Clean Air Act rulemaking by EPA
Overview: EPA and the Clean Air Act Rulemaking
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is a comprehensive federal law regulating air emissions from stationary and mobile sources to protect public health and the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency tasked with implementing and enforcing the Act.
Rulemaking under the CAA involves EPA setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and welfare (like ozone, particulate matter, lead, carbon monoxide, etc.), as well as rules for emissions from industrial sources, vehicles, and power plants.
Courts have played a major role in interpreting EPA’s rulemaking authority, procedural requirements, and the scope of the CAA. The following cases illustrate the major legal principles governing EPA’s CAA rulemaking.
Important Clean Air Act Cases Related to EPA Rulemaking
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) — Chevron Deference
Summary: This landmark Supreme Court case established the principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Details:
The Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate emissions of pollutants contributing to "air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
EPA interpreted certain terms flexibly to allow a "bubble concept" for plant-wide emission standards.
The Court held that if a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, courts should defer to the agency’s expertise.
Impact:
This case underpins most EPA rulemaking judicial reviews.
Courts generally uphold EPA rules if the statute is ambiguous and EPA’s interpretation is reasonable.
Sets a standard for Chevron deference: two-step test — 1) is statute ambiguous? 2) if yes, is agency’s interpretation reasonable?
2. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Summary: Supreme Court held that EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide if they endanger public health or welfare.
Details:
Petitioners (states) asked EPA to regulate GHGs under the CAA.
EPA argued it lacked authority and discretion not to regulate.
The Court ruled that GHGs fit within the Act’s broad definition of “air pollutants.”
EPA must regulate if pollutants endanger public health or welfare.
Impact:
This case compelled EPA to begin regulating GHGs under the CAA.
It expanded EPA’s regulatory authority to climate change.
It also established the importance of the “endangerment finding” under CAA Section 202.
3. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001)
Summary: The Supreme Court addressed whether EPA could consider cost when setting NAAQS.
Details:
EPA set standards for pollutants without considering cost.
Industry challenged, saying EPA must consider cost under the statute.
The Court held the statute unambiguously requires EPA to set standards based solely on protecting public health with an adequate margin of safety, ignoring cost.
Impact:
EPA’s discretion in setting NAAQS is limited to health-based factors, excluding economic costs.
Established that EPA cannot consider costs when establishing air quality standards, but cost can be considered in implementation.
4. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011)
Summary: The Supreme Court held that EPA’s regulation of GHGs under the CAA displaces federal common law nuisance claims related to emissions.
Details:
Several states and organizations sued power plants for their carbon emissions under federal common law.
The Court ruled that because EPA has authority to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA, the federal common law nuisance claims are displaced.
Impact:
Confirmed EPA as the primary federal regulator for air pollution including GHGs.
Limited the role of courts in directly regulating emissions through nuisance claims.
Reinforced EPA’s central role in CAA rulemaking.
5. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Summary: Supreme Court held that EPA must consider costs when deciding whether to regulate hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the CAA.
Details:
EPA issued a rule regulating hazardous air pollutants from power plants without considering costs.
The Court found that the statute requires EPA to consider costs at the initial decision to regulate.
Impact:
Clarified that cost considerations are required at certain stages of rulemaking, specifically for hazardous air pollutant standards.
Refined EPA’s obligations regarding cost-benefit analysis depending on the statutory provision.
6. Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA (2014)
Summary: Addressed EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions from stationary sources.
Details:
EPA sought to require permits for large stationary sources emitting GHGs under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
The Court upheld that EPA could regulate GHGs but ruled EPA cannot treat GHG emissions as a pollutant triggering PSD permitting for smaller sources.
Impact:
Limited EPA’s authority in applying PSD permitting thresholds based on GHG emissions alone.
Showed limits on EPA’s expansive interpretation of the CAA in regulating GHGs.
7. Train v. NRDC (1975)
Summary: Early Supreme Court case upholding EPA’s authority under the CAA to impose emission limits even if states fail to meet requirements.
Details:
EPA issued federal implementation plans (FIPs) after states failed to develop adequate plans.
The Court upheld EPA’s authority to impose FIPs to ensure compliance with national standards.
Impact:
Affirmed EPA’s authority to enforce the CAA through federal plans.
Reinforced EPA’s role as national enforcer, ensuring states meet air quality standards.
Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
Chevron deference guides judicial review of EPA rulemaking.
EPA must regulate pollutants that endanger public health or welfare (Massachusetts v. EPA).
EPA cannot consider costs in setting health-based standards (Whitman).
EPA must consider costs when regulating hazardous air pollutants (Michigan).
EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA is broad but limited (UARG, AEP).
EPA can step in when states fail to meet obligations (Train).
EPA’s regulatory actions under CAA generally preempt other legal claims (AEP).
RELATED Blog
0 comments