Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulation: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

Introduction

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) is a U.S. federal law that seeks to improve air quality in the United States. The CAA permits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate air pollutants that harm public health and safety. In 1999, several interest groups petitioned the EPA requesting that the EPA regulate certain chemicals found in automobile emissions. The groups stated that the EPA should regulate these chemicals, because they harm public health and welfare by contributing to global climate change. The EPA denied the petition in 2003. As a result, several states, cities, and special interest groups sued the EPA to force the agency to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions.

Historical Background and Scientific Foundations

The Clean Air Act of 1970 is a U.S. federal law designed to improve the air quality in the United States. The primary goal of the Clean Air Act is ensuring public health, but the act has a secondary effect of improving the environment by regulating the production of some greenhouse gases. The CAA, however, does not expressly state that federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, must regulate greenhouse gases directly. Instead, the CAA states that the EPA may regulate “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The CAA defines an air pollutant as any physical or chemical matter that is emitted into the air.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 mandated the development of comprehensive federal and state air quality regulations that would reduce emissions from both industrial sources and automobiles. Although various government regulatory agencies are responsible fo enforcing the Clean Air Act, the CAA was the first major environmental law that allowed citizens to sue any corporation or government that fails to comply with the CAA.

In 1999, the International Center for Technology Assessment and other interested groups petitioned the EPA to set standards for and regulate four chemicals in automobile emissions: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The petitioners argued that these chemicals were greenhouse gases that should be regulated under the CAA, because they endangered public health or welfare by contributing to global climate change. In 2003, the EPA denied the petition, stating that the CAA did not authorize the EPA to regulate air pollutants that contribute to global climate change.

Twelve states, three cities, and numerous environmental groups sued the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. These states, cities, and groups, known as the petitioners, claimed that the EPA’s failure to set standards for and regulate greenhouse-gas emissions harms the public by exacerbating global climate change. The petitioners cited specific harms that would result if the effects of global climate change were not slowed or reversed. The petitioners stated that rising seas would result in the loss of coastline, destroy public land and infrastructure, and increase flooding and storm damage.

In 2005, the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issued a split decision that had the effect of upholding the EPA’s decision to deny the petition requesting regulation of greenhouse gases. One judge upheld the decision of the administrator of the EPA based on public policy considerations. Another judge stated that the petitioners did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, but expressed concern about global climate change. Standing is a threshold requirement to sue in court, whereby the petitioner must show that he suffered a personal injury that must be addressed by the courts. The third judge dissented from the decision to deny review and stated that the EPA did have the authority under the CAA to regulate greenhouse gases.

The petitioners appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case. The petitioners presented two questions for the court to consider: first, whether the EPA has the authority to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions under the CAA, and second, assuming that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, whether the EPA may decline to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions under the CAA.

In 2007, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, holding that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the CAA and that the EPA may regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia filed dissenting opinions.

The majority opinion first stated that the petitioners, at least the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, had standing to file suit. The court stated that the “harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized” and posed actual and imminent harm to Massachusetts. The court explained that greenhouse gases clearly fall under the CAA’s definition of air pollutants. The court then held that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions under the CAA like any other air pollutants.

Although the majority opinion of the court indicated that the EPA may regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, the court did not state that the EPA must regulate them. The CAA allows the EPA to base its action on judgments, but those judgments must relate directly to whether an air pollutant may reasonably be expected to endanger public health or welfare. Under the CAA, the EPA may decline to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not lead to climate change or if the EPA provides a reasonable explanation for not investigating whether greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. The court held that the EPA had not done either. Instead, the EPA devised a laundry list of reasons for not regulating greenhouse gases. The court found the basis for the EPA’s decision to be capricious and arbitrary. Ultimately, the court remanded, or sent back, the case to the Court of Appeals so the EPA could try to justify its reason for not regulating greenhouse gases.

Impacts and Issues

In March 2007, the administration of President W. George Bush issued the “Twenty in Ten” plan, an executive order that would reduce automobile greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% over the next 10 years. The Twenty in Ten plan orders the EPA, Department of Energy,

WORDS TO KNOW

CARBON DIOXIDE: An odorless, colorless, non-poisonous gas, with the chemical formula CO2, that is released by natural processes and by burning fossil fuels. The increased amounts of CO₂ in the atmosphere enhance the greenhouse effect, blocking heat from escaping into space and contributing to the warming of Earth’s lower atmosphere.

GREENHOUSE GAS: A gas whose accumulation in the atmosphere increases heat retention.

Department of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture to work together to reduce automobile emissions. The White House stated that the Twenty in Ten plan was a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

One year after the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA had taken no action on regulating greenhouse gases. In April 2008, the petitioners from Massachusetts v. EPA requested that the Court of Appeals order the EPA to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision. According to the petitioners, the EPA publicly stated that greenhouse gases do endanger public health and welfare by contributing to global climate change. The petitioners asserted that under the holding in Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases if they agree with the scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare.

The EPA recently stated that the agency would not respond to the Supreme Court until it has conducted a public comment period on the issue of greenhouse gas regulation. Public comment on this issue is expected in late 2008.

See Also Alternative Fuel Impacts; Clean Air Act of 1970; Emissions Standards; Greenhouse Gases

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Web Sites

Environment News Service. “U.S. EPA Sued for Ignoring Supreme Court Greenhouse Gas Ruling.” April 2. 2008. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-02-01.asp (accessed April 30, 2008).

New York Times. “Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases.” April 3, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html?ex=1333339200&en=e0d0a1497263d879&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink (accessed April 30, 2008).

Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. “Fact Sheet: Twenty in Ten: Strengthening Energy Security and Addressing Climate Change.” May 14, 2007. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/ releases/2007/05/20070514-2.html (accessed April 30, 2008).

The Oyez Project. “In the Supreme Court of the United States-Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency: Brief for the Petitioners.” http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120/briefs/petitioner/Brief%20for%20Petitioners%20Massachusetts%20et%20al.pdf (accessed April 30, 2008).

Supreme Court of the United States. “Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.” April 2, 2007. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf (accessed April 30, 2008).

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. “Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.” September 13, 2005.http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1361a.pdf (accessed April 30, 2008).

Joseph P. Hyder