Thread: High court climate case examines EPA's power

High court climate case examines EPA's power

About The Tribune-Review
The Tribune-Review can be reached via e-mail or at 412-321-6460.
Contact Us | Video | Photo Reprints

Associated Press
Published: Sunday, Feb. 23, 2014, 9:39 p.m.
Updated 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — Industry groups and Republican-led states are heading an attack at the Supreme Court against the Obama administration's sole means of trying to limit power-plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

As President Obama pledges to act on environmental and other matters when Congress doesn't, or won't, opponents of regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases cast the rule as a power grab of historic proportions.

The court is hearing arguments on Monday about a small but important piece of the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to cut the emissions — a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must also evaluate ways to reduce the carbon they release.

Environmental groups and some of their opponents say that whatever the court decides, EPA will be able to move forward with broader plans to set emission standards for greenhouse gases for new and existing power plants.

But a court ruling against EPA almost undoubtedly would be used to challenge every step of the agency's effort to deal with climate change, said Jacob Hollinger, a partner with the McDermott Will and Emery law firm in New York and a former EPA lawyer.

“Will they be successful? We don't know yet,” Hollinger said. “But it would be an important victory in a political sense and, potentially, a practical sense.”

Republicans have objected strenuously to the administration's decision to push ahead with the regulations after Congress failed to pass climate legislation, and after the administration of President George W. Bush resisted such steps.

Both sides agree that it would have been better to deal with climate change through legislation than regulation.

In 2012, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the EPA was “unambiguously correct” in using existing federal law to address global warming.

http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/5...#ixzz2uCwLC4fZ

IN THE ARENA

Yes, the EPA Has the Power to Stop Climate Change

By CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
February 23, 2014

The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to address climate change. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement, but in some quarters, it is. Indeed, it’s at the heart of a set of legal challenges that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday.

As administrator of the EPA from 2001-03, I served in the administration of President George W. Bush. I may sometimes disagree with his successor on the best way to address climate change as a matter of policy, but I absolutely agree that the EPA has broad authority to issue regulations addressing climate change, including those being challenged by industry groups and their allies in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, otherwise known as “the greenhouse gas cases,” or UARG for short.

Climate change is the defining environmental challenge of our time, and there are huge consequences for inaction — whether measured in human lives or economic disruption. Given these stakes, I wish Congress would step up and do its job, refining America’s approach to climate change and expanding the tools at the EPA’s disposal. In previous decades, the EPA could rely upon bipartisan majorities to revise the Clean Air Act and address new and growing air pollution problems directly. Today, gridlock and partisanship make such common-sense action all but impossible. Nevertheless, the Clean Air Act — as written — remains the most powerful tool the EPA has at its disposal to address the issue of climate change.

The Clean Air Act is concerned primarily with the federal government’s ability to address a cross-state, complex, nationwide problem — air pollution.

Far from constraining the EPA’s authority or requiring it to return to Congress whenever it needs to address a new problem, the law provides the agency with sweeping authority to address new air pollution challenges as they emerge, including the serious threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions. Although Congress can still step in — as always — to alter the EPA’s course, the law itself is broad enough to ensure that the EPA isn’t powerless in the face of congressional gridlock and a cataclysmic threat.

The Supreme Court said as much seven years ago in Massachusetts v. EPA, with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote. As the court explained in that landmark decision, Congress chose to define the air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act in “sweeping,” “capacious” terms—terms that easily cover greenhouse gases.This precedent is the foundation for all of the work the Obama administration is now doing to address climate change, including the regulations and related permitting scheme at issue in UARG.

Following Massachusetts, the EPA concluded that greenhouse gas emissions posed a real threat and issued an initial set of regulations covering mobile sources, such as cars. From there, the EPA extended an important permitting program to cover large stationary sources, such as power plants, as required by the plain text of the Clean Air Act and in keeping with the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the act — an interpretation used for decades by Republican and Democratic administrations alike. This permitting program is one of the many ways in which the EPA combats air pollution; it’s a flexible way to ensure that major greenhouse gas emitters employ the best, most cost-effective technology for reducing emissions.

The D.C. Circuit Court — in a panel that included both Republican and Democratic appointees — concluded that the EPA’s extension of this permitting scheme to greenhouse gas emissions was “unambiguously correct” and “statutorily compelled.” This, however, didn’t stop industry groups and their allies from challenging the EPA’s decision, arguing that the agency’s authority was limited to local pollutants such as smog, not greenhouse gases — an argument rejected in Massachusetts and one that turns the Clean Air Act on its head.

For more than 30 years and during the administrations of five presidents — again, both Republicans and Democrats — the EPA has consistently and correctly interpreted this permitting program to apply to all pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. Far from “rewriting” the statute or bending the law to fit its climate change agenda, the Obama administration simply interpreted the law in the same way as its predecessors — this time to cover greenhouse gas emissions. This is a reasonable action consistent with the EPA’s mission and the Clean Air Act’s text and purpose.

Confronting climate change should be an issue that unites rather than divides us. And that includes the Supreme Court. Here’s hoping the justices make the right call.

Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is president of the Whitman Strategy Group.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz2uCzDNV00

Realtime Coverage

High court case looks at EPA's power Clarksville Leaf Chronicle - ‎15 minutes ago‎ Smoke rises from the Colstrip Steam Electric Station, a coal burning power plant in Colstrip, Mont. / Matthew Brown/AP. Written by. Mark Sherman. Associated Press. Filed Under. News · Local News. PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS. In addition to ... San Francisco Chronicle Politico Christian Science Monitor Dallas Morning News Business Recorder Supreme Court takes up challenge to Obama and the EPA Yahoo News - ‎19 minutes ago‎ EPA case to be handled soon by US Supreme Court The Eastern Tribune - ‎3 hours ago‎ High court climate case looks at EPA's power Scottsbluff Star Herald - ‎3 hours ago‎ US Supreme Court to weigh emissions rule Daily Times - ‎8 hours ago‎ Supreme Court Hears Climate Case KWTX - ‎9 hours ago‎ In Depth Yes, the EPA Has the Power to Stop Climate Change Politico - ‎1 hour ago‎ In The Arena. Yes, the EPA Has the Power to Stop Climate Change. By CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN. February 23, 2014. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to address climate change. That shouldn't be a controversial statement, but in ... Supreme Court takes up challenge to Obama and the EPA Christian Science Monitor - ‎2 hours ago‎ For the second time in two months, the US Supreme Court is taking up a case examining whether the Obama administration by-passed Congress in an effort to unilaterally advance its political and policy objectives. Skip to next paragraph ... Supreme Court to consider EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases Washington Post - ‎4 hours ago‎ The Supreme Court's first big battle over climate change was initiated by states and environmentalists charging that the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush had abdicated its duty to regulate greenhouse gases. The sequel is the ... The 'Absurd Results' Power Grab Wall Street Journal - ‎3 hours ago‎ The Obama Administration's penchant for rewriting the law via regulation will get a major test on Monday when the Supreme Court hears a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's "carbon endangerment" rule. This case is especially significant ... Let the EPA Do Its Job New York Times - ‎1 hour ago‎ On Monday, for the third time in seven years, the Supreme Court will consider the scope of the federal government's power to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. In two earlier cases, the court ... The EPA's strong case for regulating greenhouse gas emissions Washington Post - ‎3 hours ago‎ AFTER CONGRESS failed to pass a comprehensive climate change bill in 2010, the Obama administration shifted its approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of waiting for a fresh environmental law tailored to slashing carbon dioxide, the ... See all 90 articles »