White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency
409 U.S. App. D.C. 248
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- EPA promulgated 2012 MACT standards for hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs).
- Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 to require listing of 189 HAPs and impose MACT floors, with a separate §112(n)(l)(A) pathway for EGUs requiring an ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding after a study.
- EPA conducted the Utility Study and Mercury Study, then found regulation of EGUs under §112 appropriate and necessary in 2000; later revised and reaffirmed that finding in 2012 Final Rule.
- Petitioners challenge EPA’s interpretation of §112(n)(l)(A), particularly whether costs may be considered, whether environmental harms may be considered, and whether regulation should proceed under §112(d) for all HAPs emitted by EGUs.
- EPA argued that §112(n)(l)(A) does not require cost consideration at the threshold determination, that environmental harms and cumulative impacts may be considered, and that EGUs are regulated under §112(d) after the appropriate and necessary finding.
- The court upheld EPA’s Final Rule against challenges, applying Chevron deference and reviewing for arbitrariness and reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA can ignore costs in the ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding | Petitioners contend costs must be considered under §112(n)(l)(A). | EPA may interpret ambiguous ‘appropriate’ to exclude costs at this stage. | Yes; EPA’s cost-free interpretation upholds the finding. |
| Whether environmental harms and cumulative impacts can inform the finding | Agency should limit to health hazards from EGU emissions; exclude environmental harms. | Environmental effects may be considered alongside health effects. | Yes; EPA could consider environmental harms and cumulative impacts. |
| Whether EPA may regulate all HAPs from EGUs under §112(d) after an appropriate and necessary finding | Only substances causing hazards should be regulated; no blanket regulation of all HAPs. | Once appropriate and necessary, EGUs regulated like other categories under §112(d). | Yes; EPA may regulate all HAPs from EGUs under §112(d). |
| Whether the disclosure of costs and the MACT floor approach were properly reasoned for lignite and CFB subcategories | Challenge data selection, subcategory creation, and cost-related justifications. | EPA used reasonable data and analysis; subcategorization supported by record. | EPA’s approach reasonable and supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (endangerment-findings reviewed for rational basis)
- National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (MACT floors and beyond-the-floor standards framework)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001) (cost consideration not implicit in ambiguous CAA provisions)
- Clarke v. Securities Industry Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1987) (zone of interests broad view for APA standing)
- Data Processing Service Org. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (S. Ct. 1970) (zone of interests test applied to standing)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (U.S. 2014) (zone of interests under modern APA)
- Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (U.S. 2012) (zone of interests, not overly demanding)
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (U.S. 2009) (cost considerations in regulation)