Climate Change Attorney Blog
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision this week rejecting a challenge to a series of EPA reguations aimed at curtailing GHG emissions from both vehicles and stationary sources. In Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court summarized its decision as follows:
“Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)-which clarified that greenhouse gases are an “air pollutant” subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA)-the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated a series of greenhouse gas-related rules. First, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it determined that greenhouse gases may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” See 42 U.S.C. ยง 7521(a)(1). Next, it issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light trucks. Finally, EPA determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits. But because immediate regulation of all such sources would result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring Rules, in which it determined that only the largest stationary sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.
Petitioners, various states and industry groups, challenge all these rules, arguing that they are based on improper constructions of the CAA and are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. But for the reasons set forth below, we conclude: 1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither arbitrary nor capricious; 2) EPA’s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and 3) no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the remainder of the petitions.”
In addressing the claim by the Plaintiffs that the EPA’s Endangerment Finding relative to GHG’s has uncertainties as to cause and effect, the Court discussed the nature of such findings and regulations noting:
“Rather, they contend that the record evidences too much uncertainty to support that judgment. But the existence of some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation of an endangerment finding. If a statute is “precautionary in nature” and “designed to protect the public health,” and the relevant evidence is “difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge,” EPA need not provide “rigorous step-by-step proof of cause and effect” to support an endangerment finding. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1976). As we have stated before, “Awaiting certainty will often allow for only reactive, not preventive, regulation.”‘
The Court then conducted a detailed analysis of the arguments against the suject regulations, rejecting all of the challenges.