Associations Petition Supreme Court Over Greenhouse Gas Regulations

Several industry associations have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling approving the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, saying the agency is using a regulatory program that doesn't apply to these pollutants.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), along with several other industry associations, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that endorsed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases.

In December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition for rehearing of a June 26, 2012, decision that upheld several EPA regulations.  The industry groups and several states say the agency is improperly using a permitting process for facilities that emit certain air pollutants—called the Prevention of Significant Deterioriation (PSD) program, created under the Clean Air Act—to regulate greenhouse gases (GHG).

The industry associations petitioning for the review said in a statement that the current rules are “fundamentally flawed” and that greenhouse gases “are not criteria pollutants with established National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

“EPA’s ill-founded regulations represent a sweeping expansion of its regulatory power under the Clean Air Act and would impose new requirements on potentially millions of stationary sources across the country,” the ACC statement said. “ACC continues to believe the PSD permitting program is not the appropriate way to address GHG emissions from industrial facilities.”

Joining ACC’s petition last week were the American Petroleum Institute, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

According to a Reuters report, the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation submitted its own petition that stated “it is not possible to find a regulatory structure less compatible with the regulation of carbon” than the PSD program. Others supporting a review include the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and 12 states.


Daniel Ford

By Daniel Ford

Daniel Ford is a contributor to Associations Now. MORE

Got an article tip for us? Contact us and let us know!