{
  "id": "RS22665",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS22665",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 452634,
      "date": "2016-04-29",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:15:21.535941",
      "title": "The Supreme Court\u2019s First Climate Change Decision: Massachusetts v. EPA",
      "summary": "In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, its first pronouncement on climate change and a singularly important environmental law decision. This report reviews that decision, but leaves coverage of the many EPA actions based on the decision to other CRS reports.\nMassachusetts v. EPA was a case brought to challenge EPA\u2019s denial of a petition asking the agency to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act (CAA). By a vote of 5-4, the Court held first that Massachusetts had standing to sue, an issue that took up most of the majority opinion. On the merits, the Court found that the CAA definition of \u201cair pollutant\u201d was unambiguously broad enough to include GHGs. That being so, the Court held, CAA Section 202 authorizes EPA to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles on the basis of their possible climate change impacts. Finally, the Court determined that the phrase \u201cin [the Administrator\u2019s] judgment\u201d in Section 202 did not authorize EPA to inject policy considerations into its decision whether to so regulate. For these reasons, the Court reversed the lower court decision upholding the petition denial.\nThe Court\u2019s decision left EPA with three options for responding to the petition: (1) find that new motor vehicle GHG emissions may \u201cendanger public health or welfare,\u201d the prerequisite to limiting them under Section 202, then issue emission standards; (2) find that they do not satisfy that prerequisite, or (3) decide that climate change science is so uncertain as to preclude making either finding (1) or (2). Given the state of climate change science by 2007, it was widely believed at the time that option (1) was the only legally defensible one for EPA. This is the option that EPA took, starting with an \u201cendangerment finding\u201d issued in 2009.\nSince 2007, the finding of standing in Massachusetts generally has not proved helpful to non-state plaintiffs in climate change litigation, leaving intact this considerable threshold hurdle for climate change plaintiffs. In addition, the Massachusetts holding was used, in part, by a 2011 Supreme Court decision to bar federal common law claims against entities based on their contribution to climate change. On the other hand, Massachusetts has been applied by EPA to support regulations not only of motor vehicles but also of stationary sources of GHG emissions. In particular, Massachusetts helped bring about a 2010 litigation settlement that committed EPA to restricting GHG emissions from certain stationary sources of emissions under Section 111 of the CAA. EPA issued two rules based in part on this settlement: New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs) for GHG emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed fossil fuel fired power plants, and emission guidelines (known as the \u201cClean Power Plan\u201d) for GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel fired power plants. Both rules are being challenged in litigation, and the Clean Power Plan was stayed by the Supreme Court in February 2016, as discussed in other CRS reports. \nThe Massachusetts decision remains judicially unquestioned. Its holding that the CAA authorizes EPA to regulate GHG emissions remains the governing law, barring Supreme Court reversal or congressional amendment of the CAA.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22665",
          "sha1": "a54455e083f4c03ffbbc20622d97c47d169c9547",
          "filename": "files/20160429_RS22665_a54455e083f4c03ffbbc20622d97c47d169c9547.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22665",
          "sha1": "f2ad64f13366c7a455cca0840e082761c042d5fb",
          "filename": "files/20160429_RS22665_f2ad64f13366c7a455cca0840e082761c042d5fb.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3878,
          "name": "Climate Change Science, Technology, and Policy"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 428793,
      "date": "2014-03-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:36:14.754207",
      "title": "The Supreme Court\u2019s First Climate Change Decision: Massachusetts v. EPA",
      "summary": "In 2007, the Supreme Court handed down Massachusetts v. EPA, its first pronouncement on climate change and arguably the most important environmental law decision of the past decade. This report reviews that decision, but leaves coverage of the many EPA actions based on the decision to other CRS reports.\nMassachusetts v. EPA was a case brought to challenge EPA\u2019s denial of a petition asking the agency to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act (CAA). By 5-4, the Court held first that Massachusetts had standing to sue, an issue that took up most of the majority opinion. On the merits, the Court found that the CAA definition of \u201cair pollutant\u201d was broad enough to include GHGs. That being so, the Court held, CAA Section 202 authorizes EPA to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles on the basis of their possible climate change impacts. Finally, the Court determined that the phrase \u201cin his judgment\u201d in Section 202 did not authorize EPA to inject policy considerations into its decision whether to so regulate. For these reasons, the Court reversed the lower court decision upholding the petition denial.\nThe Court\u2019s decision left EPA with three options for responding to the petition: (1) find that new motor vehicle GHG emissions may \u201cendanger public health or welfare,\u201d the prerequisite to limiting them under Section 202, then issue emission standards; (2) find that they do not satisfy that prerequisite, or (3) decide that climate change science is so uncertain as to preclude making either finding (1) or (2). Given the state of climate change science by 2007, it was widely believed at the time that option (1) was the only legally defensible one for EPA. This is the option that EPA took, as covered in other CRS reports.\nA few legal comments may be made about the Massachusetts v. EPA decision from the vantage point of 2013. At the outset, the finding of standing in Massachusetts has not proved helpful to non-state plaintiffs in climate change litigation, leaving intact this considerable threshold hurdle for climate change plaintiffs. In addition, the Massachusetts holding was used by a 2011 Supreme Court decision to bar federal common law claims against entities based on their contribution to climate change. On the other hand, Massachusetts helped bring about a 2010 litigation settlement that committed EPA to restricting GHG emissions from certain stationary sources of emissions, which it has now set about doing.\nNow six years old, the Massachusetts decision remains judicially unquestioned. Its holding that the CAA authorizes EPA to regulate GHG emissions remains the governing law, barring Supreme Court reversal or congressional amendment of the CAA. Quite recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear its third climate change case, but limited argument to a narrow issue, making it very unlikely the Court will disturb Massachusetts.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22665",
          "sha1": "9d1c026180c08fe97cd3b7020ff5c92134ce61e8",
          "filename": "files/20140310_RS22665_9d1c026180c08fe97cd3b7020ff5c92134ce61e8.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22665",
          "sha1": "c825a3589a61fc3d43c80972b7597deb076360c8",
          "filename": "files/20140310_RS22665_c825a3589a61fc3d43c80972b7597deb076360c8.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3878,
          "name": "Climate Change Science, Technology, and Policy"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808149/",
      "id": "RS22665_2007May18",
      "date": "2007-05-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "The Supreme Court\u2019s Climate Change Decision: Massachusetts v. EPA",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20070518_RS22665_d3cbb88341f64139f75d52d75f0ee3740435f1e3.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20070518_RS22665_d3cbb88341f64139f75d52d75f0ee3740435f1e3.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}