{"id":4599,"date":"2014-02-24T10:48:48","date_gmt":"2014-02-24T15:48:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=4599"},"modified":"2014-02-24T10:48:48","modified_gmt":"2014-02-24T15:48:48","slug":"the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is – and is not — at stake"},"content":{"rendered":"

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case challenging EPA\u2019s interpretation that the Clean Air Act permit program requiring new and rebuilt industrial sources to deploy leading pollution control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act applies to greenhouse gases, just as these requirements have limited other airborne contaminants for over three decades.<\/p>\n

The case is\u00a0Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA\u00a0<\/em>(No. 12-1146).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

What\u2019s at stake: Innovation in Addressing Climate Pollution and Clearing the Air about Climate Obstructionism<\/strong><\/p>\n

This case is remarkable for what is not at stake, as well as for what is.<\/p>\n

While the Supreme Court is considering only a single legal question of the numerous issues that were raised, this case has important implications.<\/p>\n

Exempting climate pollution from these specific provisions of the Clean Air Act would harm innovation, because they were carefully designed by Congress to spur the development of new pollution prevention and control techniques for industrial sources. Putting a stop to these legislatively-crafted incentives to innovation in precisely the area where we so urgently need innovation \u2013 in addressing climate-destabilizing pollution — would be a damaging loss and risks \u201clocking in\u201d new high emitting and long lived industrial infrastructure. Such an exemption for climate pollution is patently contrary to Congress\u2019s specific command, in the statutory provisions at issue here, that these innovation-spurring requirements apply to \u201ceach pollutant subject to regulation under the Act\u201d.<\/p>\n

Climate obstructionists will undoubtedly twist the meaning of the case to suggest broader implications, despite the court’s decision to review only one narrow question. While the Administration is judiciously carrying out its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act to address climate pollution \u2013 in accordance with the authority that was twice affirmed by the United States Supreme Court — climate obstructionists will use this case to sow havoc and attack the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, these forces have already attacked EPA by unsuccessfully litigating virtually every aspect of EPA\u2019s first generation climate protections in court over a span of many years. Unfortunately, they will continue to attack EPA in the public square invoking the polarizing rhetoric that most Americans associate with divisive Beltway politics \u2013 not real world solutions.<\/p>\n

What is\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>at stake in this case is the EPA\u2019s determination that six greenhouse gases \u2013carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride –endanger the health and welfare of current and future generations. This is the bedrock for EPA\u2019s\u00a0manifest authority to adopt climate protections<\/a> for cleaner cars and cleaner freight trucks, for reducing the potent methane leaked and vented from oil and gas development activities in the same way that Colorado has adopted methane emissions standards, and for cutting the massive carbon pollution from power plants — the nation\u2019s single largest source of carbon pollution and one of the largest in the world.<\/p>\n

The history behind the case<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the past four years, big polluters and litigants such as the Attorney General of Texas have been suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over all aspects of EPA\u2019s climate protections for America \u2013 including the science-based endangerment finding, and the historic Clean Cars Standards that are saving Americans money at the gas pump while strengthening our nation\u2019s energy security and reducing pollution. By contrast, the U.S. Automakers have consistently supported<\/em> the clean car standards.<\/p>\n

These dozens of lawsuits were considered together by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit \u2013 which upheld EPA\u2019s climate protections and\u00a0rejected the legal challenges<\/em>. In 2012, a three Judge panel of that court held that EPA\u2019s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was \u201cunambiguously correct.\u201d Then-Chief Judge David Sentelle, appointed to the Court by President Ronald Regan, was a member of the three Judge panel that unanimously affirmed EPA\u2019s action.<\/p>\n

Opponents filed numerous petitions seeking review by the Supreme Court, which\u00a0refused to entertain most of their challenges<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Instead, the Court granted review of a single question \u2013 whether, under the terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA\u2019s regulation of climate pollution from cars triggered the requirement for pre-construction permits limiting the climate pollution discharged by large, new and rebuilt industrial sources of that pollution in the same way these requirements have applied to other air pollutants from these sources for over 35 years.<\/p>\n

Bottom line<\/strong><\/p>\n

We need all available safeguards under the Clean Air Act to address the urgent challenge of climate change \u2013 including the advanced pollution control measures required as an essential protection in construction permits for large industrial sources. These measures are vital if we hope to minimize industrial climate pollution.<\/p>\n

Further, one of the principal legal theories being advanced by petitioners would have adverse consequences for EPA\u2019s long-standing interpretation of the law \u2013 spanning the Presidencies of Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush \u2013 that has expansively applied the protections of the Clean Air Act\u2019s pre-construction review permit program to all regulated air pollutants. This line of attack, designed to narrow the air pollutants subject to these limits, would call into question the application of the program to pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide, fluorides and sulfuric acid mist.<\/p>\n

