Washington (Platts)--13Aug2012/546 pm EDT/2146 GMT

Led by the US Chamber of Commerce, energy interests and other industries have asked a full federal court to rehear their case against the US Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions after a three-judge panel unanimously upheld the agency's scientific finding and subsequent rules to reduce industry emissions linked to climate change.

In addition to the Chamber's request, the American Chemistry Council and the Pacific Legal Foundation have filed separate petitions with the US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit for rehearing en banc of its June 26 decision for EPA on different grounds.

Legal experts consider an acceptance by the full court of the petitions for rehearing a long shot. The next avenue for case would be a request for review by the US Supreme Court.

The Chamber wants the full court to reconsider its Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (Opinion 684 F.3d 102) ruling that found EPA acted within its authority under the Clean Air Act when it issued its 2009 scientific "endangerment" finding that GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, threatened public health and welfare.

The Chamber also wants a rehearing of EPA's move to regulate GHG emissions from large power plants, refineries and industrial sources by crafting a "tailoring rule" to regulate only the largest stationary sources for GHGs under the law's "prevention of significant deterioration" and Title V permitting programs.

States opposed to the EPA's GHG rules filed with the court in support of the Chamber's petition filed Friday.

The American Chemistry Council, in its petition, is asking the full court to rehear arguments over whether EPA was correct to "revise the scope of the statute's coverage" with its "tailoring rule" to avoid what the agency acknowledged would be the "absurd results" of having to permit millions of GHG sources.

"The agency should not be allowed to proceed on this unprecedented regulatory path, particularly on such a doubtful statutory footing, without en banc review by this court," the American Chemistry Council said in its petition.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is calling for a rehearing because the decision allowed EPA "to ignore a statutory mandate" that the agency send its endangerment findings against GHGs to its Scientific Advisory Board.

Chief Judge David Sentelle, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and Judges David Tatel and Judith Rogers, both Clinton appointees, presided over the landmark case that involved two days of oral arguments.

The panel, veterans in previous Clean Air Act cases, agreed that EPA acted within its authority when it issued its GHG "endangerment finding" and subsequently ruled to reduce these emissions from vehicles and then from stationary sources, such as power plants and refineries.

The court also upheld EPA's "tailoring" rule to regulate only the largest stationary sources for GHGs.

--Cathy Cash, cathy_cash@platts.com --Edited by Keiron Greenhalgh, keiron_greenhalgh@platts.com