Small Step

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate auto emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Naturally, all four of the Court’s conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) all offered dissenting opinions.

I posted about this last November after oral arguments were made before the Court by attorneys representing Massachusetts and 11 states who sued the EPA for its 2003 decision that carbon dioxide emissions are not subject to regulation by the Clean Air Act.

In this specific case, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that they (auto emissions, for example) constitute “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Also at issue is whether or not Massachusetts and the 11 other states have legal justification to challenge the EPA in court.

The Supreme Court held that the 12 states do have the right to sue the EPA. Based on the conclusion that auto emissions (and other greenhouse gases) are rightly considered “air pollutants,” the Court also held that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate auto emissions; the more subtle question was whether or not the Clean Act compels the EPA to do so. In response to the question of whether or not the EPA has the discretion not to regulate those emissions, the Court ordered the agency to reconsider its current laissez faire position.

While this is an important symbolic victory, I doubt that there will be any substantial policy changes for the duration of the current administration. However, a new and improved EPA as part of whatever Democratic administration wins in 2008 will be able to fall back on today’s decision to defend itself against criticism by industry leaders that the agency is overstepping its bounds by regulating greenhouse gases.