Supreme Court rules EPA can regulate greenhouse gases

The Bush administration failed to follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act when it refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, the US Supreme Court ruled on Apr. 2. The 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA orders the administration to reconsider its decision, a move that could result in the first nationwide regulations aimed at tackling emissions linked to global warming. "[The] EPA can no longer hide behind the fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to address the problem of global warming," said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. "The agency cannot refuse to use its existing authority to regulate dangerous substances simply because it disagrees that such regulation would be a good idea." Although the ruling only forces the EPA to reconsider whether it should set greenhouse gas emission standards for new cars and trucks, Coakley said, it would be difficult for the agency "to refuse such regulation once it applies legally permissible factors." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters the administration was reviewing the decision, which she said was about a legal question, not about policy. The dispute stretches back to 1999, when environmentalists filed a petition calling on the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The Bush administration denied the petition in 2003, claiming carbon dioxide is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA lacked authority under the statute to impose regulations. In addition, the administration said that even if the EPA had such authority, the agency would not set greenhouse gas emission standards for new vehicles because of scientific uncertainty and conflicts with the administration's policy of voluntary programs. A dozen states and 13 environmental groups filed suit challenging the decision. Ten states and several automobile trade groups sided with the EPA in the dispute. The Supreme Court's review of the case centered on two critical issues–whether the states had standing to pursue the lawsuit and the scope of EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. The majority determined that Massachusetts, the lead plaintiff, had standing because sufficient scientific evidence shows the state faces harm from rising sea levels caused by global warming. The administration argued that Massachusetts was unlikely to get relief from rising sea levels if the EPA regulated greenhouse gas emissions from US motor vehicles because global warming is the result of emissions from across the world. The majority said it had "little trouble" rejecting the administration's argument that the Clean Air Act did not provide the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The law explicitly states that the EPA can avoid regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do, according to the majority. The EPA has done neither, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, and instead "has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate." Those reasons, including existence of voluntary programs to address greenhouse gas emissions and foreign policy considerations, have nothing to do with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the court said. Environmentalists hailed the decision as a turning point for US global warming policy– the case is the first centered on global warming heard by the court. The decision could also have significant implications on other related cases, in particular a lawsuit filed by automakers seeking to block a California law that puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. The law, currently subject to a temporary injunction, has been adopted by nine other states.