UARG - NOT A CHEF D'OEUVRE OF OPINION WRITING

In his opinion for the Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG), Justice Antonin Scalia remarks that the Clean Air Act is not a chef d'oeuvre of statutory drafting. He is correct, as even the most casual reader of the Act will agree. But the same may be said of Justice Scalia's...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Harvard environmental law review : HELR 2015-01, Vol.39 (1), p.51-62
Main Author: Oren, Craig N
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clean Air Act-US
Environmental protection
Greenhouse gases
Justice
Prevention
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In his opinion for the Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG), Justice Antonin Scalia remarks that the Clean Air Act is not a chef d'oeuvre of statutory drafting. He is correct, as even the most casual reader of the Act will agree. But the same may be said of Justice Scalia's opinion as an example of statutory interpretation. The decision mischaracterizes the lower court opinion and includes dicta that disregard the words of the statute. Contrary to Justice Scalia's assertion that the decision gives the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) virtually all it wanted, his opinion threatens grave damage to important agency programs. Yet paradoxically, Justice Scalia arrives at the right result. This Essay demonstrates how this can be. In UARG, the Court first held that a stationary source's emissions of greenhouse gases may not be considered in deciding whether the source is a major emitting facility and thus must obtain a permit under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
ISSN:0147-8257