EPA's climate authority stands
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a pollutant on Tuesday, even as it agreed to examine how the agency could demand greater pollution controls through the permitting process.
Groups, including the oil and chemical industry, had challenged several aspects of the EPA's regulatory authority, such as whether carbon dioxide constituted a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and whether the agency could limit greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and power plants.
Both sides welcomed the Supreme Court's announcement, though climate activists had more reasons to celebrate.
“Today's orders by the U.S. Supreme Court make it abundantly clear, once and for all, that EPA has the legal authority and the responsibility to address climate change and the carbon pollution that causes it,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
However, Harry Ng, the American Petroleum Institute's vice president and general counsel, said the decision to take up half a dozen cases shows “the EPA is seeking to regulate U.S. manufacturing in a way that Congress never planned and never intended.”
“The Clean Air Act clearly only requires pre-construction permits for six specific emissions that impact national air quality — not greenhouse gases,” Ng said. “That kind of overreach can have enormous implications on U.S. competitiveness and the prices that consumers pay for fuel and manufactured goods. We're pleased that the court has agreed to review our petition — alongside several others — and we look forward to presenting our case.”
The question of how much the Supreme Court could scale back the federal government's ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions, now that it has taken up a narrow legal challenge, remains unclear.
Sean H. Donahue, the attorney representing several environmental groups that intervened in the case, said even in a worst-case scenario a ruling against his side would not have a major impact because EPA would retain the flexibility to require carbon controls from power plants emitting other criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
“As a matter of emissions reductions, it's of quite limited import,” Donahue said.
But Stephen Brown, general counsel for the oil refiner Tesoro Corp., said it was “huge” that the justices were willing to review whether EPA has been making unreasonable demands of utilities seeking federal air permits for building facilities.
“That's exactly what the industry has been complaining about,” Brown said, adding the issue has cropped up because EPA “is trying to fit a political agenda into a statute that was not designed for it.”
One interesting wild card in the Supreme Court's upcoming decision: Justice Samuel A. Alito recused himself from the decision on whether to take up the challenge to EPA's climate authority. If he decides to recuse himself from a decision on the case, it could end in a tie, delivering a win for the agency.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Mideast-North Africa category considered for 2020 Census
- Obama avoids calling terrorist attacks ‘Islamice_SSRq
- Teen girl Hernandez killed by Denver police once cited for resisting arrest
- Alpha to idle two West Virginia coal mines
- Tickets let players bring home bacon — scent
- Executive order directs standards to reflect climate change projections
- Day, night 4-digit drawings match
- Judge orders nonprofit tax form release in case against IRS
- Former GOP nominee Romney will not run for president in ’16
- Overhaul of military benefit programs sought
- Dems delay Iran sanctions proposal