Term: 2013
Docket: 12-1146
Util. Air Regulatory Group v. Epa
- Pro
12-1146 UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA DECISION BELOW: 684 F.3d 102 LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases. CONSOLIDATED WITH 12-1248,12-1254, 12-1268, 12-1269 and 12-1272 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 10/15/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: After this Court decided Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that its promulgation of motor vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards under Title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), compelled regulation of carbon dioxide and other GHGs under the CAA's Title I prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V stationary-source permitting programs. Even though EPA determined that including GHGs in these programs would vastly expand the programs contrary to Congress's intent, EPA adopted rules adding GHGs to the pollutants covered. The panel below held the CAA and Massachusetts compelled inclusion of GHGs and, based on that holding, dismissed all petitions to review the GHG permitting program rules on standing grounds. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Massachusetts compelled EPA to in-clude GHGs in the PSD and Title V programs when inclusion of GHGs would (i) transform the size and scope of these programs into something that EPA found would be "unrecognizable to ... Congress," Petition Appendix 345a, 380a, and (ii) expand the PSD program to cover a substance that does not deteriorate the quality of the air that people breathe. 2. Whether dismissal of the petitions to review EPA's GHG permit-program rules was inconsistent with this Court's standing jurisprudence where the panel premised its holding that standing was absent on its merits holding that GHGs are regulated "pursuant to automatic operation of the CAA." Id. at 96a. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-1073, et al.
In the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013, the Supreme Court examined whether the EPA had overstepped its authority by interpreting the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources such as power plants. The court ruled in a complex decision that while the EPA could not require permits solely based on greenhouse gas emissions, it could require facilities already needing permits for other pollutants to use "best available control technology" for greenhouse gases. This ruling essentially limited but did not entirely eliminate EPA's ability to regulate these types of emissions under this particular provision of law. It was seen as a partial victory for both sides: industry groups who felt that EPA had exceeded its regulatory powers and environmental advocates pushing for more stringent controls on climate-changing pollution.
The dissenting opinion in the Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA case argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had overstepped its authority by interpreting the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources. The justices contended that such an interpretation was not consistent with Congress's intent when it passed the law, and thus constituted a significant expansion of regulatory power without clear legislative authorization. They also expressed concerns about potential economic impacts, arguing that this broadened scope could impose substantial costs on businesses and potentially hinder economic growth. Furthermore, they criticized majority’s decision for allowing administrative agencies like EPA to have too much discretion in determining their own jurisdictional boundaries which can lead to unchecked bureaucratic power.
