Court upholds EPA rules on climate pollution

In a major victory for clean air, a federal appeals court in June 2012 upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s first nationwide protections limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles and large new industrial sources. The decision deals a decisive blow to companies and states that have fought for years to delay steps to address climate change.

“This ruling confirms that EPA’s common sense solutions to address climate pollution are firmly anchored in science and law,” said EDF president Fred Krupp. “This landmark decision will help secure a healthier and more prosperous future for all Americans.”

The U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed an array of lawsuits from industry groups and states such as Texas and Virginia that would have undermined vital clean air protections.

“This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

D.C. Court of Appeals panel

The science-based foundation for EPA’s emission limits on climate pollution was the so-called Endangerment Finding, in which EPA determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions constitute a danger to public health and could thus be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The court upheld three related regulations as well:

• Clean Car Standards, which is aimed at significantly reducing greenhouse gases from cars and light trucks while improving fuel efficiency.
• The Timing Rule, which addresses the timetable for large new industrial sources to deploy best-available cost-effective pollution controls for greenhouse gases.
• The Tailoring Rule, which focuses the requirement to implement the best-available controls on new, large industrial emitters (like power plants) first while shielding smaller emitters.

In a unanimous opinion, the three-member panel of the appeals court, led by Chief Judge David Sentelle (a Reagan appointee), found that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act provisions in question was “unambiguously correct” and that the agency had based its case on careful research and sound science.

“This is how science works,” the court wrote. “EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

How EDF was involved

EDF has been involved in this effort for a long time. EPA's actions to regulate greenhouse gases are the result of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA. The court held that these gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Numerous states and environmental groups, including EDF, worked together in taking this case to the high court.

Also, a coalition of allied parties, including EDF, took legal action to compel EPA to carry out its responsibilities under the Supreme Court’s decision.

EPA published its Endangerment Finding in 2009. Since then, EDF and allies have called for EPA to protect human health and the environment from climate pollution and worked to defend the agency’s protective solutions in court.