Tyler Soleau

February 8, 2009

Almost two years have passed since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. In Massachusetts v. EPA, Massachusetts and several other states challenged the EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gases emissions under the authority of the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouses gases under the Clean Air Act and the EPA must use that authority to determine whether greenhouses gases threaten public health. Furthermore, if the EPA reached an "endangerment finding," determining that greenhouses gases threaten public health, the agency is required to create new regulations addressing the sources of greenhouses gases.

Despite endorsing an "endangerment determination," in 2007, the EPA still hasn't taken any formal action to comply with the Court's mandate of the remand. Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator during 2007, defended the agency's inaction stating, "[a] decision to control GHG emissions from motor vehicles would impact other Clean Air Act programs with potentially far-reaching implications for many industrial sectors." Massachusetts and other petitioners responded arguing the D.C. Circuit "has the power to grant relief enforcing the terms of its mandates in cases that have been remanded directly to an administrative agency, including the power to compel an unreasonably delayed agency response to the court's mandate." These repeated requests for compliance failed to galvanize the EPA into taking action.

The current Administration's approach to environmental issues, specifically climate change, is markedly different than its predecessor. President Obama has pledged to address climate change and other environmental issues head on. On February 5, 2009, Massachusetts, seventeen states, and the Mayors of New York and Baltimore, sent a letter to the new EPA administrator urging the agency to "move without further delay" and comply with the Court's ruling by issuing an "endangerment finding" and creating new regulations addressing the health and environmental risks of greenhouse gases.

Lisa Jackson, the new Administrator for the EPA, responded positively to the letter saying, "[the] EPA is confident that people will be satisfied by how quickly and carefully the agency addresses this matter." Further bolstering the EPA's commitment to taking action, Jackson stated the EPA "will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court's decision recognizing EPA's obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act." Both the petitioners and other environmental groups have confidence that the EPA will finally take the necessary actions to begin to address climate change. David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel for the Sierra Club, captured the optimism stating, "We're in the era of cooperating with people who are actually trying to get something done." Hopefully the EPA will have created new regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions before the third anniversary of Massachusetts v. EPA.

Sources:

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

Attorney General Coakley and 17 States Urge the EPA to Act on Massachusetts v. EPA (Feb. 5, 2009), http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_02_05_mass_epa_letter&csid=Cago.

Peter Glaser, Will EPA be Forced to Issue a Climate Change Endangerment Finding?, Washington Legal Foundation (June 30, 2008), http://www.eponline.com/articles/64870/.

Martha Coakley et al., Massachusetts v. EPA Remand (Feb. 5, 2009), http://www.eenews.net/features/documents/2009/02/05/document_gw_01.pdf.

Darren Samuelsohn, States, Cities Press EPA for Response on Supreme Court Ruling, Greenwire (Feb. 5, 2009), http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/climate_digest/2009/02/05/24/.