American Petroleum Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency
403 U.S. App. D.C. 424
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to require increasing renewable fuel in 48 states through 2022.
- EPA’s 2012 RFS rule projected cellulosic biofuel production well below the mandated volumes.
- The Act requires EPA to base cellulosic projections on an estimate from EIA and allows adjustments by EPA.
- EPA’s 2012 projection relied on factors beyond EIA and reflected a growth-promotion aim.
- API challenged EPA’s methodology and refusal to reduce advanced biofuels volumes in 2012.
- Court vacates the 2012 cellulosic projection and remands for further proceedings, while upholding most other aspects of EPA’s rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA’s cellulosic projection was a lawful projection | API contends EPA biased projection to promote industry | EPA argues substantial discretion to interpret data | No; remand for retooling projection method |
| Timeliness of API’s challenge to the 2012 rule | API timely under 60-day limit due to methodology use | APIs challenge premised on prior year’s approach | Timely challenge over EPA’s methodology |
| EPA’s authority to adjust advanced biofuels volumes without numerical projections | API asserts no numeric basis required | Agency not required to provide exact numbers for advanced fuels | Agency need not provide exact numbers; rational explanation suffices |
| Court’s remedy for overprojection of cellulosic biofuel | Wrong projection harmed industry | No error in projection beyond overstatement | Vacate cellulosic projection component; remand for compliance with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of agency methodology under particular context)
- Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (timeliness of challenges to iterative methodologies)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference to reasonable interpretations of statutes)
- National Petrochemical & Refiners Ass’n v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (technology-forcing standards may be justified with plausible development steps)
- Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (limits on relying on general purposes when specific directives exist)