National Mining Association v. MSHA

Mar 19: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 08-1241. The National Mining Association (NMA) and the Methane Awareness Resources Group (MARG) (hereinafter, together "industry") petition for review of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA's) decision to enforce a final exposure limit standard addressing health risks presented by exposure of miners in metal and nonmetal underground mines to diesel particulate matter (DPM) in diesel exhaust. The decision, announced May 20, 2008, represented a change in MSHA's earlier expressed intent to issue a proposed rule to convert the final DPM exposure standard from a total carbon (TC) to an elemental carbon (EC) measurement. See Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure, Notice of Enforcement of DPM Final Limit and Withdrawal of Intent to Issue Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 29,058 (May 20, 2008) (2008 Notice).

 

    On the same date, MSHA issued Program Policy Letter P08-IV-01 (2008 Policy Letter) describing how it intended to enforce the DPM standard. Industry contends MSHA's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it inadequately explained and was unsupported by scientific data, contrary to a 2002 settlement and to MSHA's statements to this court, and without public notice or opportunity to comment. MARG individually challenges the failure of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to release a study on DPM. 

 

    The Appeals Court denied the industry petitions and dismissed MARG's individual challenges for lack of jurisdiction. In this complex case, the Appeals Court challenges NMA's position on a number of fronts and says: "NMA's suggestion that MSHA's 'misrepresentations,' Pet'r NMA Br. 22, albeit unintentional, cast a cloud over the legitimacy of the DPM standard of 160 TC does not advance its position" ; "Industry is on no firmer ground in contending that the 2008 Notice's withdrawal of MSHA's rulemaking intent violated the terms of the 2002 Settlement arising from challenges to the 2001 Rule" ; ". . .industry repudiated the 2002 Settlement when it petitioned for review of the 2001 Rule in Kennecott. . . MSHA was no longer bound by the 2002 Settlement when it issued the 2008 Notice" ; "NMA is mistaken when it suggests that on the basis of the Noll-Bugarski Study, MSHA effectively 'repromulgated the 160 TC standard'" ; and "the 2008 Notice was not subject to APA notice and comment procedures."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here).

American Road & Transportation Builders v. EPA

Dec 11: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 08-1381. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) is a trade organization representing the “transportation construction industry” -- companies that build roads, public transit systems, airports and the like. In 2002 ARTBA petitioned the U.S. EPA to amend two regulations implementing § 209(e) of the Clean Air Act. EPA had originally promulgated the rules in 1994, and then readopted them in 1997. After some litigation over the Agency’s failure to act on ARTBA’s petition, EPA formally opened it to public comment in 2007, then rejected it in 2008.

Shortly thereafter, ARTBA sought review in the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court. The Appeals Court dismissed dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that National Mining Association v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 70 F.3d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1995), "requires us to treat ARTBA’s petition to EPA as a challenge to the regulations it sought revised, and that judicial review of such a challenge is time-barred under Clean Air Act § 307(b)(1). . ." The Appeals Court dismissed the case saying, "We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to hear this petition."

Access the complete ruling (click here).

State of North Carolina v. EPA

Nov 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 08-1225. The State of North Carolina petitions for review of the final rule of U.S. EPA removing the northern part of the State of Georgia from EPA’s regulations under its national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone measured during a one-hour period [See 73 FR 21,528, 4/22/08]. In 1998 EPA called upon several states to revise their state implementation plans (SIPs) for attaining the NAAQS for ozone by reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), a precursor of ozone [63 FR 57,356, 10/27/98, NOx SIP Call].

Following the remand in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001), EPA promulgated a rule that included only the northern portion of Georgia in the NOx SIP Call under the one-hour ozone standard [69 FR 21,604, 4/21/04, Remand Rule]. Georgia’s inclusion was based on EPA’s findings in the NOx SIP Call that emissions from Georgia were significantly contributing to non-attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS in Birmingham, Alabama and Memphis, Tennessee.

Upon the petition of an industry coalition, an intervenor, EPA reconsidered its inclusion of Georgia in light of its determinations that recently Birmingham, and earlier Memphis, had attained the one-hour ozone standard. North Carolina now challenges the Withdrawal Rule as contrary to EPA policy requiring states’ adherence to NOx emissions budgets based on the one-hour ozone standard after the repeal of the one-hour standard, as nonconformance with the mandate in Michigan v. EPA, and as disparate treatment of Georgia without lawful justification.

The Appeals Court rules, "We do not reach the merits of these contentions because we conclude that North Carolina lacks standing, specifically that North Carolina failed to show redressability." Further, the Appeals Court says, "The Division’s [Georgia Environmental Protection Division] showing in its sur-reply that Georgia intends to use CSP credits to cover its excess emissions thus resolves the question of redressability, for North Carolina can no longer show that vacating the Withdrawal Rule and re-including northern Georgia in the NOx SIP Call is likely to redress North Carolina’s difficulty in meeting the 1997 NAAQS eight-hour
ozone standard. As counsel for North Carolina stated at oral argument, if reinstating Georgia in the NOx SIP Call would not lower Georgia’s emissions, then North Carolina has a standing problem. Accordingly, we dismiss North Carolina’s petition for lack of standing."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA

Jul 10: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 06-1045, consolidated with 06-1046, 06-1047, 06-1214, 07-1311. As explained by the Appeals Court, in 1997, the EPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone from a 1-hour standard to an 8-hour standard. These consolidated petitions for review challenge aspects of the Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS -- Phase 2, 70 Fed. Reg. 71,612 (2005) (Phase 2 Rule), and Phase 2 of the Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS -- Notice of Reconsideration, 72 Fed. Reg. 31,727 (2007) (Reconsideration Notice).

