The NAM and four other business organizations filed an amicus brief supporting the State of Texas in its lawsuit seeking an emergency stay of EPA’s decision partially revoking the State’s permitting authority under its Clean Air Act implementation plan. EPA took over the Texas permitting authority without notice-and-comment rulemaking on the premise that without intervention many stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Texas would have to forgo construction and modification in 2011. But there was no construction ban in Texas, and EPA's intervention was not needed to prevent one.
EPA took the action in late December, 2010, after the Texas Clear Air Act implementation plan had been on the books for 18 years. EPA believes that its new greenhouse gas rules require large stationary sources of GHG emissions to obtain PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) permits before beginning construction or undertaking modifications of their facilities. Most states automatically incorporate new EPA pollutants in their state plans, but Texas does not, and EPA believes Texas will not act promptly to do so. Our brief, however, argued that PSD permit requirements are not automatically incorporated into a state's implementation plan. Thus, a court may stay EPA's latest regulatory control tactic without interfering with the continuing process by which Texas issues construction and modification permits for stationary sources of emissions.
On Jan. 12, 2011, the Court granted our motion to file an amicus brief, but denied the motion for a stay. EPA's regulatory action continued in force during the litigation.
On June 18, 2012 the NAM, as part of the SIP/FIP Advocacy Group, filed its main brief to support Texas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) against the EPA’s actions to deny it. Our brief argued that EPA cannot override the Texas SIP any time it finds fault or shifts its policy direction. EPA should not expand its powers by using legislation that was intended merely to correct clerical or technical errors in prior laws. In addition, the EPA should not have reviewed the SIP, as it was compliant with the Clean Air Act when it was implemented. Finally, we argued that EPA ignored the requirement to give notice and an opportunity to comment on rule changes.
These steps by EPA are causing harm to Texas and manufacturers, as they require businesses to obtain permitting from both the state and the federal government, and have effectively destabilized investments in Texas businesses affected by the standards.
On July 26, 2013, the D.C. Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that no party had standing to challenge EPA's actions because any harm was caused by the Clean Air Act and not by EPA's actions. It found that the Act's permitting requirements are self-executing and require permits for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act even when the applicable SIP has not been updated to include requirements for newly regulated pollutants. The petitioners did not have standing, according to the majority, because a victory for them would leave them worse off than with the rules, because there would be a construction ban in those states without a SIP for greenhouse gases.
On Sept. 22, 2014, we petitioned the court to rehear this case, arguing that its decision directly conflicted with the Supreme Court's recent decision in UARG v. EPA. The Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act cannot be interpreted to automatically require a source to obtain a PSD permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse gas emissions when those emissions became regulated pollutants. Because the requirements are not self-executing, the D.C. Circuit's decision based on that finding are insupportable. EPA could not reject state implementation plans that did not regulate major sources of greenhouse gases because its own regulations were not authorized.
The court ordered responses to the petition for rehearing, which were filed on November 4. On May 4, 2015, the court denied the petitions.