Delta Construction Co. v. EPA

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc to petitioners who unsuccessfully challenged greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards issued in 2010 and 2011 for new cars and trucks. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the challenges in April 2015 without reaching the merits. The petitioners who sought rehearing en banc argued that the dismissal of their claims on standing grounds was not consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Petitioners who unsuccessfully challenged the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the court for rehearing en banc. The court had found that these petitioners—who argued that EPA failed to comply with a statutory mandate to submit rules for peer review to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)—lacked standing. The court said the petitioners failed to establish causation or redressability because their alleged injury of increased cost to purchase vehicles would not be redressed since the standards, which were issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as EPA, would continue to apply because the SAB requirement did not apply to NHTSA. In their petition for rehearing en banc, the petitioners argued that the standing determination conflicted with Supreme Court precedent on redressability. The petitioners also argued that the case involved a question of exceptional importance.

The D.C. Circuit dismissed challenges to federal greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The regulations were issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The car standards were finalized in 2010, and the D.C. Circuit had already upheld them once in 2012. The truck standards were finalized in 2011. The D.C. Circuit said the petitioners who claimed that EPA had violated the Clean Air Act by failing to provide the car and truck regulations to the Science Advisory Board prior to publication had not established standing. The court said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated causation or redressability for the alleged injury—increased cost to purchase vehicles—because even in the absence of the EPA standards, the “substantially identical” NHTSA regulations would continue to apply. The court also dismissed challenges to the truck standards brought by “a business that promotes the use of vegetable oil in place of traditional diesel fuel”; the company alleged that the standards made its products economically infeasible and claimed that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious because, among other reasons, they ignored lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The D.C. Circuit said it did not have original jurisdiction over the company’s claim against NHTSA because under NHTSA regulations, the company’s request for reconsideration of the truck standards had been deemed a petition for rulemaking; jurisdiction for review of denials of petitions for rulemaking is in the district courts. With respect to the claim against EPA, the D.C. Circuit said that the company did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute.

The parties submitted a joint motion seeking to sever the challenges that were dependent on the Supreme Court’s determination in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA regarding stationary source greenhouse gas permitting and to proceed with a briefing schedule for the remainder of the challenges to the rule and related cases.