EPA Seeks a Rehearing of Court’s Ruling Striking Down Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

October 16, 2012 -

On October 5, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a petition in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking a rehearing by the entire court of the decision from a three-judge panel on August 21, 2012, which vacated the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (known as the Transport Rule or CSAPR). By way of background, in July 2011, U.S. EPA promulgated the Transport Rule with the design to reduce long-distance transport of air pollution across 28 eastern states, including Ohio, that significantly adds to pollution in downwind states, preventing them from attaining the national ambient air quality standards for smog and soot.  The Rule would have required power plants to reduce nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulates that cross state lines. 

Various industry groups, companies and states filed suit to challenge the Transport Rule, arguing it violated federal law.  The August 21 decision found that EPA did exceed its authority under the Clean Air Act by instituting emission reduction obligations through federal implementation plans (FIPs) before states had an opportunity to carry out the reductions through their own state implementation plans (SIPs).  The panel also held that EPA’s rulemaking did not assure a close enough correlation between each state’s degree of contribution and the required controls. 

In filing its petition for rehearing, EPA followed the lead of the dissenting judge, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to address the entire issue because the protesting states and industry groups failed to raise these issues during the public comment period for the Transport Rule.  EPA also argued that even if the Court had standing to review this rulemaking, its interpretation of the relevant Clean Air Act provisions is at odds with prior precedent of the DC Circuit.

If the petition for rehearing is denied by the Court, EPA will have to redo its analysis of interstate air pollution from power plants and go through another full notice-and-comment process to finalize a replacement rule.  Once a new rule is finalized, EPA will need to give states at least two years to comply – making the realistic time frame for compliance with a new rule no earlier than 2016. 

Importantly, this schedule may well mean that the compliance deadlines for EPA’s new “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” (MATS) will likely become effective before any replacement for the Transport Rule is in place.  MATS is designed to reduce hazardous air pollutants (in particular, mercury) from power plants, and is seen as most directly affecting coal-fired power plants.  Many commentators have suggested that MATS is a more significant rule due to its cost of compliance and the technical challenges associated with the rule.

The status and implementation of these new EPA rules, in addition to the direction of the market for natural gas, all significantly affect the future of coal-fired power plants as well as coal providers.  If the DC Circuit grants the EPA’s petition for rehearing of the ruling striking down the Transport Rule, the issues are likely to be briefed again in part, then argued before the Court, which then will issue another ruling.  Should the Rule be reinstated, the battle will move immediately to the MATS litigation and rule implementation. If not, EPA goes back to the drawing board. What is clear from all of these developments is that regulatory uncertainty in the air arena will continue into the foreseeable future.……………………………………………..

For additional information and discussion on this topic, please get in touch with your regular Calfee contact or one of the Environmental attorneys listed below:

Christopher Jones
614.621.7004
cjones@calfee.com

Christopher M. Ward
614.621.7102
cward@calfee.com

This alert is provided by Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP for education and information purposes only. This alert is not intended to provide legal advice on specific subjects. The resolution of legal issues depends upon the specific facts of a particular situation and the laws involved. This alert may be considered advertising under applicable laws.