EPA wins big in court challenge on greenhouse gases

[babylonsister]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77837.html

EPA wins big in court challenge on greenhouse gases
The court dismissed or denied petitions challenging the EPA in the case. | John Shinkle/POLITICO
By ERICA MARTINSON | 6/26/12 11:44 AM EDT


In a surprisingly sweeping win for the Obama administration, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the EPA is “unambiguously correct” in its interpretation of the Clean Air Act when it comes to regulating greenhouse gases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed or denied all petitions challenging the EPA in the massive case, Coalition for Responsible Regulations v. EPA.

The court backed the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to the public health and welfare and its subsequent regulations of auto emissions. The court also ruled that none of the groups challenging the agency have the legal standing to challenge rules that the EPA subsequently issued to minimize the burden of complying with the greenhouse gas regulations.

Most insiders didn’t expect the court to dismiss the “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases — the judges seemed convinced in oral arguments that the agency was relying on a strong precedent from the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling that the Clean Air Act could apply to greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles.

But many of the regulations that followed could have been on shakier legal ground, and several observers said the appellate court would at the very least ask the agency to tweak its approach.

A variety of industry groups, some states and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the EPA over the agency’s so-called tailoring rule — meant to limit the greenhouse gas regulations’ scope — and rules affecting emissions from new industrial facilities.

[villager]

1. Give it time-- the Supreme Court will reverse it

n/t

[malthaussen]

2. Unless it can be delayed long enough that one of the RW justices retires...

... and we are in a position to have the slot filled by someone who actually cares about the country and the world.

-- Mal

[wordpix]

3. my thoughts exactly - can't O appoint a couple more justices?

Just wondering - is there any limit to the number? The GOP SCOTUS 5 rules the country with its one person majority and this is tyranny!

[babylonsister]

4. For once, can't you just be pleased with some progress?

No need to poop on something good (for a change) that happened; maybe SCOTUS will consider this ruling.
For now, I'll take it!

[villager]

5. That's the problem, Babylonsister, any rare partial win is only "for now," until it's reversed

..or compromised away, rolled back, etc.

Yes, it's a terrific ruling. But we have so far to go to make things right in this country and the world, that -- sadly -- it doesn't feel like a "victory." Just the absence of another grievous loss.

Alas.

[ProSense]

6. More reaction

EPA scores major court victory

By Steve Benen

This probably won't generate as much attention as it deserves, but a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seems like a pretty big deal.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, throwing out legal challenges by states and industry groups that argued the EPA had exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by declaring that carbon emissions endanger public health.

The decision is a huge victory for the administration's efforts to address climate change in the face of congressional gridlock on the issue and increasing skepticism among Republicans that climate change is a problem the country needs to address.

As court victories go, this decision doesn't just deal with a critically important issue, it was also a one-sided win for the EPA. State GOP officials and a group of polluters went after every aspect of the EPA's climate policy, and they lost badly.

Fairly early on in the Obama presidency, the administration concluded that carbon emissions endanger public health and welfare -- the "endangerment finding" -- which is a key part of regulating emissions through the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs said Obama's EPA couldn't do this, and the appeals court disagreed.

And remember the dreaded "tailoring rule"? Republicans and polluters said the EPA couldn't possibly have this kind of authority, but the appeals court rejected this, too.

Philip Bump went through today's decision in some detail, highlighting the key takeaways: "1. The Court determined that the EPA absolutely has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant.... 2. Even if there were uncertainty about climate science -- the argument advanced by the petitioners -- the entire point of the EPA regulations is to be proactive in addressing problems.... 3. Anyway, the EPA's science on impact is well-reasoned and thorough."

The issue is very likely headed to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, today hands the Obama administration and those concerned with the climate crisis a big win.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12421163-epa-scores-major-court-victory

U.S. Appeals Court Upholds EPA Carbon Pollution Limits

NRDC: "A Resounding Victory for Science, Law and Common Sense"

WASHINGTON (June 26, 2012) – The federal appeals court in Washington today delivered a resounding victory for science, the rule of law, and common sense by upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark actions to curb the dangerous carbon pollution driving climate change.

“This is a huge victory for our children's future. 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, senior attorney for the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In an unanimous opinion issued today covering four cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld EPA’s “endangerment” determination, its clean car standards, and its pollution permit requirements for big new industrial facilities.

NRDC is among the environmental and state intervenors that filed briefs in support of the EPA.

“The court upheld the agency's careful determination, based on a mountain of scientific evidence, that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants threaten our health and our planet,” Doniger said.

The three-judge panel also upheld the Obama administration’s first set of clean car and fuel economy standards, issued jointly by EPA and the Transportation Department in 2009. This gives EPA the green light to finalize a the second round of clean car standards later this summer that will cut new cars’ carbon pollution in half and double their fuel efficiency to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

- more -

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120626.asp

[babylonsister]

7. Yay! Thank you, Pro. It IS a big deal. nt