Supreme Court to review permitting aspect of greenhouse-gas rules

Can the EPA regulate stationary sources the way it regulates cars? The Supreme Court will address this question this season. The Court will hear a case from stationary sources like power plants that challenges EPA regulations of greenhouse gas emissions.  

Norman Matheny/The Christian Science Monitor/File
A male figure with a tablet about the law, sits in front of the US Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court will hear arguments from stationary s

The Supreme Court is back in session, and Environmental Protection Agency emissions regulations are on the docket.

The court will hear a case challenging EPA regulations of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like power plants, The New York Times reports.

However, the justices declined to hear any petitions challenging the EPA's regulation of motor vehicle emissions, leaving that authority intact regardless of the outcome of the current case. 

The more limited case the court will hear is a sequel to Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 2007 case that required the EPA to regulate new vehicle greenhouse gas emissions if it found that they endangered public health and welfare.

Not surprisingly, the agency found just that and in 2009 issued regulations limiting emissions from both new vehicles and stationary sources.

The case questions whether the EPA can really regulate stationary sources the way it regulates cars.

The question being considered is whether the EPA's regulation of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions "triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act" for stationary sources, the Times reported.

The groups challenging the regulations--including elements of the oil and chemical industries--claim the regulations hurt economic competitiveness.

Harry Ng, vice president and general counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, told theWashington Post that the EPA's climate change authority constitutes over-regulation of U.S. manufacturing.

Environmentalists emphasized the regulations the Supreme Court didn't touch.

Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the court's limiting of the case proved the validity of the EPA's existing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

With EPA regulations like the 54.5 mpg gas mileage standard untouched, the next emissions battle may very well be over stationary sources.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Supreme Court to review permitting aspect of greenhouse-gas rules
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today