l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Climate change plan faces high-profile legal test
April 15, 2015 - 1:06 PM
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The centerpiece of the Obama administration's effort to
tackle climate change is facing a high-profile legal test as a federal
appeals court considers a plan that has triggered furious opposition from
Republicans, industry figures and coal-reliant states.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hears arguments Thursday in
two cases challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's ambitious
proposal to slash carbon pollution from the nation's coal-fired power plants
that is blamed for global warming.
The lawsuits — one from a coalition of 15 states and another brought by
Murray Energy Corp., the nation's largest privately held coal mining company
— are part of a growing political attack from opponents who say the move
is illegal and will kill jobs, cripple demand for coal and drive up
electricity prices.
The rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency last year requires
states to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030. It gives customized
targets to each state, leaving it up to them to draw up plans to meet the
targets.
EPA officials say the rule would protect public health, fight climate change
and lower electricity costs by 8 percent by 2030.
But a backlash has been building. Last month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., sent a letter urging the governors of all 50 states to
defy the EPA by refusing to submit the compliance plans.
Opponents also are getting support from an unlikely ally, Harvard Law
professor Laurence Tribe, an Obama mentor who has infuriated liberals by
denouncing the EPA rule as unconstitutional. "Burning the Constitution
should not become part of our national energy policy," Tribe told a House
committee last month, representing Peabody Energy Corp., the world's largest
private-sector coal company.
At issue before the court is whether the EPA has legal authority for its
plan under the Clean Air Act. The agency and environmental advocacy groups
have urged the court to throw the cases out as premature, since the agency
won't issue a final rule until this summer.
David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate
and clean air program, called the lawsuits a ploy "to dress up the political
attacks being led by Mitch McConnell in the Senate and others in the House."
But Murray Energy and the states say the court should issue a rare "
extraordinary writ" to stop the EPA from taking action beyond its power even
before the rule becomes final. "The stakes are so high, and delay will
waste enormous amounts of industry, state, and federal resources and result
in increased coal fired power plant retirements that cannot be later
remedied," the company said in court documents.
West Virginia and other states argue that the plan is illegal because coal-
fired power plants already are regulated under a separate section of the
Clean Air Act. They say the law prohibits "double regulation."
The legal debate focuses on dueling provisions added by the House and Senate
to the Clean Air Act in 1990. Instead of trying to reach a compromise,
Congress included both.
The rule's opponents want EPA to abide by the House language, which says if
an industry is already regulated under one section of the law, it can't be
regulated under a different part.
The EPA prefers the Senate version, arguing that the agency is only barred
from regulating pollutants covered by another section. In this case, the
agency says, the law allows it to regulate carbon dioxide, which is not
already regulated under a different part of the law. Courts typically defer
to an agency's interpretation when the law is ambiguous.
Tribe, the Harvard professor, also is getting a few minutes of time before
the court Thursday to argue that the proposal also infringes on the right of
states and the role of Congress in violation of the Constitution.
All three judges on the panel hearing the case were appointed by Republican
presidents.
The states challenging the EPA's proposed rule are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas
, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming and Wisconsin. |
|
