Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 15 Oct 2013

The Clean Air Act requires a "major emitting facility," defined as a source of "two hundred and fifty tons per year or more" of an air pollutant, to comply with the permitting requirements of the "prevention of significant deterioration" (PSD) program of Part C of the Act if the facility is "in any area to which this part applies." 42 U.S.C. §§ 7475(a)(1), 7479(1). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims the power to revise that statutory threshold to "one hundred thousand tons per year or more" for greenhouse gases because, it explains, applying the statutory threshold as written to greenhouse gases would produce "absurd results" that would be "inconsistent with congressional intent" and "severely undermine congressional purpose." Pet. App. 617a. These "absurd results" occur only because EPA has interpreted the PSD provision to cover sources of 250 tons per year of any pollutant regulated under any part of the Act - now including greenhouse gases, as a result of EPA's regulatory actions after Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)-even though the PSD program "applies" only to six designated "NAAQS pollutants." The question presented is: Whether EPA properly interpreted Part C of the Clean Air Act, requiring a pre-construction permit for a "major emitting facili-ty ... in any area to which this part applies," 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(1),to apply to facilities emitting "any regulated air pollutant," when EPA's interpretation concededly produces absurd results, requiring (in the agency's view) that it rewrite separate statutory thresholds, and when an alternative construction - applying the provision only to sources of NAAQS pol-lutants subject to Part C- would avoid those results and would not require rewriting the statute.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge by the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group and other petitioners against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its regulation of greenhouse gases. The central issue was whether the EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act when it implemented regulations targeting emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories. Petitioners argued that these regulations imposed undue economic burdens on industries reliant on energy-intensive processes, potentially affecting their competitiveness in global markets. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld most of the EPA's regulatory actions but placed limits on certain aspects related to permitting requirements for smaller emitters, ensuring that only major polluters would be subject to stringent controls without congressional approval.