(Submitted by VBEG Member Tim O’Brien of Relevant Ideas)
Monumental changes in how energy will be generated in the United States have begun. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Massachusetts et al by finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, among other gases, in the transportation sector.
The State of Massachusetts, eleven other states, and several local governments and non-governmental organizations filed the case, Massachusetts vs. the Environmental Protection Agency. The petitioners sued the EPA for not regulating the emissions of four greenhouse gases, which included carbon dioxide in the transportation sector under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act states in Section 202(a)(1) Title 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), “The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The petitioners claimed that global climate change was causing adverse effects to the state of Massachusetts, including sea-level rise caused by global warming.
The EPA argued that petitioners could not prove “standing” (locus standi) in this case. In order to participate in a case of this type a party must be able to demonstrate to the court that there is sufficient connection “to and harm” or standing from the action challenged. Simply stated, the petitioner must have something to lose in order to sue the other party. The Court ruled that petitioners did in fact have standing in challenging the EPA’s decision not to regulate greenhouse gases from the transportation sector.
The Court found that refusal to regulate carbon dioxide by the EPA led to “actual” and “imminent” harm to the state. Further, the ruling pointed out that “the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized.” Finally, the Court acknowledged that the regulation of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles alone will not reverse global warming, it concluded that proper regulation could play a role in slowing or reducing warming.
This court decision has important and significant climate change policy implications for both short-and-long term, public policy decisions in the future. In the current political and legislative climate, this ruling opens the door to vast regulation of greenhouse gases. Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said that he would like to pass a climate-change bill by the end of the summer 2009. Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California), said he would like to see legislation enacted May.
The President has called for a new economy, one based in “green energy” in the United States. In the unlikely event that the legislative approach fails, the Executive Branch could enforce new restrictions under the Clean Air Act. Either way, there is a fair amount of certainty that this Supreme Court ruling will serve as a call for comprehensive emissions legislation in the near future. Due to its biomass resources, which can provide a baseload energy substitute for coal where wind and solar cannot, Virginia is uniquely positioned to capitalize as a result of this one court decision.
