Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA

Last updated
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 24, 2014
Decided June 23, 2014
Full case nameUtility Air Regulatory Group, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Docket no. 12-1146
Citations573 U.S. 302 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2427; 189 L. Ed. 2d 372; 82 U.S.L.W. 4535
Holding
(1) The Clean Air Act neither compels nor permits EPA to adopt an interpretation of the Act requiring a source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emissions. (2) EPA reasonably interpreted the Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with BACT for greenhouse gases.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy; Thomas, Alito (Parts I, II–A, and II–B–1); Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (Part II–B–2)
Concur/dissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concur/dissentAlito, joined by Thomas
Laws applied
Clean Air Act

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act. [1] [2]

Contents

In a divided decision, the Court largely upheld the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse emissions. [3]

Background

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if it determined that the emissions endangered public health. In 2010, the EPA introduced a new set of regulations designed to control carbon dioxide emissions from light and heavy vehicles as well as generators and industrial and utility sources. A coalition of power companies challenged the legality of the regulations by arguing that the science used by the EPA in deciding the regulations was inaccurate. [4]

In 2012, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit court unanimously rejected those challenges. In 2013, the case was accepted for review by the United States Supreme Court. [2]

Decision

Justice Scalia authored the majority opinion, which Justices Roberts and Kennedy joined in full. The Court ruled that the EPA can regulate greenhouse emissions on power plants and other large stationary sources of pollution but that it overstepped its authority when it started to use the same regulations on smaller stationary sources like shopping centers, apartment buildings, and schools. [5]

In his opinion, Scalia noted that the Clean Air Act imposes specific requirements on stationary sources of pollution that have the potential to emit 250 tons per year of "any air pollutant" or 100 tons per year for certain types of sources. [6] Furthermore, the "any air pollutant" language in that section of the law specifically refers to regulated air pollutants, not greenhouse emissions. [7] When the EPA attempted to apply the same standards to any source of greenhouse emissions, the Court objected that "would radically expand those programs, making them both unadministrable and unrecognizable to the Congress that designed them." [8] Instead, the EPA adopted a different threshold for sources of greenhouse emissions, 100,000 tons per year. [8] However, the Court stated, "An agency has no power to 'tailor' legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms." [9]

On the other hand, the Court ruled that the EPA could regulate the large sources of greenhouse emissions if they were already being regulated for emitting conventional pollutants. [10] Scalia wrote that the "EPA may... continue to treat greenhouse gases as a 'pollutant subject to regulation'" under the provisions in the Act. [11]

Justice Breyer wrote a concurring/dissenting opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer argued that the EPA should have been allowed to interpret the "any air pollutant" language broadly to include greenhouse emissions as well: "I do not agree with the Court that the only way to avoid an absurd or otherwise impermissible result in these cases is to create an atextual greenhouse gas exception to the phrase 'any air pollutant.'" [12]

Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote a second concurring and dissenting opinion. They argued that the EPA should not be able to regulate the larger sources of greenhouse emissions by using those regulations: "The Clean Air Act was developed for use in regulating the emission of conventional pollutants and is simply not suited for use with respect to greenhouse gases." [13] He cited two scenarios of incompatibility between greenhouses gases and normal pollutants, which eventually caused the EPA to declare that officials may disregard some provisions in the Act [14] or to give authorities "a great deal of discretion." [13]

Related Research Articles

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States</span> Climate changing gases from the North American country

The United States produced 5.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020, the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%. In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country. Annual emissions are over 15 tons per person and, amongst the top eight emitters, is the highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person. However, the IEA estimates that the richest decile in the US emits over 55 tonnes of CO2 per capita each year. Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation which is now the largest single source. In 2020, 27% of the GHG emissions of the United States were from transportation, 25% from electricity, 24% from industry, 13% from commercial and residential buildings and 11% from agriculture. In 2021, the electric power sector was the second largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 25% of the U.S. total. These greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change in the United States, as well as worldwide.

United States vehicle emission standards are set through a combination of legislative mandates enacted by Congress through Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments from 1970 onwards, and executive regulations managed nationally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and more recently along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These standard cover common motor vehicle air pollution, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions, and newer versions have incorporated fuel economy standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Air Act (United States)</span> 1963 United States federal law to control air pollution

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. Initially enacted in 1963 and amended many times since, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws.

