Supreme Court ruling on EPA greenhouse gas regulations: so who really won?
On 23 June 2014, the Supreme Court issued a split decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA, striking down part of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule requiring pre-construction permits for large sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while upholding EPA’s authority to require inclusion of GHGs in pre-construction permits mandated for other pollutants. The mixed decision underscores the court’s view that EPA has authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA), including under other provisions, but it strongly warns EPA that it should not stray far from statutory limits on its authority when establishing broad-ranging programmes to address climate change. By so doing, the court’s opinion has allowed EPA, its supporters and foes to all claim victory.
In brief, following the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v EPA that EPA could consider GHGs as pollutants under the CAA, EPA determined in 2009 that GHGs endangered public health and set GHG tailpipe standards for cars and light trucks in 2010. Under EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the agency concluded such regulation automatically triggered regulation of GHGs from stationary sources under the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permit programme and Title V’s annual operating permit programme. However, the statutory threshold levels for regulations under PSD and Title V were so low (100–250 tons depending on the pollutant and programme) that EPA felt it had no other choice than to rewrite these threshold levels to avoid an ‘absurd result’ wherein virtually any substantial source of GHGs would be regulated…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Dentons briefing.
News from Dentons
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Dentons
Dentons highlights lessons that can be learned from the Humphrey case and provides advice for navigating the risks associated with internal investigations in China.
A recent MOL safety blitz has shown that many new small businesses violate basic legal requirements such as posting a copy of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The continent’s boom in natural resources and renewable energy is sparking an infrastructure drive
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.