In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1266030 Filed: 09/15/2010 Page: 1 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL. Petitioners, v. No. 09-1322 and consolidated cases UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Respondent. COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL. Petitioners, No. 10-1073 and v. consolidated cases UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Respondent. Case: 09-1322 Document: 1266030 Filed: 09/15/2010 Page: 2 COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL. Petitioners, v. No. 10-1092 and consolidated cases UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Respondent. SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, ET AL. Petitioners, No. 10-1131 and v. consolidated cases UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Respondent. COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL., SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, ET AL., COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, ET AL., LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION, ET AL., AND OHIO COAL ASSOCIATION MOTION FOR STAY Case: 09-1322 Document: 1266030 Filed: 09/15/2010 Page: 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 The Clean Air Act is Not a Comprehensive Greenhouse Gas Control Act....................................................................................................................................4 The Requested Stay Leaves In Place All Intended Emission Reductions. .........10 A Stay Serves the Public’s Interest in Orderly Policy-Making..............................14 ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................................19 I. There is a Strong Likelihood that Petitioners will Prevail on the Merits Because Each Link in EPA’s Chain of GHG Regulation Suffers Fatal Legal Weaknesses. ....................................................................22 A. The Endangerment Finding Proceeds from a Misapprehension of EPA’s Obligations Under Section 202(a)......................................................................................................23 1. EPA Unlawfully Delegated its Statutory Judgment to Other Agencies. ........................................................................24 2. EPA Misconstrues—and so Fails to Make—the Judgment Required by Section 202(a)...................................29 3. EPA’s Assessment of the Record is Logically Flawed. .......................................................................................36 i. EPA Created a “False Dilemma” by Meaningfully Evaluating Only One Possible Cause of Global Temperature Changes. ...................38 ii. EPA’s Arguments from Ignorance Could Rationalize Any Regulatory Action, and so Provide No Rationale at All........................................39 B. The Tailpipe Rule Suffers Fundamental Legal Defects. ................43 1. The Tailpipe Rule is Based Upon and Fatally Flawed by the Same Defects That Plague the Endangerment Finding. ......................................................................................43 2. EPA’s Administrative Record Fails to Establish Any Non-Trivial Benefit to the Tailpipe Rule..............................43 -iii- Case: 09-1322 Document: 1266030 Filed: 09/15/2010 Page: 4 3. EPA’s GHG Tailpipe Limits Accomplish Nothing That the NHTSA CAFE Standards Do Not Already Accomplish................................................................................45 C. The Triggering and Tailoring Rules are Illegal Solutions to a Legal Problem of EPA’s Own Creation...........................................47 1. EPA Could Have Avoided Absurdity with a Proper Reading of the Act. ..................................................................48 (a) “Subject to regulation” means subject to regulation at the time of the CAA’s enactment.......................................................................49 (b) Before EPA can add a new pollutant subject to review under Part C, Section 166 requires EPA to undertake a rulemaking to create a PSD program appropriate to that pollutant. ............51 (c) Adherence to the statute avoids absurdity and leads to sensible results................................................53 2. The Triggering and Tailoring Rules Treat the States as Vassals, Not As the Equal Sovereigns Contemplated by the Clean Air Act. .....................................56 (a) States must be given time to change their rules to conform to new EPA expectations.......................57 (b) The Tailoring Rule’s demands for “loyalty oaths” reflect complete disrespect for the States as sovereign and equal partners in the implementation of the Act. .........................................60 II. The Rules Impose an Uncertainty Tax Across the U.S. Economy, An Irreparable Harm That Can Never be Recovered................................61 1. EPA Interprets the Act in a Way that has Imposed a Ban on New Construction......................................................62 2. The Endangerment Finding is Being Used to Support Other Challenges to Project Development...........66 3. The Rules are Depressing Markets for CRR Member Company Products...................................................................67 III. A Stay Delays no Benefits of Regulation. ....................................................68 IV. A Stay Would Allow for Rational Policy Development. ...........................69 -iv- Case: 09-1322 Document: 1266030 Filed: 09/15/2010 Page: 5 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS ANPR Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking AR IPCC Assessment Report BACT Best Available Control Technology CAA Clean Air Act CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute CO2 Carbon Dioxide CRR Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. CRU University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit EAB Environmental Appeals Board EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FIP Federal Implementation Plan GHG Greenhouse Gas GNPD Great Northern Project Development IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LLF Landmark Legal Foundation NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NRC National Research Council NSPS New Source Performance Standards OCA Ohio Coal Association OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration PM Particulate Matter PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RLBLC RACT-BACT-LAER Clearinghouse SIP State Implementation Plan SLF Southeastern Legal Foundation SO2 Sulfur Dioxide USGCRP U.S. Global Climate Research Program -v- Case: 09-1322 Document: 1266030 Filed: 09/15/2010 Page: 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Air Pollution Control Dist. v. EPA, 739 F.2d 1071 (6th Cir. 1984)............................................................................................44 Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ..............................................................................52, 53, 54 Am. Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................... 31, 34 Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................29 Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Gorsuch, 748 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984)..................................................................................... 60, 61 Bowen v. Amer. Hosp. Assoc., 476 U.S. 610 (1986).............................................................................................................45 Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 10-CV-985 (D.D.C. filed June 11, 2010) .................................................................12 Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................................21 Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)...................................................................................................... 15, 47 City of Los Angeles v. NHTSA, 912 F.2d 478 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ...........................................................................................45 City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................59 Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 2007 WL 6942285 (S.D. Miss. 2007), rev’d 585 F.3d 855 (5th Cir. 2010), appeal dismissed, 607 F.3d 1049 (5th Cir. 2010), pet. for mandamus filed, No. 10-294 (U.S. Aug. 26, 2010) ..................................................................................................... 13, 66 Concerned Citizens of Bridesburg v. EPA, 836 F.2d 777 (3d Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................57 Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 406 F. Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y 2005), rev’d, 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009), pet. for cert. filed, No. 10-174 (U.S. Aug. 2, 2010) .........................................................................13 -vi- Case: 09-1322 Document: 1266030 Filed: 09/15/2010 Page: 7 CSX Transp. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 584 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .........................................................................................59 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 406 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................67