The Appeals Court ruled, "We hold the Phase 2 Rule is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) in allowing participation in a regional cap-and-trade program to satisfy an area-specific statutory mandate. We further hold the EPA arbitrarily
eliminated one safeguard and violated the anti-backsliding provision of the Act insofar as it eliminated another from its regulations governing review of new sources of pollution. We therefore grant the petitions with respect to those aspects of the Phase 2 Rule.

"In view of our decision in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008) [See WIMS 7/14/08, & 1/5/09], in which we granted a petition for review of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), we defer consideration of the Phase 2 Rule and Reconsideration Notice insofar as they relate to the CAIR program. We deny the petitions in all other respects."

Earthjustice filed the suit, representing the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The states of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut also joined in part of the challenge. In a release, NRDC said, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the Environmental Protection Agency rules illegally let plants buy rights to pollute -- sometimes from plants hundreds of miles away -- instead of installing modern emission controls. The court also invalidated parts of the rule that weakened pollution limits for major new or expanded factories and power plants in cities with unhealthful air."

David Baron, Earthjustice attorney said, “Rejecting these waivers is a breath of fresh air to millions of Americans living in cities that violate clean air standards. The EPA rule let power plants pump uncontrolled air pollution into regions that already had dangerous smog levels. We said that violated the law, and the court agreed.”

NRDC indicated that the case grew out of an air pollution trading program aimed at reducing pollution that travels between states. The EPA rule overturned created loopholes by allowing power plants in already polluted communities to avoid installing controls by buying pollution credits from another plant that could be hundreds of miles away. Earthjustice argued that the waiver violated the Clean Air Act. Twenty-two states are members of this interstate program, and most of them contain areas that are already very polluted, officially known as “non-attainment areas.” These include cities like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia.

Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here).

Catawba County NC v. U.S. EPA

Jul 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 05-1064. The case is consolidate with 29 other cases. In these consolidated petitions, several states, counties, and industrial entities challenge the U.S. EPA's promulgation of area designations for the annual national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) applicable to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a category of air pollutants consisting of miniscule airborne particles known to present adverse health risks. The parties argue that EPA’s methodology for designating areas as “nonattainment” for the fine particulate matter standard violates section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, which governs the designations, and that the methodology and the individual designations it produced are arbitrary and capricious.

According to the Appeals Court the petitioners what it "to vacate the nonattainment designations and to send EPA back to the drawing board." The Appeals Court ruled, "With one minor exception, we deny the petitions for review. Faced with the complex task of identifying those geographic areas that contribute to fine particulate matter pollution, EPA both complied with the statute and, for all but one of the 225 counties or partial counties it designated as nonattainment, satisfied -- indeed, quite often surpassed -- its basic obligation of reasoned decisionmaking. . . we deny the petitions for review in all respects save one: the designation of Rockland County [New York] is remanded to EPA."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA

Mar 20: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1151. State authorities submit air pollution emissions data to U.S. EPA. EPA monitors the data in order to evaluate regional compliance with national air pollution standards. In 2007, EPA promulgated a regulation governing the exclusion of emissions data during “exceptional events” such as natural disasters. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought petitions for review, seeking to set aside the rule’s definition of “natural events” and to vacate several statements in the preamble to the rule concerning types of events that may qualify as “exceptional.”

In a split decision the majority rules that, "Even if the statements in the preamble were reviewable under the Clean Air Act, they are not ripe for review at this time. The statements about exceptional events are 'hypothetical and non-specific.' Kennecott, 88 F.3d at 1223. NRDC has not demonstrated that any of the statements has immediate legal or practical consequences. How EPA will use or rely on or interpret what it said in the preamble is uncertain. . . We can see no significant hardship to the parties from waiting for a real case to emerge. As EPA points out in its brief, the Clean Air Act 'provides for judicial review of any EPA decision to determine the attainment status of an area, or to designate or redesignate an area, based on EPA’s decision to exclude exceptional events data or other information.'"

In a separate opinion concurring in part, and dissenting in part, the Justice said, "When an agency receives comments that object to its application of a statutory term as being contrary to the plain text of the statute, what is the agency to understand is the target of the objection? The specific application or the agency’s underlying interpretation of the term or both? The court
responds only the application. But the answer depends on how the comments are phrased. If, as here, the comments address a specific application by pointing out that it reflects an interpretation of a statutory term that contradicts the plain text of the statute, how can the agency respond to the comments without considering whether its definition is consistent with the statute, much less how would it not be on notice that the comments extended to the agency’s interpretation of the statutory term?"

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Eastern Niagara Public Power v. FERC

Mar 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1472. From 1958 to 2007, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) operated the Niagara Power Project, a hydroelectric facility about five miles downriver from Niagara Falls, pursuant to a 50-year license granted by what is now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 2007, FERC approved NYPA’s relicensing application and granted a new 50-year license. Several communities in western New York have challenged FERC’s 2007 licensing decision as arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. However, the Appeals Court decided, "We deny their petition because FERC’s decision to issue the new license was reasonable and reasonably explained."

Petitioners argue that a 50-year license is too long and inconsistent with Agency practice regarding the terms of licenses, but the Appeals Court said, "FERC possesses express statutory authority to set license terms between 30 and 50 years." Second, petitioners argue that FERC undervalued the project’s output in considering the appropriate length of the new license, but the Appeals Court said, "Applying the deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard, we have no room to overturn that reasoned and reasonable determination."

