Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency
722 F.3d 401
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- EPA issued the Deferral Rule deferring regulation of biogenic CO2 under PSD and Title V for three years.
- The Tailoring Rule phased GHG regulation; Step One/Two determined applicability thresholds.
- Deferral excludes biogenic CO2 from PSD/Title V by amending the definition of “greenhouse gases.”
- Rule is sunset on July 21, 2014 and is voluntary for states; permits for “anyway” sources still required.
- Petitioners (Center for Biological Diversity and others) challenge EPA’s legal authority and reliance on doctrines.
- Court addresses ripeness, statutory authority, and EPA’s use of quasi-exemptions and doctrines in upholding vacatur of the Rule in light of statutory mandates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to exempt biogenic CO2 from PSD/Title V | Biogenic CO2 is a pollutant; EPA lacks statutory basis to exempt. | Agency has authority to treat biogenic CO2 differently due to unique carbon-cycle characteristics. | EPA lacks justification; exempting biogenic CO2 is not supported by the statute. |
| Ripeness of challenge to a temporary rule | Rule affects permits now; controversy is ripe for review. | Rule is temporary; review should await concrete impact. | The issue is ripe due to real-world impacts and ongoing construction without PSD permits. |
| Application of de minimis doctrine | De minimis basis cannot sustain a permanent exemption. | Deferral uses de minimis to justify a limited exemption. | De minimis rationale insufficient to sustain the Deferral Rule. |
| Use of one-step-at-a-time and administrative necessity | Agency failed to articulate full compliance and abused deferment. | Agency acted within permissible incremental and necessity-driven approaches. | Invocation of one-step-at-a-time and administrative necessity arbitrary and capricious. |
| Absurd results doctrine | Deferral avoids absurd outcomes by exempting biogenic CO2. | Absurd results doctrine supports temporary exemption. | Absurd results doctrine cannot justify the Deferral Rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (endangerment finding and greenhouse gas regulation context)
- Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (endangerment, Tailpipe Rule, and PSD/Title V trigger clarified)
- Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (agency action must be based on the grounds on which the record relied)
- Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (administrative necessity and exemptions boundaries discussed)
- Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (one-step-at-a-time and agency gradualism in regulatory action)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (ripeness and procedural considerations in agency rulemaking)