Also known as:emissions · emit · emitted · emitting
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
1
A discharge or release of a substance or energy from a source.
2
The formal issuance of bills of credit or other currency instruments by a governmental authority.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sense 1
1
Sense 1
A discharge or release of a substance or energy from a source.
See Our Sources· 1 primary source
Constitution
Examples5
EPA Vehicle Emissions Rule
Massachusetts petitions for review after the EPA denies a rulemaking petition seeking limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The Court holds that the Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate such emissions and that Massachusetts has standing to challenge the denial.
Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.549 U.S. 497, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 167 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2007)
In October 1999, nineteen private organizations filed a rulemaking petition with the EPA requesting regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. The petition asserted that carbon dioxide and other gases were heat-trapping greenhouse gases that had accelerated climate change, with carbon dioxide as the most important contributor according to the IPCC's 1995 report. The EPA received more than fifty thousand comments after requesting public input in 2001. A National Research Council report from 2001, prepared at the White House's request, stated that greenhouse gases from human activities were causing surface air temperatures to rise.
On September 8, 2003, the EPA denied the petition on two grounds: the Clean Air Act did not authorize regulation of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, and even assuming authority, the agency would not regulate due to scientific uncertainty about causation and concerns that regulation would conflict with the President's comprehensive approach involving voluntary programs and international negotiations. The denial order referenced Congress's decision in 1990 not to enact binding emissions limitations and the political history of climate change issues.
Petitioners including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other states and private organizations then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit denied the petition for review in 2005. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2006 to address the issues raised by the denial.
Massachusetts submitted affidavits showing that global sea levels rose 10 to 20 centimeters over the 20th century, already causing loss of coastal land owned by the Commonwealth, with projections of further inundation by 2100. The United States transportation sector alone emitted more than 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1999, accounting for over 6 percent of worldwide emissions.
5 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What must a plaintiff show to establish standing in a suit challenging EPA emission regulations?
A state plaintiff must demonstrate concrete injury from the emissions, causation traceable to the agency's failure to regulate, and redressability through a favorable judicial order. Massachusetts satisfied these elements by showing harm to its coastal property from rising sea levels linked to unregulated greenhouse gases.
Supporting sources
When does a temporary regulatory restriction on land use become a compensable taking?
A temporary restriction that denies all economically viable use of property constitutes a taking for the period it is in effect. The church's inability to rebuild after a flood-control ordinance triggered compensation even though the restriction addressed risks including upstream emissions.
Sense 2
2
Sense 2
The formal issuance of bills of credit or other currency instruments by a governmental authority.
See Our Sources· 1 primary source
Constitution
Examples1
State Currency Issuance Attempt
The legislature of State X enacts a statute directing the state treasury to print and distribute paper notes denominated in dollars and declared legal tender for all debts. A creditor refuses the notes and demands gold coin instead. The creditor prevails because the statute constitutes an emission of bills of credit forbidden to states.
1 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
Does the constitutional prohibition on state emission of bills of credit extend to modern electronic currency?
The prohibition targets state-issued paper instruments intended to circulate as money. Electronic systems operated by private parties or the federal government fall outside the clause because they are not state emissions of bills of credit.
A church whose land is rendered unusable by a county flood-control ordinance sues for just compensation. The temporary regulatory restriction on development is treated as a taking even though the ordinance addresses risks from upstream emissions and runoff.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96 L.Ed.2d 250
In 1957, the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church purchased a 21-acre parcel of land in a canyon along the banks of Mill Creek in the Angeles National Forest. The Church operated a campground known as Lutherglen on the property, which included a dining hall, two bunkhouses, a caretaker's lodge, an outdoor chapel, and a footbridge across the creek.
In July 1977, a forest fire denuded approximately 3,860 acres of the watershed area upstream from Lutherglen. On February 9 and 10, 1978, a storm dropped eleven inches of rain in the watershed, causing Mill Creek to overflow its banks, flood Lutherglen, and destroy its buildings.
In January 1979, the County of Los Angeles adopted Interim Ordinance No. 11,855, which provided that a person shall not construct, reconstruct, place or enlarge any building or structure within the outer boundary lines of the interim flood protection area located in Mill Creek Canyon. The ordinance was adopted because the County determined it was required for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety, and it was extended several times.
A little more than a month after the ordinance was adopted, the Church filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that Ordinance No. 11,855 denied the Church all use of Lutherglen and seeking damages for loss of use under each count. The defendants moved to strike the portions of the complaint alleging that the ordinance denied all use of Lutherglen.
The Superior Court granted the motion to strike. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. The Church appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
West Virginia challenges an EPA rule that effectively requires existing coal-fired plants to shift generation to natural gas or renewables to reduce carbon emissions. The Court holds that the major-questions doctrine bars the agency from imposing such a transformative regulatory program without clear congressional authorization.
West Virginia v. EPA597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022)
In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The rule identified three building blocks as the best system of emission reduction, including generation shifting from coal-fired plants to natural gas plants and from both to renewable sources. EPA projected that the rule would reduce coal's share of national electricity generation from 38% in 2014 to 27% by 2030, impose billions in compliance costs, raise electricity prices, retire dozens of coal plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs.
