The NAM and other business organizations moved to intervene in a case brought in California by three environmental organizations which challenged the Department of the Interior's rule relating to naming the polar bear a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Our involvement did not challenge or support that designation, but supported the Department's conclusion not to require special permits for companies that conduct greenhouse gas-emitting activities. Any activity that harms a threatened species may constitute an "incidental taking" and may require a special Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) permit. Under the new rule, the government provided an exception for greenhouse gas emissions, since their effect on global warming cannot be traced to any particular activities in particular locations.
In a separate case, we challenged a particular provision that did not exempt the state of Alaska from the greenhouse gas exception. See American Petroleum Institute v. Salazar. After we filed that case, EPA amended the rule to eliminate the "Alaska gap" carve-out provision, but left in greenhouse gas requirements for operations within the current range of the polar bear. We continued to challenge that limited ruling (see Amended Complaint below).
On 12/3/08, our motions to transfer and consolidate this case with others filed in federal court in the District of Columbia were granted. This case was consolidated with Defenders of Wildlife v. Dep't of the Interior, which challenged the Department's Section 4(d) rule as having been promulgated without conducting an environmental impact analysis and as not providing for the conservation of the polar bear. Since these cases have been consolidated, our summary is consolidated here as well.
In 2010, we filed a memorandum and reply brief supporting the decision not to extend liability for affecting polar bears to activity occurring outside the current range of the bear. This will allow energy and industrial activity permitted under the Clean Air Act, the application of pesticides allowed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and other economic activities. The Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling carbon emissions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision is reasonable and supported by the statute.
On Nov. 4, 2010, the district court judge rejected the Service's view that only species that are in imminent danger of extinction are "endangered" under the law, and ordered the Service to reconsider its rule in light of the ambiguity of that term. The statute mandates consideration of 5 factors and the best available science to determine whether a species is endangered, and the agency should consider them and issue a new interpretation for court review. The existing rule will remain in effect while this new interpretation is under review.
After a hearing on April 13, 2011, the judge ordered the parties to submit briefs asking whether it needs to decide all the issues in the case if it remands the case to the FWS to comply with NEPA or ESA. The NAM's brief, filed June 3, 2011, supported the Fish & Wildlife Service's view that the rule complies with all relevant statutes, but if not, the appropriate remedy is to send the case back to the agency for further action without throwing out the current version. Otherwise, thousands of otherwise lawful activities outside the polar bear's current range would be called into question and possibly generate lawsuits, unnecessary administrative actions and delays, and potential liability. There are many actions that FWS could take that would address judicial concerns about its actions, such as providing further reasons or further NEPA analysis.
On June 30, District Judge Sullivan affirmed the legality of FWS's listing of the polar bear as a "threatened species" under the ESA.
On Oct. 17 and Nov. 18, the judge upheld the final rule under the Endangered Species Act, vacated the final rule and reinstated the Interim Final 4(d) Rule. He remanded the rule to FWS to conduct its NEPA review and to publish a final Environmental Assessment by December 6, 2012. The court ruled that the ESA does not require FWS to regulate greenhouse gases, and that the Service had a rational basis for its decision, despite the fact that it may limit the ability of environmental groups to sue greenhouse gas emitters under the ESA.