In 2007, while I was taking a short sabbatical from University work, I had the chance to work at the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a wonderful experience, and one of the perks of being an employee is being able to watch any oral argument from the employee section. The most memorable case I heard that year was Massachusetts v. EPA. In that suit, the state of Massachusetts (along with several other states) sued the EPA for its failure to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. One of the legal issues in the case was standing. If Massachusetts could not link carbon dioxide with global warming, which then caused the erosion of shore lines and other environmental damage, then Massachusetts couldn’t bring the suit in the first place. The case therefore became a legal referendum on whether carbon dioxide causes global warming. In a close (5-4) decision, the Supreme Court sided with the states, and ruled that greenhouse gases are “pollutants” covered by the Clean Air Act, and ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution. The case was a stunning defeat for the Bush administration, which had ordered the EPA to specifically not regulate greenhouse gases.

More than two years later, the other shoe dropped when the EPA answered the Court’s question. Last week the EPA issued a proposed finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare. Furthermore, the EPA issued a proposed finding that the combined emissions of new motor vehicle standards contribute to atmospheric concentrations of these gases and therefore the threat of climate change. You can read more about the EPA’s finding in the press release here. At this point, the finding is a proposal and the EPA is accepting written comments from the public for 60 days, as well as holding two public hearings on May 18 and May 21. More information about submitting feedback to the EPA can be found here.

The reaction from conservative Republicans has been fierce. Senator Christopher S. Bond said, “The Obama administration’s actions today will do more to endanger families, farmers and workers with new energy taxes and lost jobs that it does to protect the environment.” In today’s editorial, the Wall Street Journal excoriated the finding, saying the EPA has “put a gun to the head of Congress and play cap-and-trade roulette with the U.S. economy.” The editorial blasts the EPA’s finding and future rules under the finding as “taxation without representation.”

The EPA’s ruling is limited for the moment to motor vehicle emissions. If the ruling is adopted (and there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t), then we can expect to see the car industry adopt carbon caps for the first time (I mentioned this earlier in the week). For the time being, there’s no talk about the EPA implementing carbon limits on any other industries such as power generation or IT. However, the ruling does lay the foundation for such rules if they become necessary.

Politicians and pundits are wringing their hands over this ruling and the possibility that carbon caps may come without Congressional action. Setting aside partisan hyperbole for a moment, though, the EPA is simply doing what Congress asked it to do decades ago – ensure our environment is clean. Congress recognizes that it doesn’t have the scientific expertise to manage day-to-day or industry-specific emissions levels, so it creates agencies such as the EPA, SEC, and FCC to handle the task. The EPA has been ordered by the Supreme Court to investigate greenhouse gases, and to no one’s great surprise, the EPA has concluded that the science points towards greenhouse gases leading towards climate change.

While the carbon cap-and-trade legislation works its way through the halls of Congress, it’s worth keeping the EPA in mind as well. Even if the legislation fails, the EPA is armed with the Clean Air Act. With these findings in hand, the EPA may be able to implement carbon caps on many industries, including IT and data centers. Time will tell if that becomes necessary.