Rhode Island AFL-CIO v. EPA

Parties that previously filed lawsuits in federal district courts challenging EPA’s termination of the Solar for All program filed protective petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties included a labor organization, an individual homeowner, and nonprofit organizations who identified themselves as the “intended beneficiaries” of the Solar for All program; Harris County, Texas; and state recipients of Solar for All funding. These parties asserted that in their view the Clean Air Act’s provision mandating that judicial review for certain EPA actions be sought in the D.C. Circuit did not apply, but they filed the petitions for review as a “precautionary measure.”

Parties that previously filed lawsuits in federal district courts challenging EPA’s termination of the Solar for All program filed protective petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties included a labor organization, an individual homeowner, and nonprofit organizations who identified themselves as the “intended beneficiaries” of the Solar for All program; Harris County, Texas; and state recipients of Solar for All funding. These parties asserted that in their view the Clean Air Act’s provision mandating that judicial review for certain EPA actions be sought in the D.C. Circuit did not apply, but they filed the petitions for review as a “precautionary measure.”

Parties that previously filed lawsuits in federal district courts challenging EPA’s termination of the Solar for All program filed protective petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties included a labor organization, an individual homeowner, and nonprofit organizations who identified themselves as the “intended beneficiaries” of the Solar for All program; Harris County, Texas; and state recipients of Solar for All funding. These parties asserted that in their view the Clean Air Act’s provision mandating that judicial review for certain EPA actions be sought in the D.C. Circuit did not apply, but they filed the petitions for review as a “precautionary measure.”