|Page (1) of 1 - 01/22/14||email article||print page|
Groups Ask Supreme Court to Uphold Existing Carbon Pollution Safeguards(January 22, 2014)
Groups Ask Supreme Court to Uphold Existing Carbon Pollution Safeguards
Request would require polluters to use known controls
Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2014 (Investorideas.com renewable energy stocks newswire) Late yesterday environmental groups filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let carbon pollution cleanup go forward. At issue are Clean Air Act safeguards requiring major stationary source polluters to use available control technology.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA officially determined in 2009 that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare, contributing (among other impacts) to heat waves that worsen smog, and sea-level rise that threatens coastal communities. In 2010 the EPA issued the first-ever federal carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks. As a result of these actions, the Clean Air Act requires that new and modified major stationary polluters such as power plants and factories apply available technologies to control their carbon pollution.
Industry and its allies filed lawsuits seeking to derail these safeguards, but in 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the suits. Industry appealed to the Supreme Court, but that Court refused to hear industry's challenge to the EPA's endangerment determination and its motor vehicle standards.
The Supreme Court did, however, agree to hear a narrow part of industry's challenge, regarding carbon pollution from major stationary sources. Yesterday's environmental group brief asks (as do briefs filed by the EPA and by several states) that the Court reject industry's challenge and leave in place existing safeguardsn effect since 2011hich require polluters to use available pollution controls.
"Industry continues year after year not only to emit huge amounts of carbon pollution, but also to resist common-sense solutions," said Howard Fox of Earthjustice, co-counsel for Environmental Defense Fund in the litigation. "Using available technology cuts carbon pollution, and saves money by also reducing energy costs."
Oral argument in the case will be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, February 24. A decision is expected by June.
In addition to the program at issue in this case, the EPA is working to develop additional safeguardsost importantly, "new source performance standards" for power plants. Such standards would be set as a minimum across-the-board floor for power plants, and will thus offer an important supplement to the permitting program at issue here, which involves making case-by-case determinations for individual facilities one by one. The EPA's authority to set new source performance standards was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2011, in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, and is not at issue in the present case. Thus, the EPA is free to move forward with those much-needed standards, and environmental groups are among many stakeholders urging the agency to do so promptly.
SUPREME COURT BRIEF: http://earthjustice.org
ONLINE VERSION OF THIS PRESS RELEASE: http://earthjustice.org
This news is published on the Investorideas.com Newswire and its syndicated partner network
Get Free investor news and stock alerts: Sign up here
Published at the Investorideas.com Newswire - Big ideas for Global Investors
Disclaimer/ Disclosure:The Investorideas.com newswire is a third party publisher of news and research as well as creates original content as a news source. Original content created by investorideas is protected by copyright laws other than syndication rights. Investorideas is a news source on Google news and Linkedintoday plus hundreds of syndication partners. Our site does not make recommendations for purchases or sale of stocks or products. Nothing on our sites should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell products or securities. All investment involves risk and possible loss of investment. This site is currently compensated by featured companies, news submissions, content marketing and online advertising. Contact each company directly for press release questions. Disclosure is posted on each release if required but otherwise the news was not compensated for and is published for the sole interest of our readers. More disclaimer info: http://www.investorideas.com/About/Disclaimer.asp
BC Residents and Investor Disclaimer : Effective September 15 2008 - all BC investors should review all OTC and Pink sheet listed companies for adherence in new disclosure filings and filing appropriate documents with Sedar. Read for more info: http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/release.aspx?id=6894. Global investors must adhere to regulations of each country.
Related Keywords:Sales, Advertising, Marketing, Sales & Marketing, Internet, Business Issues, Law & Regulations, Post/Production, USA, Science, Environmental Technology, Green Technology, Engineering, Judicial, Other,