Climate Change in the Courts
Supreme Court decisions get plenty of press, as journalists and pundits debate why the judges ruled the way they did, and legal scholars speculate about the Constitutional implications of each case. However, it is often hard to see how the rulings of the highest court in the land will actually affect our daily lives, and how we can be involved in the judicial process. This week, an EPA Appeals Board ruling provides a preview of what Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case about regulating carbon emissions, might mean for the future of environmental regulations in our country and for the fight against climate change.
In Mass v. EPA, a 5-4 majority ruled that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions from automobiles. However, the court did not say that the Agency must regulate emissions, instead allowing EPA to decide if and how to implement this authority. While the EPA has previously refused to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions (which is why the case was brought in the first place), the Agency's Environmental Appeals Board decided this week to deny a permit for a proposed coal-fired power plant in Utah, asserting that the plant must have a plan to limit carbon emissions before it can be built. The catch is that, since the EPA has not regulated CO2 emissions as a pollutant in the past, emissions reductions standards for coal-fired plants are unclear and outdated, where they exist at all. As these standards develop over the coming months, a broad reading of the EPA ruling effectively eliminates the possibility of new coal plants, the single largest CO2 emitter in the country.
The Sierra Club is claiming the EPA Board ruling as the green light for EPA to impose strong CO2 emissions regulations, especially when read alongside Mass v. EPA. Looking to the future, the case provides grounds for a more progressive Obama EPA to enforce stronger limitations for all emitters including both power plants and automobiles. These cases could prove to be a turning point for U.S. climate legislation enforcement, especially following the President-elect's most recent commitment to make climate change a priority for his administration.
However, this is only the beginning of what promises to be a prolonged debate over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA Appeals Board decision is under review, and its implications and exact relation to Mass v. EPA remain unclear. For the time being, the EPA is still debating whether CO2 emissions are a danger to the public health, the threshold for regulation under the Clean Air Act. In order to protect our environment and the public health, submit your comments supporting CO2 emissions regulations to the EPA before November 28. As we keep an eye on the courts, we can ensure that our laws are fairly and properly enforced, even as we attempt to unpack the meanings of these decisions.