Rulemaking for greenhouse gas emissions
Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Overview
What is Rulemaking?
Rulemaking is the process by which administrative agencies create, amend, or repeal regulations.
Under environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act (CAA), agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop rules to control pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs) like CO₂, methane, and others.
Rulemaking involves drafting proposed rules, public notice and comment, and finalizing the rule.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation Context
GHGs contribute to climate change and global warming.
Regulating GHGs poses scientific, technical, economic, and legal challenges.
The Supreme Court and lower courts have played critical roles in shaping agency authority and the scope of rulemaking under statutes like the CAA.
Key Case Law on GHG Rulemaking
1. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Facts: EPA initially refused to regulate GHGs as air pollutants under the CAA.
Issue: Does the EPA have authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA?
Holding: The Supreme Court held EPA does have authority to regulate GHGs as air pollutants if they endanger public health or welfare.
Significance: Landmark case confirming EPA’s regulatory authority over GHG emissions and requiring EPA to provide a reasoned explanation if it chooses not to regulate.
2. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)
Facts: EPA issued rules extending CAA permitting requirements to stationary sources based on GHG emissions.
Issue: Whether EPA overstepped statutory authority by requiring permits solely based on GHG emissions.
Holding: The Court upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs but limited permitting requirements to sources already regulated for other pollutants.
Significance: Clarified scope of EPA’s authority and limited expansive interpretations of the CAA.
3. Clean Air Act §111 Rulemaking (New Source Performance Standards for GHGs)
EPA used its rulemaking authority under CAA §111 to set New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) limiting GHG emissions from power plants.
Rulemaking involved extensive scientific and economic analyses.
Legal challenges often focus on whether EPA followed proper procedural steps and based rules on sound science.
Courts generally uphold rulemakings if EPA’s decisions are reasonable, supported by evidence, and follow APA procedural requirements.
4. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Facts: Challenge to EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule, which set emission reduction targets for power plants.
Issue: Whether EPA exceeded its statutory authority and violated separation of powers.
Holding: Supreme Court applied the “major questions doctrine”, ruling EPA overstepped by regulating beyond clear congressional authorization.
Significance: Signals courts may restrict broad agency rulemaking on major policy issues without explicit legislative mandate.
5. Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
Facts: Industry challenged EPA’s Endangerment Finding and Tailoring Rule for GHG emissions.
Issue: Whether EPA’s scientific basis and procedural compliance were adequate.
Holding: The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s rules, finding EPA complied with statutory and procedural requirements.
Significance: Supports deference to EPA’s scientific judgments and rulemaking under the CAA.
Summary: Rulemaking Challenges & Judicial Review
| Aspect | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Authority to regulate GHGs | EPA’s authority affirmed but scope limited | Massachusetts v. EPA; UARG |
| Procedural requirements | Agencies must follow APA notice and comment rules | Coalition for Responsible Regulation |
| Scientific basis | Courts defer to agency scientific expertise | Coalition for Responsible Regulation |
| Major questions doctrine | Limits agency power on significant policy without clear congressional authorization | West Virginia v. EPA |
| Economic impact & feasibility | Agencies must consider costs and technical feasibility | EPA’s NSPS Rulemakings |
Conclusion
Rulemaking for GHG emissions is a complex balance of statutory interpretation, scientific evidence, and policy considerations. Courts generally grant agencies deference when they act within their statutory authority, follow procedures, and base decisions on sound science. However, major questions doctrine is emerging as a judicial limit on agency power for large-scale regulatory actions on climate change.
RELATED Blog
0 comments