7/29/2019 EPA VS OTHERS

1/1

Massachussetts v. EPA

1. Citation: Massachussetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. ____ (2007)

2. Facts:

A number of States and environmental organizations petitioned EPA asking it to regulate CO2 and othergreenhouse gases because climate change in form of global warming was a potential problem which couldendanger the public health. In response, EPA said that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gassesbecause these gases were not pollutants. EPA also stated that CO2 doesn't make people sick, and makes plants

grow, so it not a pollutant. EPA further argued that even if they did have the authority to regulate greenhousegasses, it was within EPA's discretion to choose which pollutants to regulate, and they chose not to. EPA felt thatthe laws designed to improve fuel economy were good enough.

The States (led by Massachusetts) sued the EPA to force it to begin regulating greenhouse gases.Massachusetts argued that EPA does have authority over global warming and greenhouse gases because of thebroad wording of the Statute; EPA's decision not to regulate greenhouse gases exceeded the scope of itsdiscretion under the law; and EPA violated the Clean Air Act by not giving it effect. EPA counter argued that thepetitioners did not have standing to sue EPA because they could not show that they had been harmed bygreenhouse gases. The Appellate Court affirmed EPA's decision to not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.Massachusetts appealed the denial of the petition to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a divided panelruled in favor of EPA.

3. Issue:

1. Whether the petitioners had legal standing to file the law suit?

2. Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA statutory authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhousegases?

3. Whether the EPAs reasons to decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles consistent with section 202(a)(1) of Clean Air Act statute?

4. Ruling:

Yes. No and Yes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

5. a. Rules of Law:

Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act provides The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and fromtime to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of anyair pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgmentcause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.The Act defines "air pollutant" as ""any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical,chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambientair."

b. Rationale:

First, the petitioners were found to have standing because, as a sovereign they had a special duty toprotect their citizens. Justice Stevens reasoned that the states had a particularly strong interest in the standing

analysis.

Second, the Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. "Greenhouse gases fit well within theClean Air Acts capacious definition of airpollutant."

Finally, the Court also found that EPA's rationale for not regulating greenhouse gases was inadequate.the Court remanded the case to the EPA, requiring the agency to review its contention that it has discretion inregulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for notregulating to be inadequate, and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.