In Massachusetts v. EPA, 547 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases ("GHG") were "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act ("CAA"). The Court directed the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to decide whether GHG emissions could "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare" so as to trigger an obligation under the CAA to set motor vehicle emission standards for them.
In response, the EPA (1) found that such "endangerment" exists; (2) set motor vehicle emissions standards for GHGs; (3) reaffirmed its long-standing position that when a pollutant becomes regulated under the CAA, new and modified sources of that pollutant must get a "new source review" ("NSR") permit before construction starts; and (4) dramatically raised by regulation the statutorily mandated emission thresholds at which NSR applies, arguing that without this adjustment NSR permitting for GHGs would produce a vast workload increase that would be unrealistically expensive and administratively unworkable.
On June 26, 2012, in the case of Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which hears most CAA cases, upheld the EPA in all respects. The court found that (1) the EPA's "endangerment" finding was fully supported by the record; (2) the motor vehicle emissions standards were within the EPA's authority; (3) the EPA's legal position on NSR applicability was "unambiguously correct," rejecting several alternative interpretations put forward by industry; and (4) no litigants had standing to challenge the EPA's upward adjustment of the NSR thresholds, since this adjustment did not harm any of them.
The importance of this decision lies in its complete and strongly worded endorsement of the EPA's approach to this very controversial issue.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