To protect the environment from the adverse effects of pollution, many nations worldwide have enacted legislation to regulate various types of pollution as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of pollution. At the local level, regulation usually is supervised by environmental agencies or the broader public health system. Different jurisdictions often have different levels regulation and policy choices about pollution. Historically, polluters will lobby governments in less economically developed areas or countries to maintain lax regulation in order to protect industrialisation at the cost of human and environmental health.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Air quality law</span> Type of law

Air quality laws govern the emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere. A specialized subset of air quality laws regulate the quality of air inside buildings. Air quality laws are often designed specifically to protect human health by limiting or eliminating airborne pollutant concentrations. Other initiatives are designed to address broader ecological problems, such as limitations on chemicals that affect the ozone layer, and emissions trading programs to address acid rain or climate change. Regulatory efforts include identifying and categorising air pollutants, setting limits on acceptable emissions levels, and dictating necessary or appropriate mitigation technologies.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

The, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are currently controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. The basis for regulations was upheld in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2012.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mobile source air pollution</span>

Mobile source air pollution includes any air pollution emitted by motor vehicles, airplanes, locomotives, and other engines and equipment that can be moved from one location to another. Many of these pollutants contribute to environmental degradation and have negative effects on human health. To prevent unnecessary damage to human health and the environment, environmental regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have established policies to minimize air pollution from mobile sources. Similar agencies exist at the state level. Due to the large number of mobile sources of air pollution, and their ability to move from one location to another, mobile sources are regulated differently from stationary sources, such as power plants. Instead of monitoring individual emitters, such as an individual vehicle, mobile sources are often regulated more broadly through design and fuel standards. Examples of this include corporate average fuel economy standards and laws that ban leaded gasoline in the United States. The increase in the number of motor vehicles driven in the U.S. has made efforts to limit mobile source pollution challenging. As a result, there have been a number of different regulatory instruments implemented to reach the desired emissions goals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Energy Tax Prevention Act</span> Proposed US legislation

Energy Tax Prevention Act, also known as H.R. 910, was a 2011 bill in the United States House of Representatives to prohibit the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases to address climate change. On April 7, 2011, the bill passed the House by a vote of 255 to 172. The bill died in January 2013 with the ending of the Congressional session.

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context. In a unanimous decision, the court held in favor of the plaintiff's argument.

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Power Plan</span> United States energy plan from President Obama

The Clean Power Plan was an Obama administration policy aimed at combating anthropogenic climate change that was first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2014. The final version of the plan was unveiled by President Obama on August 3, 2015. Each state was assigned an individual goal for reducing carbon emissions, which could be accomplished how they saw fit, but with the possibility of the EPA stepping in if the state refused to submit a plan. If every state met its target, the plan was projected to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation 32% by 2030, relative to 2005 levels, as well as achieving various health benefits due to reduced air pollution.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institute for Policy Integrity</span> Think Tank

The Institute for Policy Integrity is a non-partisan think tank housed within the New York University School of Law. Policy Integrity is dedicated to improving government decisionmaking, and its primary area of focus is climate and energy policy. Policy Integrity produces original scholarly research and advocates for reform before courts, legislatures, and executive agencies at both the federal and state level.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation in United States administrative law which states that courts will presume that Congress does not delegate to executive agencies issues of major political or economic significance.

References

  1. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency , 573 U.S. 302 (2014).
  2. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (October 15, 2013). "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to E.P.A. Rules on Gas Emissions". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 October 2013.
  3. Liptak, Adam (June 23, 2014). "Justices Uphold Emission Limits on Big Industry". The New York Times via NYTimes.com.
  4. Volcovici, Valerie (February 27, 2012). "E.P.A. greenhouse gas rules face new legal challenges". Reuters. Retrieved 19 October 2013.
  5. "Supreme Court Ruling Backs Most EPA Emission Controls". The Wall Street Journal. June 23, 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  6. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (slip op., at 3)
  7. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (slip op., at 11)
  8. 1 2 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (slip op., at 7)
  9. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (slip op., at 21)
  10. "Justices Uphold Emission Limits on Big Industry". The New York Times. June 23, 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  11. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (slip op., at 29)
  12. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (Breyer, concur/dissent slip op., at 6-7)
  13. 1 2 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (Alito, concur/dissent slip op., at 8)
  14. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U. S., (Alito, concur/dissent slip op., at 5)