Judicial review of carbon trading programs
1. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. Supreme Court)
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary:
Although this case did not directly involve a carbon trading scheme, it laid the groundwork for regulating greenhouse gases in the U.S. and eventually led to the creation of market-based programs.
Issues:
The petitioners (including Massachusetts and other states) sued the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
Ruling:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that:
Greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA has the authority and obligation to regulate them if they are found to endanger public health or welfare.
States had standing to sue due to climate change–related harms (e.g., sea-level rise in Massachusetts).
Relevance to Carbon Trading:
This case provided the legal basis for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and state-level carbon markets like California’s Cap-and-Trade Program.
2. California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2017), 10 Cal.App.5th 604
Jurisdiction: California Court of Appeal
Summary:
The California Chamber of Commerce and others challenged the legality of California’s Cap-and-Trade program, alleging it constituted an illegal tax under Proposition 13 because it lacked the required two-thirds legislative vote.
Issues:
Was the auctioning of emission allowances a “tax”?
Did the legislature have the authority to implement such a program?
Ruling:
The Court upheld the program:
It held that the cap-and-trade program was not a tax but a regulatory fee, because businesses could choose whether or not to participate (they could reduce emissions instead).
The program was designed to reduce GHG emissions rather than raise revenue.
Relevance:
This case upheld the legality of one of the world’s most ambitious carbon trading markets and clarified the distinction between a regulatory fee and a tax in environmental programs.
3. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), 573 U.S. 302
Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
Summary:
This case reviewed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act in the context of permits required for large stationary sources.
Issues:
Whether the EPA could require permits for GHG emissions from sources that would not otherwise be subject to such regulation.
Whether EPA overstepped its statutory authority by modifying thresholds for emissions.
Ruling:
The Court partially struck down the EPA’s regulatory approach:
Held that EPA could not rewrite the statutory thresholds to expand its permitting authority.
However, upheld EPA’s authority to require best available control technology (BACT) for GHG emissions from sources already subject to permitting for other pollutants.
Relevance:
While not directly about carbon trading, it constrained regulatory overreach and highlighted the legal limits in designing market-based mechanisms under existing statutes.
4. Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board (2012), 206 Cal.App.4th 1487
Jurisdiction: California Court of Appeal
Summary:
Environmental justice groups challenged CARB’s implementation of the cap-and-trade program, claiming the environmental review under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) was inadequate.
Issues:
Whether CARB sufficiently analyzed alternatives to cap-and-trade (like direct regulation).
Whether the environmental review under CEQA was legally sufficient.
Ruling:
The Court found that while CARB’s initial CEQA analysis was incomplete, the agency corrected the deficiencies and the revised program was upheld.
Relevance:
This case highlighted the importance of procedural compliance (like environmental reviews) in implementing carbon markets. It also underlined concerns from environmental justice groups that cap-and-trade may not reduce emissions equally across communities.
5. La. Public Service Commission v. FERC (2020), 924 F.3d 601
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Summary:
This case did not directly address carbon markets but involved indirect judicial scrutiny of emissions trading via electricity regulation.
Issues:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a regional transmission organization plan that included pricing mechanisms for carbon costs in interstate electricity markets.
Ruling:
The court upheld FERC’s authority to consider carbon pricing as part of its market design authority.
Relevance:
This supports the integration of carbon pricing (including trading programs) into broader energy regulation and markets, affirming regulatory flexibility.
6. Sandbag v. European Commission (2013), General Court of the European Union (T-544/11)
Jurisdiction: European Union
Summary:
Sandbag, a climate NGO, challenged the European Commission's allocation of free carbon allowances to industrial plants under Phase III of the EU ETS (Emissions Trading System).
Issues:
Whether the allocation methodology violated the principle of proportionality and fairness.
Whether it led to windfall profits for industries.
Ruling:
The Court dismissed the case, holding that the Commission acted within its margin of discretion and had properly followed the directive's requirements.
Relevance:
This case reinforced the EU’s authority to allocate carbon allowances and highlighted how judicial review can ensure the fairness and transparency of market-based environmental mechanisms.
7. ClientEarth v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (UK, 2016 & 2019)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom High Court & Court of Appeal
Summary:
ClientEarth brought several lawsuits against the UK government for failing to comply with its climate obligations and insufficient implementation of air quality plans.
Issues:
Whether the government’s carbon and air quality policies met its statutory and international obligations.
Whether the government failed to consider better mechanisms like stronger carbon pricing or trading rules.
Ruling:
In multiple rulings, the courts sided with ClientEarth, declaring that the UK government’s policies were inadequate and unlawful.
Relevance:
These rulings indirectly impact carbon trading programs by enforcing government accountability on emissions reduction strategies, which may include or rely on trading systems.
Conclusion
Judicial review of carbon trading programs serves a vital role in:
Ensuring statutory and constitutional compliance of carbon markets.
Protecting environmental justice and public participation.
Clarifying regulatory authority of agencies like the EPA, CARB, or the European Commission.
Guiding the design and implementation of trading programs within legal boundaries.
These cases demonstrate that while courts generally uphold well-structured carbon trading schemes, they closely scrutinize issues like environmental impacts, legal authority, transparency, and fairness. Courts have become important arbiters in the evolution of climate governance through market-based mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments