How quickly they forget.
In a landmark decision regarding global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that likely will have significant impact on electricity generation facilities, on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 against Bush administration efforts to avoid regulating greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
In 1999, a group of 19 private organizations (including many environmental groups) petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide ("CO2"), under the mobile source provisions of the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"). EPA denied the petition and concluded that the CAA did not authorize the agency to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change issues and – even if it had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions – the agency stated it would be unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gas emissions and purported global climate change had not unequivocally been established.
These private organizations – joined by the State of Massachusetts and other state and local governments – appealed EPA’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the EPA’s decision to avoid regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
In a strong rebuke to the EPA, the sharply-divided Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases fall well within the CAA’s definition of air pollutants and held that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate emissions of such gases from new motor vehicles. The Court further held that EPA’s decision that it was unable to regulate greenhouse gases is contrary to the CAA. The Court stated that EPA’s ultimate decision to regulate greenhouse gases must relate to whether such gases cause or contribute to air pollution that might reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The Court stated that, under the clear terms of the CAA, EPA can avoid taking further action regarding greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if the agency provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether such gases do contribute to climate change. The Court found that EPA’s "laundry list" of reasons not to regulate had nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate change and, further, if the scientific uncertainty of that causal effect is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, EPA must state so affirmatively.
