49 N.E.3d 1124
Mass.2016Background
- The Global Warming Solutions Act (St. 2008, c. 298) required the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (department) to promulgate regulations by Jan 1, 2012 (effective Jan 1, 2013) under G. L. c. 21N, § 3(d), establishing "desired level of declining annual aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that emit greenhouse gas emissions."
- The department missed the statutory deadline; in Nov. 2012 residents petitioned for rulemaking. The department held a hearing (June 13, 2013) and then concluded it had complied by relying on existing/modified programs.
- The department pointed to three regulatory programs as satisfying § 3(d): (1) sulfur hexafluoride leakage regulations (rate-based decreasing leakage percentages), (2) the RGGI-based carbon dioxide budget trading program (regional cap-and-trade with declining regional cap and auction/allowance trading), and (3) the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program (fleet-average standards modeled on California rules).
- Plaintiffs sued in Superior Court seeking declaratory relief (or mandamus) that § 3(d) requires the department to promulgate source- or category-based, annual, declining, mass-based emission limits expressed in CO2 equivalents; cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings followed.
- The Superior Court found the department had substantially complied; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed de novo whether § 3(d)'s language requires actual volumetric (mass-based) annual declining caps for multiple sources/categories and whether the three programs meet that requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3(d) require regulations that establish binding, mass‑based emission limits (expressed in CO2 equivalents) rather than aspirational targets? | § 3(d) requires binding volumetric caps ("emission limits" = statutorily defined "greenhouse gas emissions limit"). | "Desired level" allows aspirational or nonbinding targets; regulations cited are sufficient. | Held: § 3(d) requires binding, volumetric (mass‑based) limits in CO2 equivalents. |
| Must the department regulate multiple sources or categories rather than a single source/category? | Legislature used plural terms; § 3(d) requires regulations addressing multiple sources/categories. | Department argued source‑specific regulation could suffice. | Held: Plural language and statutory purpose require regulation of multiple sources/categories. |
| Do limits have to be annual, aggregate, and declining over time? | Yes: statute says "declining annual aggregate emission limits"—annual, aggregate mass limits that decline year-to-year. | Department read "aggregate" or "desired" less strictly to permit rate-based or regional programs. | Held: Limits must be annual, aggregate (mass-based per regulated group), and demonstrably declining each year. |
| Do the department's cited programs (sulfur hexafluoride regs, RGGI, LEV) satisfy § 3(d)? | Plaintiffs: No—these are rate‑based, regional, or fleet‑average schemes that do not guarantee Commonwealth mass‑based, annually declining caps per regulated group. | Department: These programs already produce reductions and substantially comply; amendments suffice. | Held: None of the three satisfies § 3(d): sulfur hexafluoride and LEV are rate‑based (not mass caps); RGGI is regional/auctioned so cannot guarantee Massachusetts‑specific mass declines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sliney v. Previte, 473 Mass. 283 (reciting standard for treating pleadings as true on Rule 12(c))
- Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders v. Attorney Gen., 436 Mass. 132 (justiciability of statutory interpretation for declaratory relief)
- Providence & Worcester R.R. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 453 Mass. 135 (statutory words given their ordinary meaning)
- Biogen IDEC MA, Inc. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 454 Mass. 174 (ambiguity supporting multiple interpretations and resort to purpose/history)
- Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. v. Department of Envt'l Protection, 459 Mass. 319 (use of legislative history and purpose in statutory interpretation)