Third, petitioners contend that FERC, as a condition of granting the license, should have required NYPA to mitigate certain adverse environmental impacts allegedly caused by the project, but the Appeals Court said, "FERC mandated measures to mitigate any such impact. In short, FERC acted entirely reasonably in addressing possible adverse environmental impacts."
Fourth, petitioners assert that FERC should have considered the consequences of “off-license” agreements that NYPA reached with interested communities and organizations in the area saying, the "agreements represented NYPA’s not-so-subtle efforts to buy off community opposition." (e.g. NYPA promised to pay the Tuscarora Nation tribe, $21.8 million if FERC approved NYPA’s relicensing). The Appeals Court said, "But the off-license agreements are not related to project operations and are irrelevant to FERC’s statutorily mandated assessment of the relicensing application. . . Therefore, FERC properly refused to consider the off-license agreements in deciding whether to reissue the license to NYPA."

Finally, petitioners also appear to directly challenge the off-license agreements as "unlawful." The Appeals Court said, "The source of law on which petitioners are relying for this argument is rather murky. In any event, petitioners lack standing to bring such a claim against FERC. The parties to the off-license agreements were NYPA and certain communities and organizations affected by the project. FERC did not approve those agreements, and FERC does not and cannot control the agreements’ terms."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Delaware Department of Natural Resources v. FERC

Mar 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1007. Petitioner Delaware seeks review of two Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) orders by which the Commission conditionally approved an application to site, construct, and operate a liquid natural gas terminal near the mouth of the Delaware River. The Appeals Court dismissed the petition citing a "lack of jurisdiction: Delaware lacks standing because it has not suffered an injury-infact."

According to the background in the case, in September 2004, Crown Landing LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP America Production Company, filed an application with the Commission to site, construct, and operate a liquid natural gas import terminal at the mouth of the Delaware River. Onshore portions of the proposed project were to be located in New Jersey, but a pier designed for the unloading of tanker ships was planned to extend beyond New Jersey waters into that portion of the river which appertains to neighboring Delaware.

Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), prohibits the importation of foreign natural gas without prior authorization by the Commission. The NGA specifically provides for the protection of rights granted to the states under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Crown Landing did not file a CZMA certification with Delaware but did request a status decision from the state.

On February 3, 2005, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, petitioner here, issued its decision and rejected the project. On appeal, Delaware’s Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board unanimously affirmed that decision. Meanwhile, New Jersey filed an original action before the Supreme Court challenging Delaware’s jurisdiction to regulate the Crown Landing terminal pursuant to its authority under the CZMA. The Supreme Court confirmed that Delaware indeed possesses this authority. New Jersey v. Delaware, 128 S. Ct. 1410, 1427-8 (2008) [See WIMS 3/31/08].

On June 20, 2006, the Commission issued an order approving Crown Landing’s application subject to some sixty-seven conditions precedent. The Commission acknowledged that the Crown Landing proposal is subject to coastal zone consistency reviews in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania and thus concluded that the company must obtain the concurrence of the relevant state agencies prior to Commission approval of the commencement of construction.

The Appeals Court said finally, "In sum, because FERC’s order -- as it stands now -- cannot possibly authorize Crown Landing’s project absent the approval of Delaware, the state has suffered no injury-in-fact, and thus lacks standing. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is dismissed."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA

Feb 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 061410, consolidated with 06-1411, 06-1415, 06-1416, 06-1417.In this high profile case involving many states, environmental organizations and industry groups the Appeals Court considered several challenges to U.S. EPA's most recent revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter [See WIMS 9/21/06]. The Appeals Court said, "Because the agency promulgated standards for fine particulate matter that were, in several respects, contrary to law and unsupported by adequately reasoned decisionmaking, we grant the petitions for review in part and remand those standards to the agency for further proceedings. We deny the petitions for review of the agency’s standards for coarse particulate matter because those standards are not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law."

The court explained the three sets of petitioners, joined by several intervenors and amici, filed petitions for review of the EPA’s final rule. The American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, and the National Parks Conservation Association (environmental petitioners) challenge the primary annual and secondary standards for fine PM as well as the elimination of the annual standard for coarse PM. Several states and state agencies (state petitioners) challenge the primary annual fine PM standard. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the Agricultural Retailers Association (industry petitioners) challenge the EPA’s retention of the PM10 indicator for coarse PM and the 150 µg/m3 level for the daily coarse PM standard.

The Appeals Court explains the various Parts of its decisions as follows. "In Part II we grant in part the petitions for review of the primary annual fine PM standard, brought by the states and environmental groups, and remand the standard to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA failed to explain adequately why an annual level of 15 µg/m3 is 'requisite to protect the public health,' including the health of vulnerable subpopulations, while providing 'an adequate margin of safety.'

"In Part III we grant in full the petition for review of the secondary NAAQS for fine PM brought by the environmental groups and remand them to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA unreasonably concluded that the NAAQS are adequate to protect the public welfare from adverse effects on visibility.

"In Part IV we deny the petitions for review of the primary daily standards for coarse PM brought by the industry groups. We do not reach the question raised by the amicus National Association of Home Builders whether the EPA lawfully could have distinguished between urban and nonurban coarse PM in selecting the coarse PM indicator.

"Finally, in Part V, we deny the petition for review of the EPA’s revocation of the primary annual standard for coarse PM brought by the environmental groups."

