afoul of the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v EPA. The justices ruled in June that the EPA may not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and his Kentucky counterpart, Daniel Cameron, wrote to the EPA on Tuesday. They urged the agency to reject that approach.

Morrisey and Cameron were joined by 18 other Republican attorneys general.

Supreme Court Sides With W.Va. On Power Plant Emissions

The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the federal government’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, in a case brought by Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.

The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the federal government’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the final day of the court’s term, the court ruled in favor of West Virginia in a case against the Environmental Protection Agency.

The state’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, sought to constrain the EPA from issuing broad regulations of power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In a statement, Morrisey said such authority rested with lawmakers, rather than the agency.

“We are pleased this case returned the power to decide one of the major environmental issues of the day to the right place to decide it: the U.S. Congress, comprised of those elected by the people to serve the people,” he said.

U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, the senior Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also praised the decision.

“If Congress had intended to give EPA such sweeping authority to transform an entire sector of our economy, Congress would have done so explicitly,” she said in a statement.

The Biden administration was poised to issue new rules to decarbonize the electric power sector by 2035.

Still, the transition away from coal is well under way. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal accounts for 85 percent of the electric generating capacity scheduled to retire this year. Solar, wind and natural gas account for the majority of replacements.

In a statement, Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor and founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies, said the change in the electric power sector was driven by communities.

“Coal’s days are numbered, clean energy is the future, and we won’t let this backward-looking Supreme Court decision stand in our way,” he said.

Law Scholars Question State's Next Steps After Roe

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization returns decision-making power on abortions to the states. But it's unclear what that means in West Virginia.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization returns decision-making power on abortions to the states. But it’s unclear what that means in West Virginia.

Passed in 1848 as a Virginia law, West Virginia §61-2-8 makes receiving or performing abortions a felony, punishable by three to 10 years in prison.

Some say that Friday’s ruling automatically puts §61-2-8 back in force. However, West Virginia University College of Law Professor Anne Lofaso says the law remains unenforceable at this time.

“When Roe v. Wade came down in 1973, within a year this law was challenged in court and said ‘You can’t enforce this law because of Roe v. Wade,’” Lofaso said.

Lofaso is the co-founder of WVU’s U.S. Supreme Court Clinic. She says the West Virginia law doesn’t qualify as a trigger law, because the injunction remains in place even if Roe was overturned.

“That law is still good,” Lofaso said. “It’s on the books, but it’s been enjoined, which means it can’t be enforced. So the next question is, will the attorney general try and go to courts and lift the injunction?”

Lofaso said one of the other options is to allow the state legislature to clarify the issue.

In a statement, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said he will provide a legal opinion to the Legislature about how it should proceed.

If Morrisey does choose to go to the courts, there are several legal avenues available to him.

Via e-mail, WVU College of Law Professor Robert Bastress said the attorney general could bring a mandamus to either a circuit court or the state’s Supreme Court to compel enforcement of the statute.

A mandamus is a judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty.

“Or (Morrisey) could file a declaratory judgment claim in a circuit court seeking a ruling that the old law is enforceable,” Bastress said.

Further complicating the issue is a 2018 amendment to the state’s Constitution.

“Amendment One, which is now under Article Five, section 57 in the West Virginia Constitution, says nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires funding of abortion,” Lofaso said.

Even if West Virginia’s law is unenforceable for the moment, the impact of the ruling is already being felt in the state. Within hours of the court’s ruling, Katie Quinonez, the executive director of Women’s Health Center of West Virginia, released a statement saying that it was now impossible for the clinic to provide abortions.

“They’re being chilled, because who wants to perform an abortion and then go to jail for 10 years,” Lofaso said. “It’s not safe for them at this point in terms of, they don’t want to commit a crime.”

Lofaso said it is possible both the West Virginia legislature and Congress may make exceptions for abortions in cases of risk of life to the mother in future legislation. However, she believes it is exceedingly unlikely that the protections that Roe v. Wade provided will be codified at any level of government.