[asa] SCOTUS Decision: Legal Experts Weigh In

Scott Segal represents refineries, power companies and other energy
interests at the K-Street firm Bracewell and Giuliani. What does he
think of the recent SCOTUS decision?
> Ah, there's no joy in legal Mudville for industry today.
> The fact that the court asserted its jurisdiction in a global
> climate case and accepted the standing of the petitioner in the
> case is very significant. And for people in industry who say that
> it's not, they're probably gilding the lily a bit. Lawyers
> representing industry are thinking very hard about what the impact
> might be for stationary sources and they would be well advised to
> do so.

What about David Bookbinder, lawyer for the plaintiff? Within 24
hours of the decision he's off to Vermont to participate in a lawsuit
where auto industry is suing ten states including Vermont to regulate
CO2 emissions. The core of the industry argument was if EPA did not
have authority to regulate then the states didn't either. Now that
that's gone, it makes Bookbinder confident that those suits will get
dismissed.

Does this stop with automobiles? Nope. Georgetown environmental law
professor Richard Lazarus put it this way:

> This case has a really wide sweep, the Massachusetts versus EPA.
> This case establishes that greenhouse gases are air pollutants for
> the purposes of motor vehicles. There's no light between that issue
> and whether they are air pollutants for major stationary sources
> under the Clean Air Act.
At the same time as Massachusetts v. EPA, the court unanimously
upheld New Source review that requires power plants to add pollution
controls when they add new capacity.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 8 22:34:37 2007