What’s at Stake in Massachusetts v. EPA?
News: A primer on the climate case of the century.
November 29, 2006
|
|
The stakes in today’s Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, are high. "The case includes within it just about every-hot button issue about the environment," said William Buzbee, head of the Environmental and Natural Resource Law Program at Emory University, who views the case as one of the most significant of the Roberts' Court to date. A ruling in favor of Massachusetts could initiate the long-overdue regulation of greenhouse gasses (GHG), while a ruling against could severely hamper states' current efforts to curb global warming.
The Clean Air Act currently grants California, which has passed legislation to cut GHG by 25% by 2020, the special discretion to set its own emissions standards for automobiles. All other states must either follow California's standards or comply with federal standards. In 2002, when California regulators made rules for reducing carbon emissions in automobiles, a number of other states, including New York and Washington, said they would follow California's guidelines.
But in order for California's measures to go into effect, it must receive a waiver from the EPA allowing it to deviate from federal standards. To date the agency has refused to grant California a waiver. If the Supreme Court decides that the EPA does not have authority it regulate GHG, it will strengthen the Bush Administration's decision to deny California's request.
In the case, Massachusetts (joined by eleven other states and numerous environmental groups) contends that the Clean Air Act compels the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate vehicular carbon emissions. They assert that the language of the act is clear, ordering the EPA to regulate "any air pollution" that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
A D.C. District Court ruled on the case last year, siding ultimately with the EPA, ruling that while the Clean Air Act did authorize the agency to regulate GHG emissions, it did not go so far as to require the agency to do so.
The Supreme Court must clarify three points:
1. Whether Massachusetts has standing to sue.
Massachusetts has asserted that global warming would cause "serious loss of and damage to the state's coast," but the district court judges were divided on whether this was enough to establish standing.
2. Whether to uphold the lower court's judgment.
The lower court ruled that the Clean Air Act indeed authorizes the EPA to regulate the emission of GHG. In 1999, the Clinton administration asserted that the EPA did have such authority, but in 2003 Bush’s EPA denied petitions submitted by environmental group to regulate GHG in new automobiles.
The Administration's attorneys will likely base their argument against the EPA's authority to regulate on the Supreme Court's 2000 decision FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco. There, the Court ruled that although the language of federal legislation was broad enough to allow the FDA to regulate nicotine in cigarettes, subsequent action taken by Congress could be interpreted as evidence that it did not intend for the FDA to do so. So Congress' hesitance to mandate higher fuel efficiency standards may be used by the Court to show Congress' de facto opposition to the EPA's regulation of GHG.
3. Whether the EPA is obligated to regulate GHG.
If the court determines that the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions, it will also have to consider whether the EPA retains the discretion to chose not to do so. The Bush Administration has, of course, argued that the EPA should not regulate carbon emissions, citing "scientific uncertainties" as to the effect of GHG and foreign policy considerations.
Massachusetts v. EPA will determine whether state-led regulation of greenhouse gases will have traction in the years to come. Regardless of the court's ruling, one can hope that a Democrat-controlled Congress will press for action on global warming. If the President sides once-again with big-oil, vetoing such a bill, he will only solidify his legacy as the man upon whose watch the world went up in flames.
Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell is an Editorial Intern at Mother Jones.
