On October 7, 2013, when the Supreme Court of the United States announced a number of procedural decisions regarding which cases it would review, there was a conspicuous absence from the list: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102 (DC Cir 2012) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers].
Many of those following the adolescent development of U.S. Climate Change policy (like me) have waited for word whether this important case was “final” or would undergo additional review by the nation’s highest court. Since the Coalition case effectively upheld the Endangerment Finding, the Tailpipe Rule, the Timing Rule, and the Tailoring Rule, it provides a foundation for much of the current structure for regulating greenhouse gases. In terms of its importance to domestic climate change regulation, it is second only to Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], which held that greenhouse gases could be regulated as an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.
While there are various theories about why the Supreme Court has yet to reach a formal decision on whether to hear the Coalition case, most of us must simply wait a bit longer to find out whether EPA’s ambitious agenda for regulating GHGs will continue to steam forward or suffer a significant setback.
Kurt Kissling, Esq.
Read more at Sustainability-Counsel.com from Pepper Hamilton LLP's Sustainability, CleanTech and Climate Change Team.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site