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who led a coalition of 18 states and cities in the case announced that they had "won a major victory in a challenge of lax Bush Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for fine soot pollution that had wholly failed to protect public health, particularly for children, elderly people and other vulnerable populations." Attorney General Cuomo said, “In an epic victory for New York State and the entire country, my office has ensured that politics don’t come in the way of public health and environmental protection. The EPA is charged with protecting the environment, yet the Bush administration had misconstrued the purpose of this agency, using it as a tool to facilitate pollution instead of combating it. As a result of this victory, millions of New York residents will have a chance to breathe easier. My office will work with the new Obama administration to make sure that new more protective soot standards are issued quickly.”

The states, cities and other state agencies joining Cuomo in the challenge included: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The States of Arizona, Maryland and Massachusetts also joined as friends of the court.

The American Lung Association (ALA) issued a release saying they challenged the EPA’s standards, "because the science clearly showed that the standards set in 2006 failed to adequately protect public health." Stephen Nolan, American Lung Association National Board Chair said, “Strong, protective national air quality standards are fundamental for healthy air. Today’s triumph will save countless lives and is an important step forward in the American Lung Association’s continued work to fight for air."

Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort who represented ALA, Environmental Defense Fund, and National Parks Conservation Association in the case said, "This is a huge victory for anyone who breathes. Particulate matter is one of the most deadly forms of pollution out there today. The Bush EPA refused to follow the advice of leading health advocates as well as its own scientists who argued that a stronger standard was needed to protect public health. Today's ruling corrects that injustice."

Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation issued a statement saying, “Because of Tuesday’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory standards related to rural dust, farmers and ranchers could face additional and unwarranted regulations as states attempt to comply with federal standards. Farm Bureau challenged the EPA’s Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards rule for coarse particulate matter, but the court chose to disregard the overall lack of scientific support for the rule.

“Farm Bureau is disappointed in the outcome and concerned about costly measures to regulate rural dust that could be imposed on our farmers and ranchers. EPA’s own studies had failed to demonstrate adverse health effects associated with rural dust, which comes mostly from naturally occurring organic materials such as plants, sand and soil. Most disappointing is that the court suggested industry had the burden of proving that dust from agricultural sources was safe, rather than EPA proving within a margin of safety that the emissions caused harm. These dust standards are revised every five years, so it is difficult to predict the final impact of the ruling. However, during a time when farmers and ranchers are already struggling with the economics of producing food and fiber, the possibility of this leading to more regulatory costs does not bode well, especially since science does not show that any health benefits would result.”

Access the complete 50-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Attorney General Cuomo (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the statement from the Farm Bureau (click here).

Hill v. Gould

Feb 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, Case No. 07-5026. After winning a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior, Joyce M. Hill filed an application to recover her attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The district court denied the application on the basis that the Secretary’s position at the merits stage was substantially justified. Hill appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court denial.

The original case involved numerous charges of wrongs the mute swan species had allegedly suffered. Hill's principal claim was that the Secretary of the Interior improperly denied the species the protection of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The district court held that the Secretary’s List of Migratory Birds rested on "a permissible construction of the Treaty Act" and granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment. The DC Circuit overruled saying, "the court held that the Secretary’s exclusion of the mute swan from the protected bird list was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

South Coast Air Quality Management v. EPA

Feb 6: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 08-1030. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and Friends of the Earth challenged the final rule promulgated by U.S. EPA that extended the deadline for the EPA to establish more stringent emissions standards for large marine diesel engines. The Appeals Court ruled that "EPA reasonably implemented the Clean Air Act (CAA) in extending the deadline, wherefore we deny the petitions for review."

In its conclusion the Appeals Court said, "In view of the issues remaining for the EPA to resolve before it sets Tier 2 standards, we hold the Extension Rule deferring the deadline for promulgating a regulation is neither arbitrary nor unlawful. At the oral argument the petitioners allowed that they would not be objecting to the new deadline if they could be sure the EPA would adhere to it. The EPA gives that assurance in the Extension Rule, id. at 68,520/2, and the record, which demonstrates the EPA has made progress toward promulgating Tier 2 standards, see id. at 69,522, suggests no reason to doubt it. We rely upon that assurance in holding that the Rule is lawful. In sum, because the Rule commits the EPA to proceed with the two-tiered approach approved in Bluewater Network, and to resolve outstanding issues and set standards no later than December 17, 2009, the petitions for review are denied."

Access the complete opinion (click here). Access EPA's diesel, boats and ships website for more information (click here).

Devon Energy Corp v. Kempthorne (Interior Secretary)

Dec 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-5299. The case arises from a final order issued by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring Devon Energy Corporation (Devon), retroactively to recalculate royalties owed to the Government pursuant to its lease to extract coalbed methane from Federal land in Wyoming. At issue is the agency’s interpretation of its “marketable condition rule.”

The rule was included as a part of DOI’s 1988 Revision of Gas Royalty Valuation Regulations, which establish the framework for calculating the royalty value of coalbed methane gas production. In its disputed order, DOI held that the marketable condition rule precluded Devon from deducting certain costs associated with compression and dehydration when calculating the “gross proceeds” upon which royalties are owed.

In its rationale, DOI determined that gas cannot enter a pipeline and move to a purchaser unless it meets the requirements of the pipeline, which typically requires compression to raise its pressure and dehydration to reduce its water content. Thus, DOI concluded that if gas is not sufficiently compressed and dehydrated to be deliverable to the point of purchase through the pipeline, it is not in marketable condition. Devon filed suit in the District Court to challenge Interior’s order. The District Court denied Devon’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Secretary’s cross-motion.

On appeal, Devon argues that DOI’s order is "inconsistent with the plain language of the marketable condition rule, and also inconsistent with DOI’s own prior interpretation of the rule." The Appeals Court ruled, "We affirm the judgment of the District Court. First, we find that Interior’s interpretation of the marketable condition rule reflects a perfectly reasonable construction of the rule. It is clear that the agency’s order is not at odds with the plain language of the rule, nor does it effectively 'amend,' rather than reasonably construe, the rule."

