The U.S. Supreme Court today issued certiori for 6 petitions from industry and state petitioners seeking review of EPA's greenhouse gas emission control regulations for stationary sources.
The petitioners are seeking the invalidation of EPA regulations specifying emission control regulations from greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources of pollution.
The petitioners include the Utility Air Regulatory Group, American Chemistry
Council, Energy Intensive Manufactures, Southeastern Legal Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. States seeking the invalidation of EPA's greenhouse gas emission control regulations include Texas, Michigan, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Florida.
The Supreme Court's certiori Order provided a specific issue of regulation to be considered:
“Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.”
The Supreme Court previously affirmed EPA's authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from mobile sources in a 5 to 4 decision in a case from Massachusetts years ago..
At stake in the present case will be regulations called "timing and tailoring" rules to control greenhouse gas emissions at the state level that are federal requirements as published by EPA. An adverse 5 to 4 decision against EPA in this case could easily set back EPA greenhouse gas emission controls for years until Congress amends the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court granted cert to review a unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals case affirming EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the terms of the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations on pollutants 'subject to regulation' [40 C.F.R. Sec. 52.21(b)(49)] and 'regulated NSR pollutant' [40 C.F.R. Sec. 52.21(b)(50)] will certainly be part of the discussion in the case.
The Hill covered today's cert action and they also did an article on the previous DC Circuit decision.
A Michael Brune / Sierra Club statement stated:
"Today is a victory for all Americans who care about our children's future."
Saying that the Supreme Court granting industry petitions in the manner it did is a "victory" means that Michael Brune ought to find new staff to write his public statements.
If the Supreme Court had denied cert.....that would be a cause for
a victory celebration, but that did not happen.
Brune said:
"The Court's action clears the way for EPA to move forward on carbon pollution standards for power plants, the centerpiece of the President's climate plan."
Since the Supreme Court did not do anything of the sort and the decision to hear the case is a potential prelude to an adverse decision driven by the present 5 justice conservative majority, Brune's statement on behalf of the Sierra Club is off the mark.
7:08 PM PT: I'm updating my diary to note DK diarist "bastrop's workproduct also addressing the Supreme Court cert decision and providing a Texas politics perspective....noting the Texas is the lead state petitioner seeking to overturn EPA's new source review related greenhouse gas regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.
8:29 PM PT: Here is the link to bastrop's diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/...