In the United States the Supreme Court has dealt a blow to moves by the administration of President Barack Obama to step up action on climate change in the country.
The court has agreed to hear a challenge to part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s first wave of regulations aimed at tackling climate change.
Reuters Newsagency says the hearing will be one of its biggest environmental cases in years.
However, judges left intact the agency’s clean-car standards and its authority to regulate carbon emissions in agreeing to consider a single question of the many presented by nine different petitioners, a move hailed as a win by green groups.
The question the court will consider concerns whether the EPA correctly determined that its own decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles automatically gave it the authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources such as power plants and oil refineries.
The EPA regulations are among President Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change.
A federal appeals court in Washington upheld the rules, issued by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, in 2012.
The regulations allowed for greenhouse gas emission (GHG) from a wide range of sources to be regulated for the first time.
Reuters reports by agreeing to hear various legal claims raised by states and business groups, the court could be getting set to limit the reach of its important 2007 ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, in which it held on a 5-4 vote that carbon was a pollutant that could potentially be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The legal question, crafted from those raised in the six petitions, indicates the court does not plan to revisit the underlying reasoning behind Massachusetts v. EPA but will weigh whether EPA went further than allowed under the Act.
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, said the court did not dispute the scientific basis underpinning the EPA’S greenhouse gas regulations or its industry-backed vehicle emissions standards, but focused on the most legally shaky challenges buried in the various petitions.
“The grant of the petition is appropriately limited,” Professor Adler said.
“The question presented will force the court to confront the consequences of its handiwork.”
Industry groups applauded the high court’s consideration of placing a check on what they call regulatory overreach, but environmental lawyers argued that because the justices will assess only one aspect of the petitions, the EPA’s broader goal of reducing harmful pollution, and President Obama’s climate plan, will be barely affected.
“Today’s orders by the US Supreme Court make it abundantly clear, once and for all, that EPA has both the legal authority and the responsibility to address climate change and the carbon pollution that causes it,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defence Fund.
Oral arguments are likely to be heard early in the new year with a ruling issued by the end of June.
The same month, the EPA is due to propose a major rule that would limit the amount of greenhouse gases the country’s existing fleet of more than 1000 power plants can emit.
The court decision does not affect the EPA’s ability to require power plants to install the best available technology to reduce emissions.
It could, though, impede the EPA’s ability to require new or modified facilities, such as refineries or power plants, to obtain emissions permits.
Reuters reports the ruling means the court effectively upheld the EPA’s ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions from power plants and other stationary sources.
