Necessarily Hypocritical: The Legal Viability of EPA’s Regulation of Stationary Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA made clear that greenhouse gases fall within the realm of air pollutants the CAA was designed to regulate. The Court’s decision sparked a chain reaction forcing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under different provisions of the Act. The EPA’s decision to regulate drew fierce criticism, especially from industries that would be forced to reduce emissions. Opponents argued that greenhouse gases are not traditional pollutants and the drafters of the CAA did not intend them to be regulated. Furthermore, they argued that the EPA overstepped its authority in “tailoring” a new rule to incorporate greenhouse gases more appropriately into the CAA framework. In this Note, the author defends the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases, as well as its “tailoring rule.” The author argues that, in light of the CAA’s clear words and legislative intent, the EPA was not only legally justified in implementing its decision, but that it had no other choice.