Supreme Court: EPA must address climate risk

The high court's 5-to-4 ruling Monday rejects the White House's view and hands environmentalists a major victory.

from the April 3, 2007 edition

Page 3 of 3

Page 1 | Page 2 | 3

When the agency refused, the group sued, charging that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take regulatory action. A sharply divided federal appeals court upheld the agency's refusal.

EPA argued that the Clean Air Act does not require the agency to take immediate action to regulate so-called greenhouse gases. EPA officials said they had discretion to decide when and how to respond to global environmental threats.

The high court disagreed. The EPA could not choose to wait for more certainty in the scientific community before trying to tackle the problem, Stevens writes.

The case is closely watched because it is seen as a test of the scope of agency discretion in contentious policy areas. It is also seen as a potential measure of judicial power over regulatory agencies.

Specifically at issue in Massachusetts v. US Environmental Protection Agency was whether EPA officials acted properly when they declined to issue national regulations limiting the release of four greenhouse gases from new automobile models. The gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons.

EPA officials said they lacked the power to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to reduce and control agents that cause "air pollution." But agency officials said greenhouse gases are not agents of air pollution.

•Wire material was used in this report.

1 | 2 | Page 3