Supreme Court Ruling Creates More Standing Room in the Already Heated Global Greenhouse Gas Movement

Abstract

This article reviews the recent April 2, 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Massachusetts v. EPA, a highly important case regarding greenhouse gases. The case centered on the Court's review of EPA's denial of a petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The Court required EPA to reconsider its denial. The Court found that. 1) the petitioners have standing to challenge EPA's denial of their petition; 2) the Court has the authority to review the denial of the petition; and 3) the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. This article looks specifically at the Court's analysis of standing and jurisdiction by Justice Stevens, who wrote the Court's majority opinion, and two dissenting opinions by Justices Roberts and Scalia. Most interesting is how the closely divided Justices (5 to 4 decision) viewed, very differently, the issues regarding standing, the evidence that emissions from new motor vehicles are causing global warming and harm to Massachusetts, and the agency's judgment in denying the petition. Lastly, the article speculates on the impact of the decision and the current activities taking place at the state and regulated community level involving future regulation, litigation, and opportunities by various companies and coalitions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The article then presents five broad areas where companies that emit greenhouse gases should need to maintain or increase awareness to better position themselves in the global greenhouse gas movement. *CapAnalysis, LLC, is composed of multi-degreed senior consultants having backgrounds in environmental, economics, and accounting disciplines. John S. Wyckoff, Vice President of Environmental Consulting Services, and Mark McBride, Senior Manager, provide litigation support to attorneys and their clients in the area of environmental liabilities, and have over 45 years of combined experience in the environmental consulting field. Together they have written on various emerging environmental liabilities including asbestos, welding rods, and pharmaceutical and personal care products. Emily Coppedge, a senior consultant with an economics and statistics background, provides support for antitrust investigations involving mergers and acquisitions. The views expressed herein are the authors' and not necessarily those of CapAnalysis. For more information see www.capanalysis.com.