Justices hear appeal to force GHG limits on cars

Washington (Platts)--30Nov2006

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a landmark
global-warming case that could force the Bush administration to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and, possibly later, stationary
sources such as power plants.

A coalition of states and environmental groups led by Massachusetts sued the
Environmental Protection Agency early in the Bush administration's first term,
arguing that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate GHG emissions from
cars and trucks. In a 2005 ruling, a three-judge panel of the US Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that EPA
properly exercised its authority in deciding against regulating GHGs. States
and environmentalists appealed that ruling to the high court.

EPA has maintained that it has no such authority and that even if it could, it
would not, as a matter of policy, choose to cap vehicular emissions.

During the oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Massachusetts
Assistant Attorney General James Milkey, who argued the case for the
plaintiffs, whether he believes EPA should be forced to regulate GHG emissions
from coal-fired power plants as well as automobiles.

Milkey replied that EPA has been sued on that issue in a lower federal court,
adding that he believes the agency is offering the same flawed defense in that
case as it is in the Supreme Court case.

"We cannot win that other case unless we win this case here," Milkey told
Roberts.

Much of the hour-long argument session focused on whether the plaintiffs have
legal standing to bring their suit in large part because the remedy the states
and environmentalists are seeking ? a mandated reduction in GHG emissions from
new US cars and trucks ? would cut global carbon dioxide emissions only by
about 2.5%.

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the states have a "standing" problem
because the remedy they seek would not appreciably slow global warming. "It
goes to how imminent the harm is, and how redressable the harm is," Scalia
said.

But Milkey said even a small reduction in GHG gas emissions would slow melting
ice caps, rising sea levels and the loss of coastline on Cape Cod. "We've lost
200 miles of coastline already, so we think our standing is straightforward,"
Milkey said.

Deputy US Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who argued the case for EPA, told
the justices that Congress did not authorize the agency to regulate GHG
emissions from any sources. Garre also argued that Congress and the
administration are addressing global climate change though other means, such
as voluntary emissions-reduction partnerships with other countries.

A ruling is expected in mid-2007.

Brian Hansen, brian_hansen@platts.com

For more news, request a free trial to Platts Coal Trader at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?story