Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
774 F.3d 383
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Sierra Club challenges EPA redesignations of Milwaukee-Racine, Greater Chicago, and the Illinois portion of St. Louis from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
- EPA's redesignation requires (i) attainment of the NAAQS and (ii) that improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
- EPA identified permanent and enforceable reductions by cataloguing state and federal measures and analyzing emissions data.
- Sierra Club argues the reductions were not shown to be caused by permanent and enforceable measures and raises standing concerns.
- Wisconsin and Illinois submitted redesignation requests in 2011–2012; EPA finalizes Milwaukee-Racine in 2012 and St. Louis and Chicago in 2012, with ongoing issues and petitions for reconsideration.
- The district court/appeals review addresses standing and whether EPA's causation attribution was reasonable under the CAA and agency guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sierra Club has standing to sue | Sierra Club shows likely injury from higher future pollution | EPA argues injuries are hypothetical and rely on speculative future changes | Yes, Sierra Club has standing to challenge |
| Whether EPA’s redesignations were arbitrary or capricious | EPA failed to tie ozone drops to permanent/enforceable reductions | EPA reasonably attributed drops to long-term controls and NOx SIP Call | No; EPA’s action was not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether EPA reasonably attributed reductions to permanent/enforceable measures using Calcagni framework | EPA did not conduct sufficient causation analysis or quantify meteorology/economy effects | EPA followed Calcagni guidance to reasonably attribute improvements | Yes, EPA reasonably attributed reductions under Calcagni framework |
| Whether use of actual power-plant emissions data was proper in maintenance/determination | Using actual emissions overstated permanency and conflicts with Berry/Calcagni guidance | Use of actual emissions is EPA practice and appropriate here | Yes, EPA could rely on actual emissions data |
| Whether NOx SIP Call's role renders the analysis erroneous | NOx SIP Call is a cap-and-trade not guaranteeing permanency at area level | NOx SIP Call is a valid, enforceable, regional reduction basis | No error; NOx SIP Call properly considered among bases for permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements; injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 754 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (challenges CAIR-based reliance on permanence; standing analysis under CAIR context)
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (guidance on EPA implementation of 1997 ozone standard; standing and incentives)
- North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (CAIR invalidation; reliance on interstate programs and emissions budgets)
- Adventist GlenOaks Hosp. v. Sebelius, 663 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2011) (arbitrary/capricious standard; agency decision analysis)