We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 547 U.S. 497 (2007), the
Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases ("GHG") were
"pollutants" under the Clean Air Act
("CAA"). The Court directed the Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") to decide whether GHG emissions
could "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare" so as to trigger an obligation under the CAA to set
motor vehicle emission standards for them.
In response, the EPA (1) found that such
"endangerment" exists; (2) set motor vehicle emissions
standards for GHGs; (3) reaffirmed its long-standing position that
when a pollutant becomes regulated under the CAA, new and modified
sources of that pollutant must get a "new source review"
("NSR") permit before construction starts; and (4)
dramatically raised by regulation the statutorily mandated emission
thresholds at which NSR applies, arguing that without this
adjustment NSR permitting for GHGs would produce a vast workload
increase that would be unrealistically expensive and
administratively unworkable.
On June 26, 2012, in the case of Coalition for Responsible
Regulation v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit, which hears most CAA cases, upheld the EPA in all
respects. The court found that (1) the EPA's
"endangerment" finding was fully supported by the record;
(2) the motor vehicle emissions standards were within the EPA's
authority; (3) the EPA's legal position on NSR applicability
was "unambiguously correct," rejecting several
alternative interpretations put forward by industry; and (4) no
litigants had standing to challenge the EPA's upward adjustment
of the NSR thresholds, since this adjustment did not harm any of
them.
The importance of this decision lies in its complete and
strongly worded endorsement of the EPA's approach to this very
controversial issue.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