Second, the Appeals Court says, ". . . we reject Devon’s claim that DOI’s order conflicts with a prior interpretation of the marketable condition rule. Devon argues that its position finds support in guidance documents distributed by agency personnel after DOI’s promulgation of the 1988 regulations. However, as Devon concedes, these contested guidance documents were distributed by agency individuals who had no authority either to amend the marketable condition rule or to issue authoritative guidelines on behalf of the agency."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

American Forest Paper Association v. FERC

Dec 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1328. In its brief summary, the Appeals Court says, "Petitioners insist the term 'markets' as used in the recent amendment to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) must always denote a competitive market. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) interprets the word 'markets' to encompass both competitive and non-competitive markets." The Appeals Court said that "FERC’s interpretation is reasonable" and denied the petition for review.

The Appeals Court further explains, "Section 824a-3(m)(1) [of PURPA] refers to 'markets' several times. In a formal rulemaking, FERC interpreted the term 'markets' in subparagraph (m)(1)(A) as encompassing both competitive and non-competitive markets. . . The fact that FERC chose to adopt certain rebuttable presumptions via rulemaking, rather than by case-by-case adjudication, does not violate any of the statute’s requirements. And, as we have long held in such scenarios, the 'decision whether to proceed by rulemaking or adjudication lies within the [agency’s] discretion.”

Access the complete opinion (click here).

FPL Energy ME Hydro v. FERC

Dec 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Case No. 05-1871. FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC (FPL) owns a facility that provides hydroelectric generation and flood control along the Kennebec River in Maine. The present dispute grows out of FPL's effort to secure a renewal of an operating license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and its attempts to get a water quality certification from the State of Maine, a necessary predicate for the renewal of the license. FPL's predecessor first obtained an operating license from FERC in 1979. Before its license could be renewed by FERC, section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act required the applicant to obtain certification by Maine that the project complied with various state and Federal water quality standards, or demonstrate that Maine had waived certification by "fail[ing] or refus[ing] to act on a request for certification" within one year.

FPL argues that FERC erred because the Board's action rescinding the certification violated the CWA's one-year time limit and is a nullity, resulting in either a waiver of certification or reinstatement of the DEP Commissioner's certification. Alternatively, FPL says FERC failed to recognize that it had discretion to disregard the DEP Board's allegedly belated action and that the case should be remanded so that it can exercise that discretion.

In its decision to deny FPL's request, the Appeals Court says in part, ". . .relying on our decision in Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co. v. EPA, 8 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 1993), FPL argues that FERC misconstrued its own powers by failing to recognize that it had authority to accept or disregard the DEP Board's action precisely because it was untimely. FPL says, therefore, that the stay order should at the very least be remanded to FERC so it can rule again on the stay application with an awareness that it can disregard the rescission of the certification.

"Sun Oil does say that the responsible federal agency -- there it was the EPA -- is free to disregard an untimely state certification action under section 401. . . but the premise of FPL's argument is that in this case, as was unquestionably true in Sun Oil. . . the state's action was untimely. This is the very premise that the Maine SJC [Maine Supreme Judicial Court] rejected and (as we have explained) the Maine SJC's contrary determination that the DEP Board's rescission was timely binds FPL in this court. The petition to review FERC's stay order is denied.

Access the complete opinion (click here).

North Carolina v. EPA

Dec 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 05-1244, consolidated with 31 other cases and involving scores of attorneys. Just in time to meet the January 1, 2009, first major compliance deadline under U.S. EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Appeals Court responded in part to a request by EPA and other parties and remanded the case, "without vacatur," for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with the court's prior opinion. Previously, on July 11, 2008 [See WIMS 7/14/08], the Appeals Court had ruled, ". . . we find more than several fatal flaws in the rule and . . . we vacate the rule in its entirety and remand to EPA to promulgate a rule that is consistent with this opinion." EPA, environmental groups, states and others had asked the court to reconsider its July 11 opinion. The program was designed to reduce millions of tons of smog- and particulate-forming pollution from coal-fired power plants in 28 eastern states.

The Appeals Court said in the latest reconsideration, "On July 11, 2008, we issued an opinion, in which we found 'more than several fatal flaws in the rule.' North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In light of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted CAIR as an integral action, we vacated the rule in its entirety and remanded to EPA to promulgate a rule consistent with our opinion. Id. at 929-30. On September 24, 2008, Respondent EPA filed a petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for a remand of the case without vacatur. On October 21, 2008, we issued an order on our own motion directing the parties to file a response to EPA’s petition. (Order at 1, Oct. 21, 2008.) We also required the parties to 'address (1) whether any party is seeking vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and (2) whether the court should stay its mandate until Respondent [EPA] promulgates a revised rule.' Id. Respondent EPA was given leave to 'reply to the question whether a stay of the court’s mandate in lieu of immediate vacatur would suffice.' Id.

"Having considered the parties’ respective positions with respect to the remedy in this case, the court hereby grants EPA’s petition only to the extent that we will remand the case without vacatur for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion. . . In addition, some of the Petitioners have suggested that this court impose a definitive deadline by which EPA must correct CAIR’s flaws. Notwithstanding these requests, the court will refrain from doing so. Though we do not impose a particular schedule by which EPA must alter CAIR, we remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fundamental flaws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion."

