Honeywell International, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
705 F.3d 470
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Under the Clean Air Act, EPA runs a cap-and-trade program regulating HCFC production/consumption with yearly caps and baseline allowances for each company.
- Intercompany and interpollutant transfers are permitted; interpollutant transfers may affect future baseline allowances, while intercompany transfers may permanently affect baseline HCFC-22 allowances.
- In 2008, Arkema and Solvay completed interpollutant transfers increasing Arkema’s and Solvay’s HCFC-22 baselines; EPA approved these transfers.
- In 2009, EPA-set baselines for 2010-2014 did not recognize the 2008 interpollutant transfers; Arkema challenged EPA, leading to Arkema Inc. v. EPA holding EPA must honor the transfers if baselines are set by historical usage.
- Following Arkema, EPA incorporated the 2008 transfers into HCFC-22 baselines for 2010-2014, reducing Honeywell’s market share and HCFC-22 allowances.
- Honeywell petitioned for review; issues included standing, timeliness, and merits; the court held jurisdiction and timeliness but denied merits based on Arkema.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge transfers | Honeywell has injury traceable to 2008 transfers. | Honeywell lacks standing. | Honeywell has standing. |
| Timeliness based on after-arising grounds | Arkema decision provides grounds to challenge. | Arkema cannot be after-arising. | Arkema provides after-arising grounds; timely challenge. |
| Permissibility of permanent interpollutant transfers under §607 | Transfers cannot permanently affect baselines. | Arkema allowed permanent transfers. | Arkema controls; transfers can be permanent. |
| Effect of Arkema on Honeywell's claims | Arkema forecloses Honeywell's meritorious arguments. | Arkema may be distinguishable or incorrect. | Arkema binding; petitions denied on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arkema Inc. v. EPA, 618 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (held EPA must honor 2008 transfers for future baselines if baselines reflect historical usage)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court 1992) (standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (Supreme Court 1978) (but-for causation in standing)
- LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standing traceability considerations)
- Community Nutrition Institute v. Block, 698 F.2d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (standing and injury causation principles)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (Supreme Court 1997) (agency interpretations afforded deference)