A federal appeals court said that the US Environmental Protection Agency was unambiguously correct in moving to set limits on industrial and automotive emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide.
A three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals in Washington ruled today that the EPA properly concluded that greenhouse gases are pollutants that endanger human health and that opponents don't have the legal right to challenge rules determining when states and industries must comply with regulations curtailing emissions of them.
Enlarge image Industrial Emission Limits
Mr Jay Timmons president of the National Association of Manufacturers said that "Today's ruling is a setback for businesses facing damaging regulations from the EPA. The EPA's decision to move forward with these regulations is one of the most costly, complex and burdensome regulations facing manufacturers. These regulations will harm their ability to hire, invest and grow."
Companies such as Massey Energy Co, business groups including the US Chamber of Commerce and states led by Texas and Virginia sought to stop the agency through more than 60 lawsuits. Some argued that the EPA relied on biased data from outside scientists. Automakers intervened in the lawsuit in support of the new standards. Through the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the carmakers supported a national program, saying they wanted to avoid conflicting standards from state and federal regulators.
According to Mr Shannon Goessling, executive director and chief legal counsel at the Southeastern Legal Foundation, an Atlanta based organization that sued the EPA on behalf of companies and lawmakers, opponents said they are considering whether to ask the full appeals court to hear the case or to petition the US Supreme Court. He said that "This case is equaled only to the Obamacare case in terms of its effect on the citizens, the industries and the economy in the US."
In today's ruling, the judges said the EPA had substantial record evidence that greenhouse gases probably caused the climate to warm over the past several decades.
The panel wrote in its 82 page opinion that "In the end, petitioners are asking us to re weigh the scientific evidence before EPA and reach our own conclusion. This is not our role."
In 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane under the Clean Air Act if the agency declared them a public danger. The EPA issued an endangerment finding in December 2009, clearing the way for regulation of emissions from power plants, factories and other sources linked to global climate change.
Throughout today's ruling, the judges refer to the Supreme Court decision in rejecting the challengers' arguments that the EPA rules, which have been in effect since January 2011, are unlawful.
EPA Administrator Ms Lisa Jackson called the ruling a strong validation of the agency's approach in responding to the Supreme Court decision. She said that "I am pleased that the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit found that EPA followed both the science and the law in taking common sense, reasonable actions to address the very real threat of climate change by limiting greenhouse gas pollution from the largest sources."
Mr David Doniger, senior attorney for the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that "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."
The lawsuits were consolidated, with arguments divided into three parts and held over two days in February. The parties argued over the agency finding that greenhouse gases are pollutants that endanger human health. The judges also heard arguments against a 2010 rule on motor vehicle emissions that opponents said improperly sets standards for stationary sources, such as steel mills and power plants.
The court considered challenges to the EPA's tailoring rule, which limits the businesses covered by carbon regulation and phases in controls. The agency plans to phase in industrial polluters covered by the carbon rules through 2016.
The EPA argued in court filings that the tailoring rule is acceptable under the Clean Air Act and necessary to keep states from being overrun with permit requests.
The regulations require only the biggest emitters, such as power plants and oil refiners, to obtain state carbon permits before building or upgrading facilities. State officials will determine pollution controls case by case.
Virginia and Texas said the endangerment finding should be rejected because the EPA refused to reconsider its decision after learning that some of the data it relied on may have been manipulated, referring to findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Mr Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP in Washington who wasn't involved in the case, said that "This decision doesn't change the fact that people aren't building new plants in the US."
Mr Holmstead, who was an EPA official during the George W Bush administration, said Congress will ultimately step in. How soon that happens will depend on the November elections.