In a separate concurring opinion, one of the Judges indicated, "The parties’ persuasive demonstration, extending beyond short-term health benefits to impacts on planning by states and industry with respect to interference with the states’ ability to meet deadlines for attaining national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone, shows that the rule has become so intertwined with the regulatory scheme that its vacatur would sacrifice clear benefits to public health and the environment while EPA fixes the rule."

Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's court decision is a welcome gift for the millions of American's that face serious health threats from power plant pollution. Power plants across the East will reduce millions of tons of smog and soot pollution today while America's new leadership fixes the mistakes made by the Bush Administration."

Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access EPA's CAIR website for additional information (click here).

Sierra Club v. EPA

Dec 18: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 02-1135. The case was consolidated with Nos. 03-1219, 06-1215, 07-1201, and the American Chemistry Council intervened on behalf of EPA. Petitioners challenged the final rules promulgated by U.S. EPA exempting major sources of air pollution from normal emission standards during periods of "startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions" (SSM) and imposing alternative, and "arguably less onerous requirements in their place."

The 2-1 majority Appeals Court said, "Because the general duty that applies during SSM events is inconsistent with the plain text of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), even accepting that 'continuous' for purposes of the definition of 'emission standards' under CAA section 302(k) does not mean 'unchanging,' the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Accordingly, we grant the petitions and vacate the SSM exemption."

In a final rule adopted in 2003, EPA “decided instead to adopt a less burdensome approach,” to the SSM regulation requiring members of the public to make a “specific and reasonable request” of the permitting authority to request the SSM plan from the source and thus making it more difficult to access and obtain. The Sierra Club challenged the 2003 Rule in a petition for review. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also filed a petition for reconsideration on the ground that any limitation on the public availability of the SSM plans was unlawful. EPA agreed to take comment on the new SSM provisions, and the consolidated cases were held in abeyance pending reconsideration.

In 2006, EPA retracted the requirement that sources implement their SSM plans during SSM periods; and instead comply with the "general duty to minimize emissions.” EPA required a "post-event reporting" and eliminated the requirement that the Administrator obtain a copy of a source’s SSM plan upon request from a member of the public and determined that the public may only access those SSM plans obtained by a permitting authority; but the permitting authority was not "required to do so" -- it was discretionary.

The petitioners, petitioned for reconsideration and contended that the exemption from compliance with emissions standards during SSM events is both unlawful and arbitrary, and that the 2002, 2003, and 2006 rules unlawfully and arbitrarily fail to 'assure compliance' with 'applicable requirements' under Title V.

The majority Appeals Court ruled, "In sum, petitioners’ challenge to the exemption of major sources from normal emission standards during SSM is premised on a rejection of EPA’s claim of retained discretion in the face of the plain text of section 112. 'Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of a contrary legislative intent'. NRDC, 489 F.3d at 1374 (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28 (2001)). The 1990 Amendments confined the Administrator’s discretion, see New Jersey, 517 F.3d at 578, and Congress was explicit when and under what circumstances it wished to allow for such discretion, id. at 582. 'EPA may not construe [a] statute in a way that completely nullifies textually applicable provisions meant to limit its discretion.' New Jersey, 517 F.3d at 583 (quoting Whitman, 531 U.S. at 485). Accordingly, we grant the petitions without reaching petitioners’ other contentions, and we vacate the SSM exemption. See New Jersey, 517 F.3d at 583 (citing Allied Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146, 150-51 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).

The minority, dissenting opinion indicated, "I do not agree that we have jurisdiction over Sierra Club’s petition for judicial review. The original regulations at issue. . . exempt periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction from opacity and non-opacity emission standards. When EPA promulgated these regulations in 1994, Sierra Club took no legal action. Yet under the Clean Air Act a petition for judicial review of an EPA regulation must be filed within 60 days of the regulation’s publication in the Federal Register. . ."

Access the complete opinion and dissent (click here).

NC Fisheries Association v. Gutierrez (Commerce Dept.)

Dec 16: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-5389. Appellants are the North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc., two commercial fishermen, and a fish-packing plant (collectively, the Association). They filed a complaint (petition for review) in district court against the Department of Commerce, claiming that Amendment 13C to the Fishery Management Plan for South Atlantic Snapper Grouper violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act).

The district court granted in part and denied in part the Association’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the Department had not complied with its statutory obligation to promulgate a rebuilding plan for certain fish species following a determination that such species were “overfished,” which failure the Government had conceded. The court then ordered that the parties confer on an appropriate remedy and submit a joint proposal or, should disagreement persist, separate proposals. Because the parties were unable to reach agreement, the district court adopted the Government’s proposal with slight adjustments to the suggested timetable. The appeal was filed and the Appeals Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and therefore, dismissed the appeal.

The Appeals Court said, "It does seem rather peculiar -- perhaps even a bit fishy -- that the Service promulgated Amendment 15A without accompanying regulations, indeed, without any “regulatory effect.” Recall that the Service acknowledged that it had violated the Act (which was rather obvious) by omitting a rebuilding plan; thus, it could be thought that the Service is continuing to evade its statutory obligations by failing to put teeth into the rebuilding plan. But if the Association thought that the Service had not complied in substance with the district court’s mandate, it should have sought direct relief in the district court. In any event, we lack jurisdiction at this stage in the proceedings. The case is dismissed."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA

Aug 19: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 04-1243, 07-1039. As explained by the majority in this 2-1 split decision, the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act compel certain stationary sources of air pollution to obtain permits from state and local authorities that identify all emission limits for the source and also include “monitoring . . . requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions.” 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(c). Sometimes, existing monitoring requirements do not “assure compliance.” The U.S. EPA promulgated a rule preventing state and local authorities from supplementing these inadequate monitoring requirements. The majority opinion vacated the rule saying that, ". . . it is contrary to the statutory directive that each permit must include adequate monitoring requirements."

