We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Since
I already violated my rule against speculating on the outcome
of a case based on oral argument, I might as well do it again.
I have always said that EPA's endangerment finding would
survive judicial review and that conclusion seems only more likely
to prove correct following yesterday's oral argument before the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both the Daily Environment Report and GreenWire noted in their reporting on the
argument that the groups challenging the rule emphasized that EPA
had not considered the policy implications of making the
endangerment finding. Of
course. Precisely. That's because the Clean Air Act
itself divorces the endangerment finding from its policy
implications. If there were any doubt about that, Massachusetts to EPA would seem to
have put such questions to rest.
Judges Tatel and Sentelle both seemed to understand this
point. Judge Tatel apparently felt compelled to remind the
petitioners that the Court of Appeals is bound by Massachusetts
v. EPA. Judge Sentelle said that:
"Sometimes in reading the petitioners briefs, I got the
impression that Massachusetts had not been
decided."
To which, the petitioners said "uh-oh".
There are a lot of issues in these cases. EPA could lose
parts of some of the rules under challenge. The Tailoring Rule
in particular still seems on thin ice to me – though I
don't know what alternatives EPA really had (and all heck will
certainly break loose if the endangerment finding is affirmed but
the Tailoring Rule is overturned). Nonetheless, the
endangerment finding itself seems compelled by the plain language
of the CAA and the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA,
unless EPA's scientific conclusion is arbitrary and capricious
– and it ain't, by a long mile.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
