Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA

Geography
🇺🇸 United States / District of Columbia
Year
2009
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA

About this case

Filing year
2009
Status
Order issued denying rehearing en banc.
Geography
🇺🇸 United States → District of Columbia
Docket number
10-1073, 10-1092, 10-1167
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Clean Air Act (US) → Industry Lawsuits (US) → Endangerment Findings (US)Industry Lawsuits (US) → Federal Vehicle Standards (US)Industry Lawsuits (US) → PSD Program (US)Industry Lawsuits (US) → Tailoring Rule (US)
Principal law
United States → Clean Air Act (CAA)
At issue
Challenge to EPA endangerment finding and rules concerning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary and mobile sources.
Topics
, ,  

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
08/07/2015
Order issued denying rehearing en banc.
See below.
Decision
08/07/2015
Order issued denying panel rehearing.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued two orders denying—without comment—a rehearing or rehearing en banc of its judgment remanding but not vacating portions of EPA’s permitting regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. In the petition for rehearing, the petitioners had argued that the D.C. Circuit should have vacated EPA’s regulations requiring sources subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program solely due to their emissions of other pollutants to use best available control technology (BACT) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Decision
05/26/2015
Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed.
After the D.C. Circuit determined in April 2015 that the Supreme Court’s decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA did not require vacating EPA’s permitting regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, petitioners asked for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petitioners contended that the D.C. Circuit should have vacated EPA’s regulations requiring sources subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program solely due to their emissions of other pollutants to use best available control technology (BACT) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court in UARG v. EPA had held that these BACT provisions were defective because, among other reasons, they did not establish a de minimis level of greenhouse gas emissions below which BACT would not be required. It therefore was inappropriate, the petitioners said, for the D.C. Circuit to allow EPA “merely to ‘consider,’ per its own ruminations, whenever it feels so inclined,” the extent to which UARG v. EPA required revisions to the BACT provisions. The petitioners also contended that the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment was at odds with its own precedent concerning when remand without vacatur is appropriate.
Petition For Rehearing
04/10/2015
Order issued to govern further proceedings.
In an order governing further proceedings after the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit accepted EPA’s view that UARG v. EPA did not require EPA to start from scratch to establish a greenhouse gas permitting regime for stationary sources. Instead, the D.C. Circuit ordered EPA to act “as expeditiously as practicable” to rescind Clean Air Act regulations that required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits solely based on a source’s greenhouse gas emissions. The court also ordered EPA to rescind regulations that would have required EPA to consider lowering the greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for permitting and to “consider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA.” On April 30, the EPA Administrator signed a direct final rule that authorized rescission of PSD permits upon requests from applicants who demonstrate that they would not have been subject to PSD permitting but for their greenhouse gas emissions. The regulation is also to be published as a proposed rule in case adverse comments are received.
Decision
10/21/2014
Motion to govern further proceedings filed by EPA.
On October 21, 2014, parties weighed in on how the D.C. Circuit should proceed after the Supreme Court’s decision. Industry groups, along with states and public interest groups aligned with industry, argued that greenhouse gas emissions were not and could not be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Title V requirements without further EPA rulemaking. EPA asked that its PSD and Title V regulations be vacated only to the extent that they required permits where greenhouse gases were the only pollutant that exceeded applicable major source thresholds or required EPA to consider phasing sources into the permitting programs that met lower greenhouse gas emission thresholds. EPA (and also environmental organization respondent-intervenors) said that best available control technology requirements for greenhouse gases should continue to apply—without need for further rulemaking—to sources whose emissions of other pollutants met the applicable thresholds.
Motion
10/21/2014
Motion to govern further proceedings filed by environmental respondent-intervenors.
See above.
Motion
10/21/2014
Motion to govern further proceedings filed by state, industry, and public interest parties.
See above.
Motion
12/20/2012
Order issued denying rehearing.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion to rehear lawsuits challenging EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, voting 6-2 against hearing the case en banc, holding that there was no basis for such review.
Decision
08/10/2012
Petition for rehearing en banc filed by industry groups.
Petition For Rehearing
06/26/2012
Opinion issued.
The D.C. Circuit dismissed all challenges to EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. The ruling upheld four aspects of the rules, including the endangerment finding rule, the tailpipe rule, the tailoring rule, and the timing rule. In particular, the court concluded that the endangerment finding and tailpipe rule were neither arbitrary nor capricious; EPA’s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions was unambiguously correct; and no petitioner had standing to challenge the timing and tailoring rules. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the timing and tailoring rules, and denied the remainder of the petitions. A blog entry analyzing the decision is available here.
Decision
12/10/2010
Order issued denying stay.
The D.C. Circuit denied all pending motions to stay EPA's regulations of greenhouse gases, some of which were scheduled to take effect on January 2, 2011. The court also directed that the cases be scheduled for oral argument on the same day before the same panel.
Decision
12/23/2009
Petitions for review filed.
