Kyle Richard Prof. Marijoan Bull Legal Issues in Planning and Zoning 10/22/12 1. Massachusetts v.

Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 2. Procedural History: The Suit was filed against the Environmental Protection Agency in regards to their failure to set standards on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses and designate them as air pollutants. The principle for this is the responsibility of the Administrator of the EPA under the Clean Air Act to set regulations for any air pollutants that are produced from automotive activity. The EPA responded by saying that they do not hold the authority to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change and to do so at the time would be unwise given that the relationship between the wellbeing of the atmosphere and greenhouse gases had not been firmly established. A petition was brought before the D.C. circuit court and the decision was made that the EPA was just in using their discretion to deny the rulemaking petition. The D.C. Circuit decided to reject the suit and exclaimed that the EPA had done the right thing in exercising their discretion in establishing regulations for CO2 emissions at the time. 3. Legal Issue: The legal issue here is whether or not carbon dioxide is to be considered a legitimate threat to the air as defined by the CAA but more importantly if those who were filing the petition against the EPA had direct standing in the matter. 4. Facts of the Case: 1. Petition filed by Mass and party ordering the issuing of regulation on behalf of EPA 2. Petitioner argues that It is their responsibility in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) 3. EPA argues that they are not at liberty to issue such regulations due to the vague relationship between CO2 emissions and the atmosphere. 4. Case brought before D.C. Circuit Court who rule in favor of EPA stating that they were just in using there discretion in making a decision. 5. Court Case appealed before U.S. Supreme court and holding was reversed due to the fact that Mass. and party held standing in regards to the effects of CO2 degrading the environmental quality of all parties afflicted. 5. Arguments: The argument of the petitioners is that the definition of an air pollutant is so broad that carbon dioxide must be inclusive in the category and that for the administrator of the EPA to not issue regulations defining the gas as such is a direct violation of the Clean Air Act. The argument of those in opposition of the petitioners is that the basis on which the relationship between the deterioration of atmospheric conditions and the expulsion of CO2 from the operation of automobiles is so vague that for the EPA to pass definite legislation defining it as a GHG would be premature, an authority that the plaintiffs believe is beyond the reach and jurisdiction of the EPA.

6. Holding: The court found that the petitioners in the case had standing due to the fact that because the EPA had not enacted regulation for the emission of greenhouse gases, the state of Massachusetts had been effected negatively from an environmental standpoint, mainly in the case of rising tidal waters along the coast of the state. It was also held that the EPA must provide guidelines for emissions regulation in accordance with their responsibilities as outlines in the Cold Air Act and that their current rational for not administering the regulation was inadequate and presented a reasonable bias on behalf of the association.