The Supreme Court on Monday will consider arguments on the extent of the EPA’s regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions. Industry groups contend the agency has overstepped its authority by concluding that new vehicle emissions standards “trigger” greenhouse gas permit requirements for large stationary polluters.
National Journal: “Harvard University law professor Richard Lazarus [argues] that if EPA loses, ‘you can be sure the court’s decision will be read as a repudiation of what Obama’s doing.'”
AP: “A court ruling against EPA almost undoubtedly would be used to challenge every step of the agency’s effort to deal with climate change, said Jacob Hollinger, a former EPA lawyer.”
New York Times Editorial Board: “As with most battles over environmental regulation, the struggle is between the bottom-line economic concerns of business and the government’s reasonable efforts to protect human health and the environment. Virtually everyone accepts the overwhelming evidence of human influence on climate change and the urgent need to address it, except for a handful of hardened skeptics and those who benefit financially from less regulation. The question is who gets to decide the best way to go about reducing harmful emissions.”