Seventeen lawsuits in which states and industry groups challenged EPA’s December 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare were eventually consolidated with nine lawsuits challenging EPA's denial of requests for reconsideration of the endangerment finding; 17 lawsuits challenging EPA's final rule establishing greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks; 26 lawsuits challenging EPA's "tailoring rule," which limited the scope of federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions at stationary sources; and 18 lawsuits challenging EPA's regulations restricting greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified stationary sources. The nine lawsuits challenging the denial of reconsideration of the endangerment finding: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1234), Chamber of Commerce v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1235), Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1239), Peabody Energy Company v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1245), Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1281), Pacific Legal Foundation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1310), Competitive Enterprise Institute v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1318), Virginia v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1319), Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1320), and Ohio Coal Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1321). The 17 lawsuits challenging the endangerment finding: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 09-1322), National Mining Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1024), Peabody Energy Co. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1025), American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1026), Chamber of Commerce v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1030), Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1035), Virginia v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1036), Gerdau Ameristeel v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1037), American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1038), Alabama v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1039), Ohio Coal Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1040), Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1041), Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1042), National Association of Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1044), Competitive Enterprise Institute v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1045), Portland Cement Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1046), and Alliance for Natural Climate v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1049). The 17 lawsuits challenging the vehicle emission standards: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1092), Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1094), American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1134), Competitive Enterprise Institute v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1143), Ohio Coal Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1144), Levin v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1152), Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1156), Energy Intensive Manufacturers Working Group v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1158), Portland Cement Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1159), U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1160), Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1161), National Mining Association v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1162), Peabody Energy Co. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1163), American Farm Bureau Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1164), National Association of Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1166), American Forest and Paper Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1172), and Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1182). The 26 lawsuits challenging the tailoring rule: Georgia Coalition for Sound Environmental Policy v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1200), National Mining Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1201), American Farm Bureau Fed. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1202), Peabody Energy Company v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1203), Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1205), Energy Intensive Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1206), South Carolina Public Service v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1207), Levin v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1208), National Alliance of Forest Owners v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1209), National Environmental Developers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1210), Alabama v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1211), Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1212), Missouri Joint Municipal Electrical Utility Commission v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1213), Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1215), Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1216), National Association of Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1218), National Federation of Independent Businesses v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1219), Portland Cement Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1220), Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1221), Perry v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1222), Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1131), Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1132), American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1147), Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1148), Ohio Coal Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1145), and Chamber of Commerce v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1199). The 18 lawsuits challenging the rule for new and modified stationary sources: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1073), Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1083), Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1099), American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1109), Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1110), Energy Intensive Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1114), Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1115), Peabody Energy Company v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1118), American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1119), National Mining Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1120), Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1122), Chamber of Commerce v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1123), Missouri Joint Municipal Electrical Utility Commission v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1124), National Environmental Developers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1125), Ohio Coal Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1126), National Association of Manufacturers v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1127), Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1128), and Portland Cement Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1129).
Petition

Summary

Challenge to EPA endangerment finding and rules concerning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary and mobile sources.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance