Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Fluor, Inc.

EPA joined manufacturers of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants in opposing Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit’s August 2017 decision striking down a 2015 EPA regulation that prohibited or restricted use of certain HFCs as replacements for ozone-depleting substances due to the HFCs’ high global warming potential. EPA told the Court that the case did not warrant Supreme Court review. EPA said that while it argued before the D.C. Circuit that it had authority to issue the 2015 regulation, it had revisited the issue and “now believes that the decision below reflects the better understanding” of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in the case. EPA said the question presented therefore was “of limited prospective importance” and also indicated that “[s]ome of petitioners’ concerns, moreover, may be addressed in an upcoming EPA rulemaking.”

HFC manufacturers argued that certiorari was not warranted because (1) the D.C. Circuit’s decision did not conflict with any decision of any court, (2) the question presented was not sufficiently important, and (3) the D.C. Circuit’s decision was correct.

Five of the leading U.S. manufacturers of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and commercial refrigeration (HVACR) equipment filed a brief in support of the petitioners, asserting that the D.C. Circuit’s decision had “torn up” a “well-established and reasonable path toward new, environmentally safer alternatives” and “created enormous uncertainty and associated costs.”

An HVACR equipment manufacturer that also manufactured refrigerants filed a separate amicus brief in support of the petitioners, similarly citing the D.C. Circuit decision’s disruption of a “well-established regulatory regime.”

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.

Two manufacturers filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking review of the D.C. Circuit decision striking down key components of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule prohibiting or restricting use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as replacements for ozone-depleting substances due to the HFCs’ high global warming potential. The manufacturers, which had intervened to defend the rule in the D.C. Circuit, said they and their suppliers had invested more than $1 billion in creating and commercializing safer replacements for ozone-depleting substances. Their petition presented the question of whether EPA lacked authority under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, which created the “safe alternatives policy,” to prohibit use of a less-safe substitute for an ozone-depleting substance in favor of a safer alternative “just because a company has already begun using the less-safe substitute.” The companies argued that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation was incorrect and that the decision “eviscerated” an “immensely consequential” and “extremely effective” federal program, upended the investment-backed expectations of companies such as the petitioners, and harmed the environment.