Massachusetts

Watch a video outlining the conflict over this wind farm

"Nantucket Sound, blessed with a vast diversity of native life ... "

Update, 11 Sep 2007: The video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc., unfortunately.

Wind-loss, wind-gain

On the heels of last week's apparent defeat of the proposed Hoosac Wind project in mountainous Western Massachusetts due to environmental (wetland) concerns, Massachusetts' new governor has put his voice behind further offshore wind projects. The timing is interesting.

Massachusetts is going to blow

The electrical grid in Massachusetts is getting ready to blow: Documents obtained by the Herald show more than 12,000 transformers from Attleboro to Ayer are operating at above 200 percent capacity, with some as high as 900 percent over design standards. Union officials, who last night reached an agreement in contract talks with National Grid, […]

Some musings and analysis

The discussion of Massachusetts v. EPA is well underway thanks to David's summary of the action. I'm going to provide some thoughts about each of the three issues involved in the case, as well as some of the possible implications.

The outcome of Mass. v. EPA boils down to one thing: the Supreme Court has ordered EPA to think again. While that may not sound like much, in the world of administrative law, it is a total rout for the Bush administration.

While the outcome is good news, this decision was as close as they come. I'm not surprised that the Court split 5 to 4 on the issue of standing. However, this divide extended to all three questions before the court.

May become U.S.’s first large offshore wind project

This just in: the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has weighed in on Cape Wind's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), saying that it "adequately and properly complies" with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The project can now advance to the state permitting process. I believe it is the first U.S. offshore wind project to have a certified final environmental impact document.

It’s not the view: it’s the vision

The most likely candidate for becoming the U.S.'s first offshore wind farm reached another permitting milestone by filing its Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on February 15 with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office. It's now available, and it's meaty.

Do federal courts have jurisdiction in Massachusetts v. EPA?

As the court-watchers (or even dabblers) amongst you are aware, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed preoccupied with the issue of standing during the recent oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA. This debate has echoed in the blogosphere.

• Jonathan Adler argues, both on Volokh Conspiracy (it's a bit buried) and in an amicus brief (PDF), that global warming causes nonjusticiable, generalized injuries.
• Grist's own David Roberts questions whether a court order can provide Massachusetts with any relief.
• The Sierra Club's Executive Director, Carl Pope, believes that an adverse standing decision would have an enormous negative impact on environmental litigation.

In this post, I'm going to try to break down the arguments a little.

The justices speak

David highlights a few of the difficult and interesting questions facing the Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, which as you all probably know was argued this morning.

I wanted to provide a few thoughts about the argument, gleaned from my seat in the courtroom's last row, reading the transcript (PDF), and watching a fantastic panel at the Georgetown Law School discussing the argument. (You can see a webcast of the panel here.)

The justices were very engaged this morning. A quick review of the transcript indicates that the court broke into the arguments of the Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre (for EPA) and Assistant Attorney General James Milkey (for Massachusetts) more than 50 times each.

Below, I try to identify some highlights for each of the three major issues before the court. For ease, I'll refer to the advocates as the United States and Massachusetts.

The line-up of legal issues

Lawyers and Supreme Court commentators hardly seem the type to camp out for tickets. But that's precisely what a line of expectant court-watchers will be doing one week from today -- braving early morning Capitol Hill in hopes of gaining entrance to oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Like a pre-game sportscast, today's post will attempt to give a flavor for points of contention -- in this case, the legal issues before the court. It won't be exhaustive. If you're looking for greater detail, refer to either the briefs or to this recent report (PDF).

The case involves a suit by Massachusetts and its allies (a coalition of other states and nonprofit groups) -- I'll refer to them as the petitioners -- against the EPA for refusing to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide emitted from motor vehicles. The petitioners lost (PDF) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

When the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, it grants certiorari on specific questions. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court agreed to consider two: