Attention all manufacturers related to producing any type of vehicle, including marine crafts, cars, trucks, and aircraft, including fuel:
The NYU Law School's Institute for Policy Integrity has filed a legal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stating that the EPA is required to create a cap-and-trade system for all greenhouse gases (GHGs) from cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes.
"Section 211 of the Clean Air Act provides ample authority for EPA to institute a regulatory cap-and-trade system on the sale and manufacture of fuels used in vehicles. Not only is a cap-and-trade system a permissible regulatory option, but it is also a superior one. It is the most efficient and cost-justified policy solution to reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources, which is one of the largest (or the largest) contributor to U.S. GHG emissions."
(From the legal petition document)
According to the Institute, the EPA has it within their legal authority under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to develop and enforce this cap-and-trade regulation, and the petition asks the EPA to do so - using the justification that the GHG cap systems would be of the greatest benefit to both the economy and the environment.
The petition also argues that the EPA "cannot articulate a justifiable reason not to regulate", obligating EPA to follow through with the cap-and-trade system or else provide a sound reason why it cannot.
That previous point is an important part of the Institute's case, as a very similar petition was also filed in 2009, and the EPA was unable to identify a legal reason why it should not enforce a GHG cap-and-trade system from vehicles. By failing to meet its legal obligation to repsond in a timely manner to this type of petition and supply a valid justification, the EPA has left itself vulnerable to a lawsuit from the Institute.
The Petition's End Goals
The legal petition ends with five clear outcomes that the Institute expects based on its policy analysis:
"(1) Make a finding under Section 211 that greenhouse gas emissions from fuels used in
motor and nonroad vehicles and engines cause or contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare;
(2) Propose a cap‐and‐trade system with an auction mechanism to control greenhouse
gas emissions from fuels used in mobile sources under the authority of Section 211;
(3) Make a finding under Section 231 that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft
engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public welfare;
(4) Propose a joint rulemaking with the Federal Aviation Administration to incorporate
fuels used in aircraft into the cap‐and‐trade system under Section 211; and
(5) Finalize regulations on both proposals within 90 days of the issuance of such
What This Means for Business
At the moment, the EPA has not responded to the petition, although that is expected to change in the near future.
According to the Institute's findings, the EPA will eventually be required to list greenhouse gases as a "regulated pollutant" under the New Source Review program. And that will mean that major sources of GHGs will be required to install Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) for their GHG emisssion sources.
It also means that new facilities being built may end up being considered a "major source" due to their GHG emissions, even if the emit a low quantity of other Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
Read the Institute for Policy Integrity's legal petition online here.
Read the Institute for Policy Integrity's legal background fact sheet online here.
Other Articles About Greenhouse Gas Management from the ERA Archive:
- Demystifying Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e)
- EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting to Remain Focused on Larger Emitters
- EPA Greenhouse Gas Standards Proceed with Support of Courts
- What the EPA's New GHG Emissions Report Means For You
December 7, 2012