USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1574820 Filed: 09/24/2015 Page 1 of 37
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1574820 Filed: 09/24/2015 Page 1 of 37 ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) WHITE STALLION ENERGY ) CENTER, LLC, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) Case No. 12-1100 v. ) (and consolidated cases) ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY, ) ) Respondent. ) ) JOINT MOTION OF THE STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONDENT-INTERVENORS FOR REMAND WITHOUT VACATUR MAURA HEALEY SEAN H. DONAHUE Attorney General of Donahue & Goldberg, LLP Massachusetts 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 950 MELISSA HOFFER Washington, DC 20036 TRACY L. TRIPLETT (202) 277-7085 Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division VICKIE L. PATTON One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor GRAHAM MCCAHAN Boston, MA 02108 Environmental Defense Fund (617) 963-2431 2060 Broadway [email protected] Boulder, CO 80302 Counsel for the Commonwealth of Counsel for Environmental Defense Massachusetts Fund (Additional Counsel Listed After Conclusion) (Page 1 of Total) USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1574820 Filed: 09/24/2015 Page 2 of 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii GLOSSARY ..............................................................................................................vi INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4 A. The Legal Standards that Guide the Court’s Remedial Decision ......... 4 B. EPA Can Readily Cure the Air Toxics Rule on Remand ..................... 6 C. Vacatur of the Air Toxics Rule Would be Extremely Disruptive ....... 10 1. The Air Toxics Rule Provides Vital Protection to Health and the Environment by Achieving Large Reductions in Harmful Pollution ..................................................................... 10 2. Vacatur Would Cause Increased Emissions of Numerous Dangerous Air Pollutants and Thereby Harm Public Health and the Environment. .................................................... 12 3. Vacatur Would Immediately Exacerbate Serious, Nationwide Water Contamination Problems, Compromise States’ Ability to Protect Their Air and Water Resources, and Render Compliance with Other Regulatory Requirements More Difficult ................................. 17 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 20 ADDENDUM ....................................................................................................... A-1 Links for Certain Cited Governmental Documents .................................... A-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE EXHIBITS (separate document) i (Page 2 of Total) USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1574820 Filed: 09/24/2015 Page 3 of 37 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases *Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................... 4,6 Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 6 Ass’n of Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC, 281 F.3d 239 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 4,6 Black Oak Energy, LLC v. FERC, 725 F.3d 230 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 4,6 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 5 Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 6 Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 920 F.2d 960 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ......................................................................... 4 *Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015) ......................................................................... 3,4,6,7,9 Mississippi v. EPA, 744 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 5 Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 5 Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000) .................................................................... 5,10 La. Fed. Land Bank Ass’n v. FCA, 336 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................... 6 ii (Page 3 of Total) USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1574820 Filed: 09/24/2015 Page 4 of 37 North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 5 *North Carolina v. EPA, on rehearing in part, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................................. 6,10,20 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943)........................................................................................ 3,7 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947)......................................................................................... 7 Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (1999) ........................................................................................ 5 Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 5 *White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 9,12 WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ......................................................................... 6 Federal Statutes Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1) .................................................................................. 18 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q 42 U.S.C. § 7409 ....................................................................................... 16,19 42 U.S.C. § 7410 ............................................................................................ 19 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b) ......................................................................................... 2 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c) ......................................................................................... 2 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d) ...................................................................................... 2,9 *42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A) .......................................................................... 2,3 iii (Page 4 of Total) USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1574820 Filed: 09/24/2015 Page 5 of 37 42 U.S.C. § 7491 ............................................................................................ 20 Federal Register Notices 64 Fed. Reg. 35,747 (Jul. 1, 1999) ........................................................................... 20 65 Fed. Reg. 79,825 (Dec. 20, 2000) ......................................................................... 2 76 Fed. Reg. 24,976 (May 3, 2011) ............................................................ 8,11,12,16 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 12, 2012) ...................................................................passim 80 Fed. Reg. 15,340 (Mar. 23, 2015) ....................................................................... 19 80 Fed. Reg. 51,052 (Aug. 21, 2015)....................................................................... 19 Other Authorities Final Report: Mercury TMDL for the State of Florida (2013) ................................ 18 Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision: Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Report 2008-2013 for Kentucky’s Class I Federal Area (2014) ............................................................................................................ 20 Minnesota Statewide Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (2007) .................. 18,19 National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Survey on MATS Compliance Extension Requests (Aug. 11, 2015) ............................................................. 12 North Carolina Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (2012) ............................ 18,19 Northeast Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (2007) ..................... 18,19 Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Review State Implementation Plan for North Carolina Class I Areas (2013) ....................................................................... 20 State Implementation Plan Regional Haze Periodic Progress Report for the State of Florida (2015) ................................................................................... 20 Statewide Michigan Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load: Public Review Draft (2013) ................................................................................................... 18 iv (Page 5 of Total) USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1574820 Filed: 09/24/2015 Page 6 of 37 Total Maximum Daily Load for Mercury Impairments Based on Concentration in Fish Tissue Caused Mainly by Air Deposition to Address 122 HUC 14s Statewide (2009) ....................................................... 19 U.S. EPA, 2011 National Listing of Fish Advisories, EPA-820-F-13-058 (2013) ............................................................................................................