Court Fails to Decide EPA
Authority to Regulate Global Warming Pollution; Split Decision Poses No Obstacle
to California Vehicle Emissions Standards
July 15, 2005 — By Natural Resources Defense Council
WASHINGTON, DC — Today, a fractured three judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals here failed to resolve the question of whether the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority and responsibility to regulate the
pollutants that cause global warming.
Issuing three conflicting opinions, the court by a 2-1 vote denied petitions
from 12 states, three cities and more than a dozen environmental groups,
including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who challenged the EPA's
2003 refusal to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other global warming pollution
from U.S. cars and trucks.
The decision will have no effect on the authority of states, such as California,
to continue regulating global warming pollution from vehicles or power plants.
"Only one of the three judges addressed the central question in the case, and he
ruled the Clean Air Act empowers EPA to curb the pollution that causes global
warming," said David Doniger, senior attorney and policy director of NRDC's
Climate Center. "This splintered court decision provides little cover for the
administration's continuing refusal to take action against the growing dangers
of global warming."
Two judges did not even address the central question of whether carbon dioxide
and other global warming emissions are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act
and whether EPA has the authority to regulate them.
The only judge who wrote on the question of authority, David Tatel, rejected the
agency's claim, finding that greenhouse gases "plainly fall within the meaning
of 'air pollutant'" and that the Clean Air Act expressly includes effects on
"climate."
After reviewing a 2001 National Academy Sciences report on which EPA relied,
Judge Tatel said: "I have grave difficulty seeing how EPA … could possibly fail
to conclude that global warming 'may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.' Judge Tatel concluded that "EPA has authority --
indeed the obligation -- to regulate their emission from motor vehicles."
Judges Randolph and Sentelle side-stepped the question of EPA's authority.
Judge Randolph wrote that he would defer to various EPA "policy" reasons for not
acting: e.g., that new motor vehicles are only one source of global warming
emissions; that unilateral U.S. action might deter other countries from acting;
and that further research and voluntary action were appropriate responses for
now.
Judge Sentelle concluded that the petitioning states, cities, and environmental
organizations lack "standing" to sue over global warming pollution. Global
warming, he wrote, "is harmful to humanity at large," and that no one may sue in
these circumstances. Sentelle joined Randolph in the result, but not the
reasoning.
Judge Randolph did not join Sentelle's position on standing. Judge Tatel
rejected it outright, holding that Massachusetts' loss of coastline clearly
meets standing requirements.
Petitioners are likely to seek re-hearing before the full 11-member U.S. Court
of Appeals or to seek review by the Supreme Court.
Petition filers included Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington, the District of Columbia, Baltimore and New York City. Environmental
petitioners included the Natural Resources Defense Council and 13 other public
interest groups.
About the Natural Resources Defense Council
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of
scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public
health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million
members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York,
Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Visit us on the web at
http://www.nrdc.org .
Press contact:
Nicole St. Clair
(202) 289-2404 or (202) 270-5125
If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at
nrdcinfo@nrdc.org