Supreme Court to rule on regulating carbon dioxide

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear arguments on whether the federal government must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a case that could have broad implications for utilities, auto manufacturers and other industries nationwide.

The decision to take up Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency — a lawsuit that pits 12 states, 13 environmental groups, two cities and American Samoa against the federal government — could break the political impasse that has stymied regulation by the United States on global warming for more than a decade.

Environmentalists and state and local officials argue that President Bush has the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the 36-year-old Clean Air Act, because it is linked to climate change and poses a threat to the environment. While the Clinton administration endorsed this legal reasoning, it failed to issue rules on carbon-dioxide emissions. Now the Bush administration, which rejects this theory, must convince the Supreme Court it has no legal obligation to restrict greenhouse gases.

"The court's decision to hear the case is momentous," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat. His state is suing the administration along with 11 others, including Washington.

The EPA, which successfully defended its position before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last year, issued a statement Monday saying it was "confident in its decision" not to regulate carbon dioxide. The administration's voluntary efforts to cut emissions, it added, "are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy."

Many foes of greenhouse-gas curbs also welcomed the court's announcement, arguing it will settle the question of regulation once and for all. William O'Keefe, who lobbies for Exxon Mobil and heads the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank, said he hopes the court applies the rigorous scientific standards it has required since the early 1990s.

"If they apply that to this filing they will reject it," O'Keefe said.

The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to come next year.