Supreme Court Rules EPA Can Regulate Auto Emissions

Posted on April 2, 2007

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Bush White House today by ruling that the EPA does have the authority to regulate auto emissions. The Bush administration has taken the illogical position that carbon emissions from cars don't qualify as "pollution" under the Clean Air Act. All one has to do is stand behind a running Humvee and breathe deeply for for five minutes to come to the conclusion that the emissions are, indeed, pollution.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Bush administration environmental officials to reconsider their refusal to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, giving a boost to advocates of stronger action against global warming. The justices, voting 5-4, today said the Environmental Protection Agency didn't follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act in 2003 when it opted not to order cuts in carbon emissions from new cars and trucks.
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The ruling doesn't necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new regulations. Still, it adds to growing pressure on the administration, which has resisted mandatory limits on carbon emissions. The decision is a setback for General Motors Corp. and other automakers and for utilities with coal-fired plants, including American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co.
Environmentalists and 12 states, including California and Massachusetts, are seeking to force the federal agency to limit emissions from new cars and trucks. New York is leading a separate state effort to curb power-plant emissions. The decision also bolsters efforts by California and other states to enact their own climate-change regulations. In challenging those rules, automakers have pointed to the EPA's conclusion that carbon dioxide isn't an "air pollutant" subject to federal and state regulation under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
The majority today rejected the agency's conclusion. "Greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant,'" Stevens wrote.

Not surprisingly, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito all dissented from Stevens' opinion. The court ruled on three questions:

--Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
--Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
--Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention that it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The ruling that the EPA does have the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions is the most significant part of the decision, which will have a major effect on the future of autos in the U.S. The EPA must explain why it is refusing to regulate those emissions, and in future it most likely will as pressure grows for it to step up to the plate on this issue.