Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
401 U.S. App. D.C. 306
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- After Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
- EPA then promulgated the Tailpipe Rule setting vehicle GHG standards jointly with NHTSA, triggering stationary-source regulation under PSD and Title V.
- EPA also issued the Timing Rule (when GHGs become subject to PSD/Title V) and the Tailoring Rule (phasing in coverage to avoid burdens).
- Petitioners challenged Endangerment Finding, Tailpipe Rule, Timing Rule, and Tailoring Rule on statutory and arbitrariness grounds.
- Court held Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule valid, and Timing/Tailoring petitions lacked standing; thus petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on Timing/Tailoring and denied on the others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Endangerment Finding is arbitrary or capricious | State/Industry: Endangerment finding relies on uncertain science. | EPA: Record supports endangerment despite some uncertainty. | Endangerment Finding upheld; not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether Tailpipe Rule correctly interprets §202(a)(1) and considers costs | Petitioners: EPA misread statute and ignored stationary-source costs. | EPA: Statutory obligation to regulate if endangerment found; costs not controlling. | Tailpipe Rule sustained; EPA’s interpretation compelled. |
| Whether EPA correctly interpreted PSD triggers for greenhouse gases | PSD triggers should apply only to pollutants actually harming local air quality. | “Any air pollutant” includes greenhouse gases regulated under the Act. | EPA’s PSD interpretation unambiguous and compelled. |
| Whether petitioners have standing to challenge Timing/Tailoring Rules | State/Industry: Rules injure by delaying or expanding permitting. | Endangerment and Tailpipe regulation already mandated; timing/tailoring not jurisdictionally reviewable. | No standing; petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (holding GHGs are air pollutants and EPA must regulate if endangerment shown)
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (sketches Chevron two-step approach for agency interpretation)
- Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (endangerment/standards can rely on uncertain data in precautionary regulation)
- Massachusetts v. EPA (speech n. note), 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (reaffirmation of endangerment-based regulation logic under CAA §202(a))
- Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (PSD/major emitting facility interpretation longstanding)
- New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing science-based agency decisions)