[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
GLIN==> Supreme Court Decisions on Clean Air Act and Global Warming and New Source Review
- Subject: GLIN==> Supreme Court Decisions on Clean Air Act and Global Warming and New Source Review
- From: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:01:21 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-name: GLIN-Announce
Compiled from Scotus Blog and other reports....is the following:
The Supremes show the way!!
Ruling 5-4, the Supreme Court on Monday found that the
federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that
may contribute to global warming, and must examine anew the scientific
evidence of a link between those gases and climate change. In the most
important environmental case in years, the Court rebuffed EPA's claim
that regulating those gases was beyond its authority, and its claim that
it would not take action even if it did have the power to do so.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
That decision came in Massachusetts v. EPA (05-1120). Decision is
Here is the brief to the court that paved the way for the
This is the Amicus Brief of the Climate Scientists to
the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the case about
regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
My friend, Professor John Dernbach, is a principle author. Some
you may remember him from his days at Michigan Law School
and when he worked at the American Lung Association of Michigan.
ALSO....the Supremes Reject Industry Interpretation of Clean
Air Act New Source Review in a separate decision
The second decision, also in an environmental case, upheld EPA's view
that changes in power plants that may contribute to air pollution must be
done only with a permit if there is an annual increase in emissions. The
Court rejected the Fourth Circuit Court's view that the permit
requirement applied only if there is an hourly increase in emissions. The
case was Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-848). The
decision was written by Justice Souter. The vote was unanimous, although
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate concurring opinion.
Alex J. Sagady & Associates
Environmental Enforcement, Permit/Technical Review, Public Policy,
Expert Witness Review and Litigation Investigation on Air, Water and
Waste/Community Environmental and Resource Protection
657 Spartan Ave, East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); email@example.com