Blogs - Blogs
Inhofe EPW Rapid Response: Supreme Court/Massachusetts v. EPA
February 9, 2011

Posted by Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov  

Inhofe EPW Rapid Response 

 Supreme Court/Massachusetts v. EPA

Release: Upton, Whitfield, Inhofe Unveil Energy Tax Prevention Act

EPW Minority Staff Releases Bush Administration Views on Endangerment

Link to Upton-Inhofe Section by Section Summary

Link to Upton-Inhofe Myth vs. Fact

CLAIM: The Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA forced EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

"Just to be clear, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, found that greenhouse gases are a pollutant.  They ordered EPA to make a determination as to whether...they said that EPA must make a determination as to whether or not greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.  And rather than ignore that obligation, I chose as Administrator, and I believe I had no choice, to follow the law."  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Hearing on the EPA's FY 2011 Budget, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 23, 2010.

FACT: The Supreme Court ruled that EPA possesses the discretion under the Clean Air Act to decide whether greenhouse gases from mobile sources "endanger public health and welfare." 

Here is what the Court wrote: "Under the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."

EPA had a choice, and it decided that greenhouse gases do endanger public health and welfare.  This was the wrong decision. 

###





Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832
Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176