Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA .

Country/Territory
United States of America
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jun 26, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Judge
Sentelle, Rogers and Tatel.
Reference number
No. 09-1322
Language
English
Subject
Air & atmosphere, Environment gen.
Keyword
Air quality/air pollution Air pollution (non-stationary sources) Air quality standards Climate change Standing to sue Emissions
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA directed the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. EPA’s first decision was to find that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The D.C. Circuit found that the EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it made its endangerment finding. EPA’s next decision was to issue what is known as the “tailpipe rule.” The tailpipe rule establishes greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Industry argued that the cost implications of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources were so large that the EPA should not have regulated tailpipe emissions. The court rejected this argument, holding instead that the EPA lacked any discretion at all in setting tailpipe emissions once it found that that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The third and fourth rules that are at issue in today’s case are called the “timing” and “tailoring” rules. These rules together work roughly as follows: regulation of greenhouse gases for automobiles automatically triggers a different section of the Clean Air Act, what is known as the prevention of significant deterioration section (PSD). That section basically requires the EPA to regulate the emissions of any “major” source of a “regulated” pollutant. ”Major” is defined in the Clean Air Act to regulate any source that emits 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant. The problem for the EPA is that the 100 tons per year amount would subject very, very small sources (a single home, perhaps, certainly apartment buildings and small businesses) to the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act, something that those small sources have never had to comply with and that would be extremely expensive and administratively burdensome. So in the “tailoring” rule, the EPA only subjected large sources — new sources emitting 100,000 tons per year or more and existing sources making modifications that would increase emissions by 75,000 tons per year or more — to its greenhouse gas rules. Industry challenged both the application of the Clean Air Act to stationary sources and the tailoring rule as an impermissive interpretation of the Clean Air Act. The court found that the EPA is legally justified — indeed required — to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the PSD provisions of the act. But it also found that none of the plaintiffs in the case have standing to challenge the rules. That means that the plaintiffs do not meet constitutional requirements to bring a case in court. More specifically, the court found, the plaintiffs have not been injured by a rule that exempts small sources from regulation even if the larger businesses themselves will be subject to regulation.
Full text
COU-159566.pdf