Court upholds EPA's greenhouse gas rules

WASHINGTON Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:19pm EDT

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever U.S. proposed rules governing heat-trapping greenhouse gases, clearing a path for sweeping regulations affecting vehicles, coal-burning power plants and other industrial facilities.

Handing a setback to industry and a victory to the Obama administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and the decision to set limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were "neither arbitrary nor capricious."

The ruling, which addresses four separate lawsuits, upholds the underpinnings of the Obama administration's push to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and is a rebuke to a major push by heavy industries including electric utilities, coal miners and states like Texas to block the EPA's path.

In the 82-page ruling, the three-judge panel also found that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is "unambiguously correct."

The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the court found the agency "followed both the science and the law in taking common-sense, reasonable actions to address the very real threat of climate change by limiting greenhouse gas pollution from the largest sources."

"EPA's massive and complicated regulatory barrage will continue to punish job creators and further undermine our economy," countered Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican and long-time critic of the EPA's climate change regulations.

Though states like Texas said the EPA's rules were a "subjective conviction" because they did not set hard and fast thresholds for unsafe climate change, "EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question," the court wrote.

The ruling clears the way for the EPA to proceed with first-ever rules limiting carbon dioxide emissions from newly built power plants, and to move forward with new vehicle emission standards this summer.

"These rulings clear the way for EPA to keep moving forward under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon pollution from motor vehicles, new power plants, and other big industrial sources," said David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

The court in February heard arguments brought by state and industry challenging the EPA's authority to set carbon dioxide limits.

Industry groups said the EPA's regulations will impose burdensome regulations that will spur job cuts.

"The EPA's decision to move forward with these regulations is one of the most costly, complex and burdensome regulations facing manufacturers," said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. "These regulations will harm their ability to hire, invest and grow."

The EPA's rules could affect 6 million stationary sources including 200,000 manufacturing facilities and 37,000 farms, Timmons said in a statement.

The Supreme Court unleashed a fury of regulation and litigation when it ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007 that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA in 2009 issued an "endangerment finding" that greenhouse gases "reasonably may be anticipated to endanger public health." The agency followed with the "tailpipe rule" in May 2010 setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.

The agency is also preparing to issue first-ever standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants, which are likely to spur utilities to opt for cleaner natural-gas burning plants instead.

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel, writing by Chris Baltimore; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, M.D. Golan and Sofina Mirza-Reid)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (14)
Eideard wrote:
The history of the rule of law in America has always – but gradually – supported science, reality, improved perceptions and knowledge. Which is why the Republican Party’s continued move to right has focused on changing judges at the Supreme Court and Federal court levels. Even to the point of preferring NO judges to judges with intelligence and acumen.

They will use this as another object lesson to corporate barons as to why they need even more money to perform their task as flunkies as efficiently as possible.

Jun 26, 2012 1:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:
Thankfully the courts are still using facts and the rule of law. Wish I could say the same for the significant portion of the US populace that does not understand the science.

Jun 26, 2012 1:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Obama with the help of the Courts have written a death sentence to a slew business interests and added 10s of thousands of employees to the unemployment lines. The Higher prices of Electricity for homeowners and businesses that will close some businesses due to the high price of electricity. All of this on the heels of closing of Oil Refineries and losing those jobs to Mexico and South America.
All of this so Obama could shove down the throats of the American People the GREEN ENERGY that MUST be SUBSIDIZED to make or it is not made because it costs more than it is worth.
Intellectual Idiots think they can improve the world by closing the livelihood of thousands of workers.

Jun 26, 2012 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.