Texas v. EPA

A trade association representing “33 leading independent oil and natural gas exploration and production companies in the United States” filed a petition for review challenging the final rule.

American Petroleum Institute, “a national trade association representing all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry," filed a petition for review challenging the final rule.

A trade association representing interstate natural gas transmission pipeline companies filed a petition for review challenging the final rule.

A trade association representing the Texas oil and gas industry filed a petition for review challenging the final review.

A trade association representing “members engaged in the gathering, transportation, processing, treating, storage and marketing of natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil and refined products” filed a petition for review challenging the final rule.

Trade associations representing independent oil and natural gas producers and service companies, as well as land and royalty owners and other entities in the oil and gas industry, filed a petition seeking review of the final rule.

A trade association representing companies in the oil and gas industry in Michigan and an owner and operator of oil and gas wells in Michigan filed a petition for review challenging the final rule.

–

–

Two applications for immediate stay of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule establishing emissions standards and guidelines for the oil and natural gas sector were submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts in August 2024. Petitions challenging the rule are pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied requests for a stay on July 9, 2024. One of the applications was filed by oil and gas companies and trade associations. The industry applicants characterized the final rule as “an authoritarian national command from EPA to the States and operators … that the States regulate, that violates the cooperative federalism embedded by Congress in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.” They argued that the requirements impose significant irreparable harms, including “operational costs and barriers to continued operations” and irreversible investments and operational decisions.

–