Texas v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
829 F.3d 405
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- EPA partially disapproved Texas’s and Oklahoma’s regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the 2009–2018 planning period and promulgated a federal implementation plan (FIP) imposing source-specific SO2 controls at selected Texas power plants.
- Texas submitted its SIP in 2009; EPA finalized partial disapproval and the FIP in 2016 after lengthy delay; Oklahoma’s SIP was likewise partially disapproved based on cross‑state impacts from Texas emissions.
- Petitioners (Texas, utilities, industry, unions, consumer groups, state regulators) challenged the Final Rule in the Fifth Circuit and sought a stay pending judicial review; EPA moved to dismiss or transfer to D.C. Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).
- The court held it has jurisdiction/venue because the Final Rule is a locally or regionally applicable action not based on a published determination of nationwide scope or effect.
- On the merits of the stay factors, the court found petitioners likely to succeed: EPA unlawfully required source‑specific analyses (not mandated by the CAA or the Regional Haze Rule), imposed controls effective after the SIP period, and inadequately considered grid reliability and certain costs; petitioners would suffer irreparable harm from compliance costs and potential plant closures; public interest favored a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum under §7607(b)(1) (venue/jurisdiction) | Petitioners: Final Rule is locally/regionally applicable; review lies in regional circuit (Fifth). | EPA: Rule is based on determinations of nationwide scope/effect; venue belongs in D.C. Circuit. | Fifth Circuit: Venue is appropriate here; Final Rule not based on determinations of nationwide scope/effect, so exception to regional review does not apply. |
| EPA authority to disapprove SIPs by demanding source‑specific analysis | Petitioners: CAA and Regional Haze Rule do not require source‑specific analysis; EPA exceeded its ministerial review role and inverted cooperative federalism. | EPA: Its factual and legal determinations justified disapproval and source‑specific analysis to identify cost‑effective controls. | Court: Petitioners likely to succeed; EPA improperly required source‑specific analysis and failed to defer appropriately to state choices. |
| Timing of FIP‑imposed controls (controls effective after SIP period) | Petitioners: FIP requires scrubbers with 2019/2021 deadlines—outside the 2009–2018 plan period—exceeding EPA’s authority under the Regional Haze Rule. | EPA: Statute allows flexibility (10–15 year strategies); EPA can require measures beyond the ten‑year window. | Court: Petitioners likely to succeed; EPA may not lawfully impose controls effective after the implementation‑plan period in absence of rule change. |
| Stay factors: irreparable harm, public interest, balance of equities | Petitioners: Immediate compliance costs (~$2 billion), risk of plant closures (3,000–8,400 MW), grid reliability harms, lost jobs and unrecoverable costs — irreparable. | EPA: Delay would harm visibility objectives; financial harms are recoverable or not irreparable. | Court: Granted stay; petitioners showed irreparable harm and likelihood of success; public interest and balance favor staying the Final Rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (describing Clean Air Act cooperative‑federalism structure)
- Train v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1975) (states have discretion in selecting emission‑limitation mix if plan meets national standards)
- Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1976) (state discretion in formulating SIPs)
- Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 675 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2012) (EPA’s role is ministerial in reviewing SIPs)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (stay‑pending‑appeal factors)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Wildearth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2014) (Regional Haze Rule does not categorically require source‑specific analysis)