The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in 2016. After a change in presidential administrations, EPA in 2019 repealed the Clean Power Plan, concluding that generation shifting exceeded its statutory authority, and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which relied solely on heat rate improvements at individual plants.
Dozens of parties, including twenty-seven States, and private parties challenged the repeal and the ACE rule in the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that EPA's repeal rested on a mistaken reading of the Clean Air Act and vacated both the repeal and the ACE rule.
Following another change in administrations, EPA moved to partially stay the D.C. Circuit's mandate as to the Clean Power Plan while considering new rulemaking. The court granted the stay. Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC, The North American Coal Corporation, and several States then petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.
An environmental group sues a company for failing to file required reports on toxic chemical emissions and storage. The Court dismisses the action for lack of redressability because the requested civil penalties would not remedy the group's informational injury.
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment523 U.S. 83, 90, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1010, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1998)
Citizens for a Better Environment, an association of individuals interested in environmental protection, sued Steel Company, a small manufacturing company located in Chicago, alleging that Steel Company had failed since 1988 to complete and submit the annual hazardous-chemical inventory forms and toxic-chemical release forms required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986. The forms must list the name and location of the facility, the name and quantity of each specified chemical on hand, the waste-disposal method employed, and the annual quantity of toxic chemicals released into each environmental medium, with inventory forms due each March 1 and release forms due each July 1.
In 1995 the association sent the required 60-day notice to Steel Company, the EPA Administrator, and Illinois authorities, accurately alleging that Steel Company had never filed the required forms. Upon receiving the notice, Steel Company filed all of the overdue forms with the appropriate agencies. The EPA took no enforcement action, and after the waiting period expired the association filed its complaint in federal district court.
The complaint, brought on behalf of the association and its members, sought a declaratory judgment that Steel Company had violated EPCRA, authorization for periodic inspections of Steel Company's facility and records at Steel Company's expense, an order compelling Steel Company to provide the association with copies of all compliance reports submitted to the EPA, civil penalties of $25,000 per day for each violation, and an award of the association's investigation and litigation costs including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees.
The district court agreed with Steel Company on both points and dismissed the complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict with the Sixth Circuit's decision in a factually indistinguishable case.
Friends of the Earth sues a wastewater treatment plant for repeated violations of its Clean Water Act permit that allow pollutant emissions into a river. The Court holds that the plaintiffs' ongoing concern about the river's condition supplies standing even after the defendant has come into compliance.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)
Laidlaw Environmental Services acquired a hazardous waste incinerator facility in Roebuck, South Carolina in 1986 that included a wastewater treatment plant. Shortly thereafter, it obtained an NPDES permit effective January 1, 1987 authorizing limited discharges of pollutants including mercury into the North Tyger River.
Laidlaw repeatedly exceeded the permit limits, violating the mercury discharge limit on 489 occasions between 1987 and 1995. On April 10, 1992, Friends of the Earth and Citizens Local Environmental Action Network sent Laidlaw a 60-day notice letter of their intent to file a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act. On June 9, 1992, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control reached a settlement with Laidlaw requiring payment of a $100,000 civil penalty. On June 12, 1992, FOE filed its federal citizen suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief plus civil penalties.
After a bench trial the District Court found the violations, imposed a $405,800 penalty, awarded litigation costs to FOE, and denied injunctive relief because Laidlaw had achieved substantial compliance since August 1992. The Fourth Circuit assumed without deciding that FOE initially had standing but held that the case had become moot because civil penalties payable to the government would not redress any injury FOE had suffered. The Supreme Court granted certiorari; after the Fourth Circuit decision but before argument the entire Roebuck facility was permanently closed, dismantled, and placed for sale with all discharges permanently ceased.
Under the major-questions doctrine, when may the EPA impose emission limits that shift energy generation?
The EPA may not impose generation-shifting requirements that effectively restructure the energy sector without clear statutory authorization. Such transformative programs raise major questions that Congress must address explicitly.
Supporting sources
Does incurring investigation costs before filing a citizen suit create Article III standing?
No. Costs incurred solely to gather information for litigation are insufficient to establish standing when the underlying claim for penalties does not redress the plaintiff's injury.
Supporting sources
Can a citizen group maintain standing after a defendant ceases permit violations?
Yes. Ongoing reasonable concern about the effects of past and possible future emissions on a waterway supplies standing even after the defendant achieves compliance.
Supporting sources
from factory); Mugler v. Kansas , 123 U. S. 623 (1887) (intoxicating liquors); see also Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City , 438 U. S. 104, 145 (1978) (REHNQUIST, J.,…
and storage information that petitioner should have filed, and that respondent needed for its own purposes. See Brief for Respondent 37-38. The recovery of such expenses unrelated to…
TortsNegligence · The duty question, including failure to act, unforeseeable plaintiffs, and obligations to control the conduct of third partiesUBEFoundational