Kristine Lofgren

Supreme Court Supports the EPA's Power to Control Carbon Emissions

by , 02/25/14
filed under: Air quality, News, Policy

Climate and Clean Air director, Natural Resources Defense Council, US Supreme Court, US Supreme Court Carbon Emissions, US Supreme court hears Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency, supreme court Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Roberts EPA powers, Justice Roberts on carbon emissions, Justice Roberts on climate change, climate change 2007 Massachusetts, EPA case, EPA supreme court case, EPA power, EPA power over carbon emissions, EPA climate change, national air quality laws, air quality control, air quality laws, EPA air quality laws, EPA climate change powers, supreme court,

Several U.S. Supreme Court justices just confirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sufficient power to regulate carbon emissions. A case brought by 13 states and several power companies claimed that the EPA was going too far when it evoked air quality rules to ease emissions. Fortunately, the majority of the justices sided with the EPA and were not willing to re-open a 2007 Massachusetts case that upheld the EPA’s broad power to enforce emissions.

Climate and Clean Air director, Natural Resources Defense Council, US Supreme Court, US Supreme Court Carbon Emissions, US Supreme court hears Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency, supreme court Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Roberts EPA powers, Justice Roberts on carbon emissions, Justice Roberts on climate change, climate change 2007 Massachusetts, EPA case, EPA supreme court case, EPA power, EPA power over carbon emissions, EPA climate change, national air quality laws, air quality control, air quality laws, EPA air quality laws, EPA climate change powers, supreme court,

While hearing the case, called Utility Air Regulatory Group v Environmental Protection Agency, a majority of the justices, including Justice Kennedy, who has been a dissenter on the EPA’s broad powers in the past, seemed to favor allowing the EPA to operate as it is. “Chief Justice Roberts made that clear early on, saying that even though he was a dissenter in 2007, the court isn’t going to reconsider Massachusetts, or the follow-on decision in American Electric Power v Connecticut, which establish EPA’s authority to set Clean Air Act standards for both vehicles and factories that emit carbon pollution that drives dangerous climate change,” said David Doniger, the Climate and Clean Air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The court also seemed unwilling to consider challenges to the well-documented science that links carbon emissions and climate change. According to Doniger, “Justice Antonin Scalia asked sarcastically if sea level rise was occurring anywhere but in Massachusetts, but no one seriously challenged EPA on scientific issues this time.” 

Ultimately the court’s decision probably won’t be known for a few months, but based on arguments, the court is unlikely to challenge the EPA’s powers, which are the basis for President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. It’s an important win, because air pollution doesn’t respect borders, and can’t be addressed effectively on the state level alone.

Via The Guardian

Images from Wladamir Labeikovsky and Mike Disharoon

Related Posts

LEAVE A COMMENT

or your inhabitat account below

Let's make sure you're a real person:


get the free Inhabitat newsletter

Submit this form
popular today
all time
most commented
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
Federated Media Publishing - Home