California v. Bernhardt

On October 29, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of California entered judgment vacating the 2018 final rule rescinding the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s 2016 Waste Prevention Rule. The federal defendants and trade group intervenor-defendants have appealed the court’s July 2020 decision vacating much of the 2018 rule. On October 8, the District of Wyoming vacated the 2016 rule, with judgment entered on October 23. No appeals have been filed yet.

A federal court in California vacated the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) 2018 rule repealing most of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule, finding that the process that resulted in the 2018 rule was “wholly inadequate.” First, the court found that BLM ignored the Mineral Leasing Act’s statutory mandate by adding an “economic limitation” to the interpretation of “waste” and through a “blanket delegation” to state and tribal authority. Second, the court found that BLM did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, finding fault with all of BLM’s grounds for the rescission. The court found that BLM did not provide adequate justification for reversing its position that the 2016 rule’s requirements were “economical, cost-effective, and reasonable”; impermissibly relied on President Trump’s Executive Order 13783 in a manner that was inconsistent with statutory mandates; arbitrarily and capriciously used a new “interim domestic” social cost of methane to analyze costs and benefits; arbitrarily ignored the Waste Prevention Rule’s benefits; arbitrarily overstated the administrative burden and failed to explain the “dramatic recalculation” of administrative costs; and arbitrarily and capriciously calculated compliance costs. Third, the court found that BLM did not satisfy its “hard look” obligation under NEPA with respect to impacts on public health (including impacts on tribal communities), impacts on climate, and cumulative climate impacts of BLM’s fossil fuel program. The court further found that BLM erred by not preparing an environmental impact statement. The court stayed its vacatur of the 2018 rule and re-implementation of the 2016 rule for 90 days to allow the parties to determine next steps.

The Western Energy Alliance and Independent Petroleum Association of America moved to intervene. They argued that they were entitled to intervene as of right because they had legally protectable interests that the named defendants could not adequately protect. Alternatively, they argued for permissive intervention.

On the same day that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a final rule repealing key requirements of the Waste Prevention Rule, California and New Mexico filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging the repeal. The states alleged causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They asserted that BLM failed to offer a reasoned explanation for reversing its previous determination that the Waste Prevention Rule was necessary to fulfill its statutory mandates and alleged in particular that the “interim domestic social cost of methane” metric used by BLM to justify the repeal was arbitrary and not based on best available science. The states also asserted that “perfunctory” conclusion that the repeal would not have significant environmental impacts violated NEPA. The states alleged that the repeal would likely result in a number of significant adverse impacts, including climate change harms.