Finally, we need to tell the truth to the public, to policymakers and to the highest Court in the land that EPA is judiciously carrying out its responsibilities under the nation\u2019s clean air laws to protect human health and the environment from climate pollution. We must take a stand against the sharply polarizing rhetorical excess<\/a> leveled at EPA. For the real world solutions that have won far reaching support, look no further than the cleaner cars on the road today that are strengthening our energy security, saving families hard earned money at the gas pump, and cutting carbon pollution.<\/p>\n

This is why EDF will be at the Supreme Court today.<\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s Note: Environmental Defense Fund is a party to the case\u00a0before the Supreme Court and participated in the presentation of oral arguments when the case was before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.\u00a0 A\u00a0coalition of states\u00a0and NGO allies are also vigorously defending these clean air protections against legal attack — including\u00a0California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the city of New York.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices) Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case challenging EPA\u2019s interpretation that the Clean Air Act permit program requiring new and rebuilt industrial sources to deploy leading pollution control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act applies to greenhouse gases, just as …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":34,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4017,4024,202,20,44],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-4599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-clean-air-act","category-epa-litgation","category-greenhouse-gas-emissions","category-news","category-policy"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is - and is not - at stake - Climate 411<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is - and is not - at stake - Climate 411\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices) Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case challenging EPA\u2019s interpretation that the Clean Air Act permit program requiring new and rebuilt industrial sources to deploy leading pollution control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act applies to greenhouse gases, just as ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate 411\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-02-24T15:48:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Vickie Patton\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Vickie Patton\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Vickie Patton\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2beaa82fee2c20f737c0c823e498cc6b\"},\"headline\":\"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is – and is not — at stake\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-02-24T15:48:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1082,\"commentCount\":1,\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"EPA litgation\",\"Greenhouse Gas Emissions\",\"News\",\"Policy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is - and is not - at stake - Climate 411\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-02-24T15:48:48+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2beaa82fee2c20f737c0c823e498cc6b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is – and is not — at stake\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate 411\",\"description\":\"Blogging the science and policy of global warming\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2beaa82fee2c20f737c0c823e498cc6b\",\"name\":\"Vickie Patton\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e231e05a479f26cd0da4848ed1945d1fdf8d3a0a1f39abdfb56deb1fd78d8e9a?s=96&d=mm&r=g3f14b5484e4a18b7d4f3311f27fe0d36\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e231e05a479f26cd0da4848ed1945d1fdf8d3a0a1f39abdfb56deb1fd78d8e9a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e231e05a479f26cd0da4848ed1945d1fdf8d3a0a1f39abdfb56deb1fd78d8e9a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Vickie Patton\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.edf.org\\\/people\\\/vickie-patton\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/author\\\/vpatton\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is - and is not - at stake - Climate 411","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is - and is not - at stake - Climate 411","og_description":"(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices) Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case challenging EPA\u2019s interpretation that the Clean Air Act permit program requiring new and rebuilt industrial sources to deploy leading pollution control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act applies to greenhouse gases, just as ...","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/","og_site_name":"Climate 411","article_published_time":"2014-02-24T15:48:48+00:00","author":"Vickie Patton","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Vickie Patton","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/"},"author":{"name":"Vickie Patton","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/2beaa82fee2c20f737c0c823e498cc6b"},"headline":"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is – and is not — at stake","datePublished":"2014-02-24T15:48:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/"},"wordCount":1082,"commentCount":1,"articleSection":["Clean Air Act","EPA litgation","Greenhouse Gas Emissions","News","Policy"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/","name":"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is - and is not - at stake - Climate 411","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-02-24T15:48:48+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/2beaa82fee2c20f737c0c823e498cc6b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2014\/02\/24\/the-supreme-court-and-climate-pollution-what-is-and-is-not-at-stake\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Supreme Court and Climate Pollution: What is – and is not — at stake"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/","name":"Climate 411","description":"Blogging the science and policy of global warming","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/2beaa82fee2c20f737c0c823e498cc6b","name":"Vickie Patton","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e231e05a479f26cd0da4848ed1945d1fdf8d3a0a1f39abdfb56deb1fd78d8e9a?s=96&d=mm&r=g3f14b5484e4a18b7d4f3311f27fe0d36","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e231e05a479f26cd0da4848ed1945d1fdf8d3a0a1f39abdfb56deb1fd78d8e9a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e231e05a479f26cd0da4848ed1945d1fdf8d3a0a1f39abdfb56deb1fd78d8e9a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Vickie Patton"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/vickie-patton"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/author\/vpatton\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/34"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4599\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4599"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=4599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}