Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
762 F.3d 971
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Avenal Power applied to EPA for a PSD permit to build a 600 MW natural gas plant in Avenal, CA.
- EPA did not decide within the statutory one-year deadline and standards were revised after the deadline.
- EPA initially argued it could not grant the permit under old standards, then granted the permit despite new regulations.
- EPA asserted grandfathering authority to exempt the project from revised NO2, SO2, and greenhouse gas requirements.
- Petitioners challenged EPA’s action as exceeding statutory authority and sought review under the Clean Air Act.
- The district court and EPA proceedings culminated in petition for review before the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA must enforce regulations in effect at permit issuance. | Petitioners: EPA must apply standards in effect when final action is taken. | Avenal Power: EPA can consider revised standards after delay; grandfathering may apply. | No; EPA must enforce regulations in effect at permit decision. |
| Whether EPA had authority to grandfather (waive) current regulations. | Petitioners: no statutory basis to waive implemented standards. | EPA has grandfathering authority under certain circumstances. | EPA cannot waive unambiguous statutory terms absent explicit grandfathering provisions. |
| Standing of petitioners to challenge EPA's action. | Sierra Club members have injuries from NO2/SO2; associational standing established. | EPA challenges standing arguments. | Petitioners have associational standing; at least some members have standing in their own right. |
| Whether EPA’s action was Chevron-deferable. | Petitioners: statute is clear; no need for Chevron. | EPA urges deference for interpreting ambiguous statute. | Statute unambiguously requires enforcing current regulations. |
| Whether the agency acted within statutory authority given delays and policy goals. | EPA’s delay cannot create authority to rewrite statutory terms. | Delay may justify grandfathering. | Agency cannot rewrite unambiguous statutory terms; must enforce current standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (scope of agency deference when statute is ambiguous)
- Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943) (grandfathering and applying law in effect when final action is taken)
- General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S. 530 (1990) (enforcement of applicable regulations despite delays in action)
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) (statutory interpretations must be read as a coherent scheme)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (standing and federal authority in environmental regulation)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 (2011) (environmental standing and injury in fact; association standing)
- Hall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969 (2001) (injury in fact from airborne pollutants can establish standing)
- Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253 (1986) (agency must follow statutory deadlines and remedies not voided by delays)
- Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) (agency policy and rulemaking to implement congressional intent; not a license to rewrite law)