Delta Construction Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency
414 U.S. App. D.C. 428
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- EPA and NHTSA issued coordinated, harmonized standards for light-duty (Car Rule) and medium-/heavy-duty vehicles (Truck Rule) regulating greenhouse-gas emissions (EPA) and fuel economy (NHTSA).
- California Petitioners (businesses/individuals) challenged EPA portions of the Car and Truck Rules, alleging EPA failed to provide proposed standards to the Science Advisory Board as required by statute.
- Plant Oil Powered Diesel (POP Diesel), a seller of vegetable (jatropha) fuel and engine conversions, challenged the Truck Rule, arguing EPA ignored lifecycle emissions, failed to incentivize biofuels, and overlooked rebound effects; it sought reconsideration from EPA and NHTSA; NHTSA treated POP Diesel’s late filing as a petition for rulemaking and denied it.
- Jurisdictional thresholds were dispositive: petitioners needed Article III standing and to satisfy statutory routes for direct review in the D.C. Circuit; POP Diesel’s challenge to EPA was subject to the Clean Air Act direct-review provision for final agency actions.
- The court dismissed all petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction or failure to meet the zone-of-interests test, without reaching the merits of the substantive challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California Petitioners have Article III standing to challenge EPA’s failure to provide standards to Science Advisory Board | EPA’s submission to OMB triggered statutory duty to provide standards to SAB; failure injured vehicle purchasers via higher upfront vehicle costs | Lack of causation and redressability because NHTSA’s parallel standards independently cause the same price increase; vacating EPA standards would not lower prices | No standing: plaintiffs cannot show causation or redressability because NHTSA standards would continue to cause injury |
| Whether this court has original jurisdiction over POP Diesel’s challenge to NHTSA’s denial of reconsideration (petition treated as petition for rulemaking) | Section 32909(a)(1) allows direct review in D.C. Circuit by those adversely affected by NHTSA regulations | 49 U.S.C. § 32909 does not authorize direct appellate review of denials of petitions for rulemaking; such challenges must begin in district court | No original jurisdiction: D.C. Circuit lacks first-instance review of NHTSA petition-for-rulemaking denials; claim dismissed |
| Whether POP Diesel has Article III standing to challenge EPA’s Truck Rule | POP Diesel as competitor of other renewable fuel providers suffers economic injury from rule incentives that favor rivals | EPA contends POP Diesel fails to show it would actually sell more fuel or conversions if rule changed | Standing: POP Diesel has competitor standing; injury, causation, and redressability satisfied |
| Whether POP Diesel falls within the CAA §202 (42 U.S.C. §7521) zone of interests to challenge EPA’s emissions standards | POP Diesel contends its product uniquely advances CAA goals and is a suitable challenger | EPA argues competitor seeking to increase regulatory burden on others falls outside the statute’s zone of interests | Not within zone of interests: POP Diesel cannot challenge EPA rule under §7521; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (upholding EPA car emissions standards)
- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (Supreme Court decision addressing aspects of EPA regulation)
- Crete Carrier Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (no causation where separate regulatory action independently causes same harm)
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. NHTSA, 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (statutory direct-review provisions do not authorize first-instance review of petitions for rulemaking)
- White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (competitor challenging emissions rule fell outside zone of interests)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (zone-of-interests inquiry scope)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (zone-of-interests varies with statutory context)