AG Gansler Supports Obama's Greenhouse Gas Rules in Supreme Court Case
Attorneys General amicus brief argues states' interests in EPA's authority to protect air quality; arguments to be heard Monday
Baltimore, MD (February 23, 2014) - Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler argues in an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" brief, that gutting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to regulate power plant pollution would pose a significant health risk to Marylanders and jeopardize our nation's ability to combat climate change. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, in which the plaintiffs are challenging the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, established by the Obama Administration in 2009.
"Marylanders need and deserve clean air to breathe and we don't want to see the EPA or the Clean Air Act crippled by a decision that would damage our health or the planet on which we live," said Attorney General Gansler. "Power plants release harmful gases into our air and we've seen improvements in greenhouse gas emissions from such regulation. These are simple rules that say these facilities must employ the best available technology to minimize their pollution."
Attorney General Gansler, joined by attorneys general from 14 other states, highlighted the EPA's important role in keeping our air clean by regulating the power plant pollutants. This authority is granted by the Clean Air Act and the regulations addressing stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions such as power plants. Given the current state of political gridlock in Washington, the attorneys general are concerned that a defeat for clean air regulation at this time would create a regulatory void for years to come.
From the Attorneys General amicus curiae brief:
In fact, greenhouse-gas permitting has, like the rest of the PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting) program, resulted in more efficient and less polluting industrial processes, delivered at reasonable costs. By contrast, limiting the PSD program to cut out greenhouse gases altogether not only risks disrupting controls for other dangerous pollutants; it also forfeits the public health and welfare benefits associated with applying this well-tested program to greenhouse-gas pollution.
To view the amicus curiae brief filed by Attorney General Gansler and his colleagues, visit: