WASHINGTON — The centerpiece of the Obama administration’s effort to tackle climate change is facing a legal test as a federal appeals court considers a plan that has triggered opposition from Republicans, industry figures and coal-reliant states.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hears arguments Thursday in two cases challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to slash carbon pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants that is blamed for global warming.
The lawsuits — one from a coalition of 15 states and another brought by Murray Energy Corp., the nation’s largest privately held coal mining company — are part of a growing political attack from opponents who say the move is illegal.
The rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency last year requires states to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030. It gives customized targets to each state, leaving it up to them to draw up plans to meet the targets.
EPA officials say the rule would protect public health, fight climate change and lower electricity costs by 8 percent by 2030.
At issue before the court is whether the EPA has legal authority for its plan under the Clean Air Act.
West Virginia and other states argue that the plan is illegal because coal-fired power plants already are regulated under a separate section of the Clean Air Act.
The legal debate focuses on dueling provisions added by the House and Senate to the Clean Air Act in 1990. Instead of trying to reach a compromise, Congress included both.
The rule’s opponents want the EPA to abide by the House language, which says if an industry is regulated under one section of the law, it can’t be regulated under a different part.
The EPA prefers the Senate version, arguing that the agency is only barred from regulating pollutants covered by another section.
