Clean Air Act and Administrative Law
Two weeks of a full clean air act immersion, through which we explored agencies and administrative law. Although we already forayed into EPA administration of waste laws, we did not look closely at the agency role in promulgating regulations. Previously, we just did a cursory view of EPA’s role in regulations. Maybe if I were doing it over again, I would switch that up and dive into explaining the behind the scenes of agencies first. It is tough, because do you explain the statutory law first, the content of the law, and then do the mechanics of how it works, or do you do the how and then the what?
I would love to get some feedback from the students on the flow of coursework, but maybe this is just like what I tell students- there are no wrong answers. I am sure multiple paths lead to a successful learning experience.
Anyways, we combined administrative law with the clean air act. We started each class with a short lecture on how the CAA works. First class centered the health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) through the NRDC v. Train case. NRDC v. Train forced the EPA to set standards for lead because the EPA found lead caused adverse health effects when promulgating rules for leaded gasoline. The students really struggled to understand the case, and Jared had to walk them through all the procedure and all the issues slowly and carefully.
Some major points that I wanted to point out to them was the ability for citizens to sue under section 304, and what the CAA allows for agency discretion, and when the CAA forces the EPA to act. We hammered those points in the next few classes, so I hope it stuck for their midterm.
After NRDC v. Train forced the EPA to promulgate NAAQS for lead, we covered Lead Industries v. EPA and the rulemaking process. Lead Industries took the next step after NRDC v. Train, showing the EPA’s process in setting standards for lead in the wake of Court's order and the industries opposition to new rules. Here, we talked about what agencies consider in setting rules, and the grounds on which people can challenge those rules. Students had an easier time with this case and did a good job keeping up with the material.
Next, we covered Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) and discussed petition for rulemaking. We used the case American Paper Association v. EPA to demonstrate how citizens can ask the EPA to act, and what the EPA must do in response.
We finished with Massachusetts v. EPA, where multiple states petitioned the EPA to regulate Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and how the EPA tried its best to not get involved with climate change. It was such a seminal case in climate action, and we used that to segue into other climate actions, and bring it back home to my bread and butter; common law. We took a looser approach to this class and discussed broadly the trends of the law. The transition to climate suits set us up nicely to talk about constitutional “green amendments” and the Juliana case next class.
The midterm is about the CAA, which I will discuss what goes into that next time!