The majority clarifies the issue by citing an example. ". . . suppose there is a standard that limits emission from a given stationary source to X units of pollutant per day. Suppose also that the standard requires annual monitoring. Where annual testing cannot assure compliance with a daily emission limit, may the permitting authority supplement the monitoring requirement 'to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions,' as the Act commands? 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(c)."

The majority notes that EPA's position on the issue has varied over time. In 1997, EPA took the position that state and local permitting authorities could supplement periodic monitoring requirements that failed to assure compliance. The Appeals Court cites a letter from Winston A. Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Mgmt. Div., EPA, to Howard L. Rhodes, Director, Air Res. Mgmt. Div., Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. (Dec. 11, 1997). Then in 2004, EPA issued a rule which provided that nothing in the Part 70 Rules authorized permitting authorities to supplement inadequate monitoring requirements. See 69 Fed. Reg. 3202 (Jan. 22, 2004). EPA said that it alone would remedy inadequate monitoring requirements by undertaking a “programmatic” strategy. The Appeals Court vacated the 2004 rule because EPA had not allowed for notice and comment [Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2005)], and then EPA noticed and adopted an identical rule in December 2006 [71 Fed. Reg. 75,422 (Dec. 15, 2006) (2006 rule)].

In vacating the 2006 rule, the Appeals Court majority said, ". . . we have concluded the Act requires: a permitting authority may supplement an inadequate monitoring requirement so that the requirement will 'assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions.' Because § 70.6(c)(1) can be reasonably read this way, we uphold the monitoring provisions of the Part 70 Rules as consistent with the Act. . . We grant the petition for review with respect to the 2006 rule, which we vacate. We deny the petition for review with respect to the monitoring provisions of the Part 70 Rules."

In dissent, one of the three Justices said, "I respectfully part ways with the majority opinion because the relevant statutory language supports EPA’s 2006 rule. . . The dispute in this case boils down to the following: When issuing permits, can state and local permitting authorities independently determine whether, in their view, those pre-existing monitoring requirements are sufficient “to assure compliance” with emission limits -- and if they think not, impose additional monitoring requirements? The legal question here is: Who Decides? According to petitioners, the statute says that state and local permitting authorities can decide on their own to impose additional monitoring requirements as they see fit. EPA responds that it possesses the statutory authority and discretion to decide whether state and local permitting authorities can impose additional monitoring requirements. The statutory text resolves that question; the statute grants EPA the authority to determine whether state and local permitting authorities can impose additional monitoring requirements. . ."

Earthjustice challenged the 2006 EPA rule on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club. They said the rule specifically prohibited permitting authorities from including stronger air pollution monitoring requirements in permits for approximately 18,000 major stationary pollution sources, even where needed to guarantee compliance with emission limits. Earthjustice attorney Keri Powell who argued the case in court said, “This is a huge victory for everyone who breathes. We can’t have strong enforcement of our clean air laws unless we know what polluters are putting into the air.”

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope issued a statement saying, "This is a huge victory against one of the most egregious rollbacks of environmental protections in our nation’s history. . ." American Petroleum Institute, who intervened on behalf of U.S. EPA, did not issue a statement on the decision.

Access the complete opinion and dissent (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a statement from Sierra Club (click here).

Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez (Commerce Dept.)

Jul 18: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-5278. This case concerns the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) (right whale) and the role of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Coast Guard in the Federal government’s efforts to protect the species from extinction. Appellants, composed of several environmental groups and one whale researcher, challenged NMFS’s denial of a petition for emergency rulemaking and the Coast Guard’s failure to consider the impact of some of its actions on the right whale. The district court granted summary judgment to the agencies. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the agencies on the challenge to the petition denial but reversed its summary judgment order relating to the Coast Guard’s actions. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Appellants challenge the Coast Guard’s actions regarding a "traffic separation scheme process" as violations of ESA sections 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2), and 9. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(a)(1), (a)(2), 1538. The district court dismissed this challenge, concluding that the International Maritime Organization, a multinational body, adopted the traffic separation schemes at issue, not the Coast Guard. The parties dispute whether “agency action” or “final agency action” is required in order to bring suit under the citizen-suit provision of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), based on a violation of ESA section 7(a)(2)’s consultation requirement. Appellants extract a simple “agency action” requirement from the text of ESA section 7(a)(2), which speaks only to “agency action.” Appellees argue that the “final agency action” requirement in the second clause of the Administrative Procedure Act should be read into ESA section 7(a)(2). See 5 U.S.C. § 704. The Appeals Court said, "We find it unnecessary to resolve this issue because we hold that appellants are challenging final agency action by the Coast Guard.

The Appeals Court says that the record shows "quite a different role for the Coast Guard in this process. Most significantly, the Coast Guard is the sole body charged with the duty of promulgating traffic separation schemes. . . traffic separation schemes would normally have recourse under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), or the Administrative Procedure Act. But if the Coast Guard delegates its responsibility for traffic separation schemes to the International Maritime Organization, and if we accept this delegation as relieving the Coast Guard of any responsibility for them, no such recourse is available."

The Appeals Court rules, ". . . appellants have presented evidence of final agency action in this case. . . Accordingly, appellants have demonstrated final agency action, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to appellees based on its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction."

Groups involved in the lawsuit said it was a major decision in the ongoing battle to save the world's last remaining North Atlantic right whales. The groups included Defenders of Wildlife, The Humane Society of the United States, Ocean Conservancy and other whale advocates. They said the Court ordered the Coast Guard to review the impact of shipping traffic lanes on endangered whales which they say is a crucial step towards altering shipping lanes to stop ship strikes in critically endangered right whale habitat.

