UPDATE 1-U.S. appeals court rejects states' challenge over climate rules
(Adds details of ruling)
WASHINGTON, July 26 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a legal challenge by Texas and Wyoming to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to implement regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, split 2-1, said the states and various industry groups did not have standing to sue because they could not show either that they had suffered an injury or that a ruling throwing out the EPA plan would benefit them.
The decision comes after the same court upheld EPA's first wave of greenhouse gas regulations in 2012.
Friday's decision concerned a challenge to EPA's efforts to make states include carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they issue permits to industrial facilities setting limits on various types of pollution they emit.
Under the Clean Air Act, states have a co-operative relationship with EPA in regulating air pollution.
Texas and Wyoming objected in part to the tight deadlines EPA imposed on them for coming up with new regulations to include greenhouse gases. The agency said in December 2010 that it would have to intervene, effectively taking over greenhouse gas permitting in the affected states, because the states had failed to act.
Texas in particular regularly fights EPA over regulatory actions. Greg Abbott, the Republican attorney general now running for governor, has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration and the EPA.
In Friday's decision, Judge Judith Rogers said the states had failed to show how voiding the rules in question would "redress their purported injuries."
Without the states updating their permitting programs, "construction of a major emitting facility could not proceed," Rogers noted, adding that the Clean Air Act is clear that states have to issue permits "for each pollutant subject to regulation under the act."
In a landmark 2007 ruling, the Supreme Court said carbon dioxide was a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion to the latest case, saying states should have been able to use their old regulatory schemes, which do not take into account greenhouse gases, until they had time to update them.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Ros Krasny and Vicki Allen)