Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioners challenged EPA’s anticipated rule restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Petitioners argue that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), does not grant EPA authority to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants and therefore, petitioners ask the court to enjoin EPA from issuing a final rule limiting those carbon dioxide emissions. The court concluded that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), does not authorize a court to circumvent finality principles in order to review proposed agency rules; EPA's public statements about its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions does not constitute final agency action subject to judicial review; and the court rejected petitioners' challenge of a 2011 settlement agreement that EPA reached with several other states and environmental groups. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review and the petition for a writ of prohibition where the court does not have authority to review proposed agency rules. View "In Re: Murray Energy Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of EPA's final rule, which determined that supercritical carbon dioxide injected into Class VI underground wells for purposes of geologic sequestration is “solid waste” within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6903(27). The court dismissed the petitions for review because petitioners lacked Article III standing. In this case, neither Southern nor Occidental can show any injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III; Carbon Sequestration Council lacks standing because Southern lacks standing; and American Petroleum Institute lacks standing because Occidental lacks standing. View "Carbon Sequestration Council v. EPA" on Justia Law

WRC, operator of an oil refinery, seeks review of EPA's denial of its petition for an extension of its exemption from EPA's renewable fuels program. The court rejected WRC’s various challenges other than those identifying two mathematical errors in EPA’s independent analysis of WRC’s financial data. EPA concedes those errors. Because the conceded errors significantly alter important figures in EPA’s independent analysis of WRC’s financial data, the court cannot conclude with sufficient certainty that the agency would have made the same decision absent its errors.Therefore, the court vacated EPA’s decision and remanded to allow the agency to reevaluate WRC’s petition using the correct figures. View "Hermes Consol. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the EPA’s determination that certain geographic areas are, or are not, in “attainment” with the EPA’s ground-level ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The court concluded that the EPA’s final designations of Delaware and Connecticut counties are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; EPA's designation of Uinta Basin, Utah as "unclassifiable" is rational and in accordance with the CAA; EPA's refusal to use uncertified 2011 air-quality data during the designation process is rational and in accordance with the CAA; the EPA's use of 2008 to 2010 data to classify the counties within the Memphis, Tennessee area is rational and in accordance with the CAA; and the court rejected the remaining challenges. Accordingly, the court denied the consolidated petitions. View "MS Comm. Environ. Quality v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners, PVC manufacturers, challenged EPA's 2012 rule setting first-time-ever limits on the emission of most hazardous air pollutants from PVC productions. Petitioners raised many of their objections for the first time in petitions for reconsideration with EPA that are awaiting resolution. The court concluded that it was precluded from reviewing these objections under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412. In regards to petitioners' objections that are ready for review, the court held that EPA acted reasonably and in accordance with the CAA where EPA’s PVC-combined process vent limits do not conflict with other emissions limits, and EPA’s decision not to subcategorize process vents on the basis of their emissions control technology was reasonable; EPA’s bypass opening requirements are not arbitrary and capricious, and its requirement that PVC manufacturers install monitoring equipment on pressure relief devices is not irrational; and petitioners’ argument that some of EPA’s bypass regulations are unlawful beyond-the-floor MACT requirements stems from misapprehension of the CAA and is without merit. Therefore, the court denied the petition View "Mexichem Specialty Resins v. EPA" on Justia Law

Appellants, four associations involved in building and developing land, challenged consent decrees that require the Service to determine, in accordance with a settlement-defined schedule for action, whether 251 species should be listed as endangered or threatened. The court concluded that appellants lacked Article III standing, rejecting their claims of procedural injuries based on loss of opportunity to comment at the warranted-but-precluded stage, withdrawal of the warranted-but-precluded classification, and acceleration of final listing determinations. Appellants failed to allege a cognizable harm and appellants' members cannot show injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Delaware and others petitioned for review of EPA's final rule governing use of certain kinds of power generators known as Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines ("backup generators" or "emergency engines"). The court held that Delaware lacks standing to challenge the exemption from emissions controls for backup generators in low-density areas under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412; EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously under Section 111 of the Act when it modified the National Emissions Standards and the Performance Standards to allow backup generators to operate without emissions controls for up to 100 hours per year as part of an emergency demand-response program; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded as to those portions of the challenged rule. View "DE Dept. of Natural Res. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Citizens of Myersville, in Frederick County, Maryland, oppose the construction of a natural gas facility called a compressor station in their town as part of a larger expansion of natural gas facilities in the northeastern United States proposed by Dominion, a regional natural gas company. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, over the objections of the citizens, conditionally approved it. Dominion fulfilled the Commission’s conditions, including obtaining a Clean Air Act permit from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Dominion built the station, and it has been operating for approximately six months. The D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting arguments that the Commission lacked substantial evidence to conclude that there was a public need for the project; that the Commission unlawfully interfered with Maryland’s rights under the Clean Air Act; that environmental review of the project, including its consideration of potential alternatives, was inadequate; and that the Commission unlawfully withheld hydraulic flow diagrams from them in violation of their due process rights. View "Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, that Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a))requires regulation of greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued coordinated rules governing the greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy of cars and trucks. In 2012 the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s car emission standards. Opponents, including purchasers of new vehicles and POP, a business that makes after-market modifications to diesel engines enabling them to run on vegetable oil, then challenged the car rules on procedural grounds; challenged EPA’s truck standards on procedural grounds; and challenged both agencies’ regulations concerning trucks as arbitrary and capricious. The D.C. Circuit declined to reach the merits. The purchasers of new vehicles, arguing that EPA neglected to comply with a nondiscretionary statutory duty to provide its emission standards to the Science Advisory Board prior to issuing them, lacked standing, having failed to identify a discrete injury that a favorable decision by the court would remedy. POP’s interest in promoting alternative fuel does not fall within the zone of interests protected by 42 U.S.C. 7521, the provision of the Clean Air Act governing emissions standards for motor vehicles. View "Delta Constr. Co. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency" on Justia Law

The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) extends roughly 200 miles into the ocean to the limit of U.S. international-law jurisdiction. Billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath the OCS. Concerns about ecological vulnerability and potential harm to coastal tourism led to moratoriums on OCS drilling from 1982 until they were partially lifted in 2009. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster renewed debate about the safety of offshore drilling, but energy companies remain interested in offshore drilling. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) created a framework for exploration and extraction of OCS oil and gas deposits. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a program every five years with a schedule of proposed leases for OCS resource exploration and development; the program must balance competing economic, social, and environmental values, 43 U.S.C. 1344. CSE challenged the latest leasing program as failing to comply with Section 18(a), which governs the balancing of competing economic, social, and environmental values; quantifying and assessing environmental and ecological impact; and ensuring equitable distribution of benefits and costs between OCS regions and stakeholders. CSE claimed that the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement violated National Environmental Policy Act procedural requirements by using a biased analytic methodology and providing inadequate opportunities for public comment. The D.C. Circuit denied CSE’s petition. While CSE had associational standing to petition for review, its NEPA claims are unripe; two other challenges were forfeited and remaining challenges failed on their merits. View "Ctr. for Sustainable Econ. v. Jewell" on Justia Law