Robert Dreher, vice president of conservation law for Defenders of Wildlife said, “We applaud the court’s decision. Ship collisions are the greatest threat to the survival of the right whale, so ensuring that the Coast Guard protects the whale in setting shipping lanes is a great conservation victory.” They said ship strikes are the leading cause of injuries and mortalities to the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. Vessel strikes are known to kill or injure a minimum of three whales each year on the East Coast, and a number of ship strikes are believed to go unreported. Only about 350 North Atlantic right whales remain in existence.

Access the Appeals Court ruling (click here). Access a release from Defenders with links to additional information (click here).

D.C. Circuit Vacates Clean Air Interstate Rule Citing "Fatal Flaws"

Jul 11: In the case of State of North Carolina v. U.S. EPA, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. No. 05-1244 consolidated with 31 other cases involving scores of attorneys. These consolidated petitions for review challenge various aspects of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The Appeals Court said, "Because we find more than several fatal flaws in the rule and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the rule as one, integral action, we vacate the rule in its entirety and remand to EPA to promulgate a rule that is consistent with this opinion."

By way of background the Court explains that like the NOx SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule -- Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call, 70 Fed. Reg.25,162 (May 12, 2005) (CIR”) -- is the rule at issue in these consolidated petitions for review. At issue in much of this litigation is the definition of the term “contribute significantly.” In other words, in order to promulgate CAIR, EPA had to determine what amount of emissions constitutes a “significant contribution” to another state’s nonattainment problem.

Recognizing that its actions will result in significant disruption of EPA Clean Air Act activities, the D.C. Circuit said, ". . . the threat of disruptive consequences cannot save a rule when its fundamental flaws 'foreclose EPA from promulgating the same standards on remand,' [citing Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261–62 (D.C. Cir. 2007).]

" We must vacate CAIR because very little will “survive[ ] remand in anything approaching recognizable form.” Id. at 1261. EPA’s approach -- regionwide caps with no state-specific quantitative contribution determinations or emissions requirements -- is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, EPA must redo its analysis from the ground up. It must consider anew which states are included in CAIR, after giving some significance to the phrase 'interfere with maintenance' in section 110(a)(2)(D), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D). It must decide what date, whether 2015 or earlier, is as expeditious as practicable for states to eliminate their significant contributions to downwind nonattainment. The trading program is unlawful, because it does not connect states’ emissions reductions to any measure of their own significant contributions. To the contrary, it relates their SO2 reductions simply to their Title IV allowances, tampering unlawfully with the Title IV trading program. The SO2 regionwide caps are entirely arbitrary, since EPA based them on irrelevant factors like the existence of the Title IV program. The allocation of state budgets from the NOx caps is similarly arbitrary because EPA distributed allowances simply in the interest of fairness. It is possible that after rebuilding, a somewhat similar CAIR may emerge; after all, EPA already promulgated the apparently similar NOx SIP Call eight years ago. But as we have explained, the similarities with the NOx SIP Call are only superficial, and CAIR’s flaws are deep. No amount of tinkering with the rule or revising of the explanations will transform CAIR, as written, into an acceptable rule. Of course the Federal Implementation Plan EPA imposed is intimately connected to CAIR, and we vacate the FIP as well.

The Appeals Court notes that, ". . .in the absence of CAIR, the NOx SIP Call trading program will continue, because EPA terminated the program only as part of the CAIR rulemaking. CAIR, 70 Fed. Reg. at 25,317 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 51.121(r)). The continuation of the NOx SIP Call should mitigate any disruption that might result from our vacating CAIR at least with regard to NOx. In addition, downwind states retain their statutory right to petition for immediate relief from unlawful interstate pollution under section 126, 42 U.S.C. § 7426."

In its summary of the decision, the Appeals Court indicates, "To summarize, we grant the petitions of Entergy, SO2 Petitioners, and Minnesota Power. We grant North Carolina’s petition with respect to the 'interfere with maintenance' language, CAIR’s 2015 compliance date, and the unrestricted trading of allowances; we deny it with respect to EPA’s definition of 'will' in 'will contribute significantly,' and the PM2.5 contribution threshold. We deny the petitions of the Florida and Texas petitioners, and the Florida Association of Electric Utilities. Accordingly, we vacate CAIR and its associated FIP and remand both to the EPA."

In a release from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) summarizing the ruling they said, “The government should take immediate corrective action to protect the millions of Americans hard hit by power plant pollution. Power plants must do their part to cut the smog that blankets our cities, the mercury that threatens our children’s development and the greenhouse gases that are recklessly warming the planet. Cost-effective solutions are at hand to protect human health and the environment from power plant pollution while ensuring the steady flow of affordable electricity. . .

"The court agreed with North Carolina that EPA must consider faster reductions that better reflect states’ obligations to restore healthy air and making pollution cuts that help prevent states from backsliding into non-compliance with health-based standards. The court also agreed with North Carolina that EPA must tailor pollution cuts in upwind states with the level of impacts wrought on downwind jurisdictions. The court also agreed with industry litigants that EPA erred in relying on or otherwise interfering with the allowance trading system established to address acid rain while affirming EPA’s broad remedial powers to require interstate air pollution abatement to protect human health. The court agreed with gas-based utilities that EPA unfairly credited coal-based utilities in designing the program. Finally, the court rejected utility claims seeking to exclude Florida and West Texas from the program."

Access the complete 60-page opinion (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here).