Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Supreme Court
573 U.S. 302 (2014)
The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g), defined air pollutants as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents . . . which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the United States Supreme Court determined that the CAA-wide definition of air pollutant included greenhouse gases because the definition was so broad. However, although the CAA-wide definition was broad, the EPA consistently interpreted the term “air pollutant” much more narrowly when required by the context. Specifically, the CAA contained a permitting program that required facilities to get permits if they emitted either 100 or 250 tons or more of air pollutants per year, depending on the type of pollutant. In the context of this permitting program, the EPA had traditionally applied the permitting requirements only to conventional air pollutants and not to greenhouse gases. In 2009, the EPA established regulations for greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA determined that these regulations automatically triggered the CAA permitting requirement for stationary sources that emitted greenhouse gases. However, the EPA recognized that so many facilities emit 250 tons or more per year of greenhouse gases that the permitting program would be unworkable if the CAA’s statutory threshold amounts applied to greenhouse-gas emissions. Thus, the EPA added a new threshold not found in the CAA, saying the CAA’s permitting program only applied if a facility emitted at least 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year. The EPA believed modifying the CAA threshold requirements was necessary to correctly implement the CAA. The EPA also interpreted the term pollutant in a way that meant facilities already subject to the permitting program (i.e., "anyway" sources) had to begin monitoring greenhouse-gas emissions, as well. The Utility Air Regulatory Group and others (plaintiffs) challenged the EPA’s determination that its greenhouse-gas emissions regulations automatically triggered the CAA’s permitting requirement. The court of appeals held that because of the Massachusetts holding that greenhouse gases were air pollutants under the CAA-wide definition, and because the CAA required permitting for all major sources of air pollutants, the CAA required permitting for all major sources that emitted greenhouse gases. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Alito, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.