On August 2, 2010, the NAM and 16 other business associations filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging the EPA's final regulation that sets out its schedule for enforcing regulatory controls on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources. The agency has previously announced that greenhouse gas emissions are subject to regulation beginning January 2, 2011, and the usual permit requirements of the PSD program (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) kick in. Because there are millions of facilities that fall under EPA's regulatory requirements, the agency has adopted the tailoring rule to focus its initial enforcement only on facilities with the largest amounts of GHG emissions.
This is the last of eight petitions filed by the NAM coalition of business organizations challenging EPA's efforts to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gases.
Our lawsuit is the third in a series of suits challenging four EPA rules that together implement the greenhouse gas regulatory program. Our fundamental concern is over EPA's decision to automatically trigger PSD regulation of all stationary sources.
On Sept. 15, 2010, the NAM coalition filed a motion for a partial stay of the regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources of emissions. The court denied this motion in December.
On June 20, 2011, the NAM and several other industry associations filed the fourth major legal brief challenging the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. This brief argued, in part, that the EPA’s tailoring rule essentially rewrote parts of the Clean Air Act by changing clear, congressionally established numerical thresholds for pollutants that are subject to regulation. The brief reiterated that the Clean Air Act was never meant to regulate GHGs. As a result, the rules should be vacated and remanded.
Oral arguments in the case were held on Feb. 29, 2012.
On June 26, 2012, the 3-judge panel upheld all of the primary greenhouse gas regulations. It upheld the EPA’s endangerment finding as within its discretionary power and procedurally sufficient, it upheld the tailpipe rule as being required by law once the endangerment finding is made, it found that the business community lacked standing to challenge the timing and tailoring rules because those rules helped rather than hurt, and, while it found our challenge to earlier rules in 1978, 1980 and 2002 to be timely, it rejected our legal arguments and found EPA’s interpretation compelled by the statute.
On August 10, 2012, the NAM coalition filed a petition for rehearing en banc, asking that all the judges on the D.C. Circuit review the 3-judge panel's ruling. We argued that the panel relied on an unreasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act to approve "the most sweeping expansion of EPA authority in the agency's history, for the first time covering a broad swatch of mobile and stationary sources of greenhouse gases and granting itself discretion to determine and revise the scope of the statute’s coverage, previously fixed by the statute’s explicit terms, for the indefinite future." The panel's ruling conflicts with Supreme Court decisions, produces absurd results, and could lead to annual cost increases of more than $20 billion upon full implementation.
On December 20, 2012, the D.C. Circuit denied our petition. Judges Brown and Kavanaugh filed separate dissenting opinions that supported our arguments. Such dissents are rare, sending a clear signal that significant legal issues remain to be addressed.
On April 18, 2013, the NAM filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and awaiting the Court's determination whether to hear the case.