| WASHINGTON, April 19
WASHINGTON, April 19 Top industry groups and a
dozen states have asked the Supreme Court to review a lower
court decision upholding the Obama administration's plan to
limit greenhouse gas emissions generated by power plants and
The parties, which had until Friday to submit petitions to
the high court, are challenging a 2012 decision by the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld rules issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The petitioners attacked the rules on various grounds, but
all argued that the agency should not use the Clean Air Act to
regulate carbon emissions.
"EPA's ill-founded regulations represent a sweeping
expansion of its regulatory power under the Clean Air Act and
would impose new requirements on potentially millions of
stationary sources across the country," the American Chemistry
Council (ACC) said on Thursday.
The ACC was joined by other industry associations including
the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of
Home Builders and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, which ruled in favor of the EPA last year, denied the
group's request for a rehearing in December, prompting the ACC
and other organizations to turn to the Supreme Court.
The petitioners said the EPA incorrectly used the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program of the Clean Air Act
to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. They said the
program only applies to six other kinds of air pollutants.
Another association, the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers
Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation, also took issue with
the EPA's use of the PSD to regulate greenhouse gases.
"(The) petitioner submits it is not possible to find a
regulatory structure less compatible with the regulation of
carbon," the group wrote, adding that applying the PSD to carbon
would result in massive numbers of facilities being regulated.
One petition focused on a core aspect of the EPA's
greenhouse gas rules - the scientific "endangerment finding"
that underpins its entire greenhouse gas program.
Lawyers with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation
argued that the EPA failed to submit its "endangerment finding"
for independent scientific review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board as required by the Clean Air Act.
Other groups that filed petitions include the Utility Air
Regulatory Group, an association of electric utilities and
electricity-generating companies; 12 states led by Texas; and
the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation, which represents
Republican lawmakers Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton, among
(Reporting By Valerie Volcovici; editing by Xavier Briand)