The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is running the table in the courts on its key Clean Air Act initiatives: (1) the MATS Rule; (2) the Transport Rule; and (3) the Soot Rule.
- On April 15, 2014, the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS” Rule) in White Stallion Energy Center LLC v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 12-1100.
- On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“Transport Rule”) in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP, No. 12-1182.
- On May 9, 2014, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the EPA’s discretion to tighten standards on particulate matter from coal power plants, refineries, manufacturers, and vehicles (“Soot Rule”) in National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) v. EPA, No. 13-1069.
The MATS Rule. The D.C. Circuit, by majority decision, upheld MATS, which requires coal- and oil-fired power plants to reduce emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, and other air pollutants. The court gives wide latitude to the EPA’s discretion to act under the Clean Air Act.
The Transport Rule. The “Good Neighbor Provision” of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA and individual states to prohibit upwind states from significantly contributing to the nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) in downwind states. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i). The D.C. Circuit, in a 2 to 1 decision with a vigorous dissent, vacated the Transport Rule on several technical grounds. Per Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court reversed. The court gives a very wide berth to the EPA’s discretion and judgment calls under the Clean Air Act in accordance with the landmark Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC decision. The court plainly rebukes the two-judge majority of the D.C. Circuit for not doing so.
The Soot Rule. The D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s decision to revise the annual standard for particulate matter in order to address what the EPA believes to be a public health threat. After considering NAM’s arguments, the court again decided in the EPA’s favor, basing its decision on the wide discretion that courts must give to the EPA in its decision-making under the Clean Air Act, especially when making science-related judgments.
With the EPA’s two big greenhouse emissions reduction rules on the brink of coming out, i.e., the final rule for new power plants and the proposed rule for existing power plants, what do we think the courts might do? In the investment industry, it is said that “past performance is no indication of future results.” In the legal business, it’s the opposite. The challengers are starting this series down three games to none—and arguably down by two goals in the first period of game four. First, the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have sent clear messages that the EPA will be given wide deference when it comes to the Clean Air Act. Second, the new greenhouse gas rules come with the backdrop of the Supreme Court having already ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are “contaminants” under the Clean Air Act, along with the D.C. Circuit having already upheld the EPA endangerment finding (with that decision now pending for review in the very Supreme Court that decided the Transport Rule case)—thus compelling the EPA to act on greenhouse gases.
Read about the three recent Clean Air cases and what they mean in more detail in Blank Rome’s Client Alert by clicking here.