Despite getting sharp reaction from the GOP about the new Environmental Protection Agency rule that would dramatically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, Bloomberg reported that the measure will not meet any problems at the US Supreme Court.
The court, which is currently led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has been observed to be quick to support business interests, allowing companies to funnel customer disputes into arbitration and backing unlimited corporate campaign spending. However, the court reportedly has a different stance with the environment and climate change. After all, the Supreme Court paved the way for the EPA to regulate carbon emissions in a 2007 decision.
Environmental-law professor Amanda Leiter at American University's Washington College of Law said, "(The court) very clearly embraced the idea that the EPA has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to deal with greenhouse gases. That at least suggests that the current court is likely to give the agency a little bit of leeway to figure out how to exercise that authority."
The EPA has already won a string of courtroom victories in the last few months. Bloomberg said that the most notable one was about a Supreme Court decision that upheld a rule that would reduce the pollutants that cause acide rain and smog across state lines. and a federal appeals court decision that backed regulations to reduce power plant emissions like mercury.
The new EPA rule, which was proposed yesterday, would be the Obama administration's biggest step to address climate change, the news agency said. The rule would have greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants to be cut by an average of 30% from 2005 levels. Several Republicans promised that the rule will meet a lot of challenges in the courtroom from states and the industry.
Bloomberg said that the main issue with the new EPA rule is that it will also allow the agency to count emission reductions that are attributable to carbon-trading programs, greater use of renewable energy and energy-efficiency measures, and that states would be given the flexibility to hit emission targets.
Environmental lawyer Richard Faulk in Washington explained, "The Clean Air Act is not flexible. It says that you do these things based on point-source emissions."
