National Chicken Council v. Environmental Protection Agency
687 F.3d 393
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- petitioners challenge EPA's interpretation of the EISA 2007 transition rules governing ethanol RINs under the agency's Renewable Fuel Standard program
- EISA directs EPA to ensure transportation fuel contains minimum renewable fuel levels and to adjust the RIN trading system accordingly
- EPA’s grandfathering provision deems 2008–2009 ethanol plants compliant with the 20% GHG reduction requirement regardless of actual emissions reductions
- EPA’s Final Rule read the provision to apply indefinitely to qualifying plants (those that commenced construction in 2008–2009) for generating RINs
- Petitioners allege injury to corn producers from increased ethanol demand and corn prices due to the indefinite RIN generation by qualifying plants
- Court dismissed petition for lack of Article III standing and redressability showing
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners have standing to challenge EPA's interpretation | Petitioners (the meat groups) allege concrete injury via higher corn prices | EPA's interpretation causes no redressable injury to petitioners | Standing lacking; petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (standing requires concrete injury traceable to challenged action and redressable relief)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (redressability requires specific facts showing probability of relief affecting harm)
- Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (1978) (standing requires substantial probability that relief would redress injury)