Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Herrington, s. 83-1195
| Decision Date | 16 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | 83-2318,83-2128,Nos. 83-1195,83-2117,83-2319 and 84-1055,s. 83-1195 |
| Citation | 768 F.2d 1355 |
| Parties | , 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,781 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, v. John S. HERRINGTON, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Respondent, Hydronics Institute, et al., Florida Department of Community Affairs, Intervenors. CALIFORNIA STATE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, and John S. Herrington, Secretary of the Department of Energy, Respondents, Hydronics Institute, et al., Florida Department of Community Affairs, Intervenors. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. John S. HERRINGTON, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Respondent, State of Texas, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Assoc., Hydronics Institute, et al., Florida Department of Community Affairs, Intervenors. CALIFORNIA STATE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, and John S. Herrington, Secretary of the Department of Energy, Respondents, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Whirlpool Corporation, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Assoc., Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Intervenors. The STATE OF MINNESOTA, by its Attorney General, Hubert H. HUMPHREY III, Petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, John S. Herrington, Secretary, Respondent. STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent, Whirlpool Corporation & Heil-Quaker Corporation, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Gas Appliance Manufacturing Assoc., Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Alan S. Miller, Washington, D.C., with whom David B. Edelson, San Francisco, Cal., and William B. Churchill, Austin, Tex., were on brief, for petitioners Natural Resources Defense Council, et al.
Jonathan Blees, Sacramento, Cal., with whom William M. Chamberlain, Gregory Wheatland, Sacramento, Cal., Thomas Barrett, Robert Abrams, Peter Bienstock and Samuel A. Cherniak, New York City, were on brief, for petitioners Cal. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Com'n.
Susan V. Cook, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent John S. Herrington, Secretary, Dept. of Energy.
Paul M. Laurenza and John A. Hodges, Washington, D.C., with whom William C. Brashares, Charles A. Samuels, Washington, D.C., Louis R. Paulick, Pittsburgh, Pa., Patricia J. Beneke, Washington, D.C., and Theodore F.T. Corlius, were on brief, for intervenors Ass'n of Home Appliance Mfrs., et al. Edward W. Hengerer, John H. Korns, Stephen O. Houck and W. DeVier Pierson, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenors Ass'n of Home Appliance Mfrs., et al.
Paul Sexton, Tallahassee, Fla., was on brief and Bruce W. Renard, Tallahassee Douglas E. Kliever, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenors Hydronics Institute, et al., in Nos. 83-1195 and 83-2117.
Fla., entered an appearance for intervenor Fla. Dept. of Community Affairs.
David R. Richards and William B. Churchill, Austin, Tex., entered appearances for intervenor State of Texas.
William F. Gary, Salem, Or., was on brief for amicus curiae State of Or. urging reversal in Nos. 83-1195, 83-1195, 83-2117, 83-2128, 83-2318 and 83-2319.
Frank W. Ostrander, Portland, Or., William R. Cook, Bernard Nash and Edward G. Modell, Washington, D.C., were on brief for amicus curiae Northwest Power Planning Council urging reversal in Nos. 83-1195, 83-2117, 83-2128 and 83-2319.
Diane L. McIntire, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for amicus curiae Iowa State Commerce Com'n urging reversal in Nos. 83-1195, 83-2117, 83-2128, 83-2318 and 83-2319.
Before WALD and BORK, Circuit Judges, and McGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD.
CONTENTS
Page
I. BACKGROUND ......................................................... 1364
II. DOE'S DEFINITION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" ........... 1369
A. The Development of DOE's Definition ............................. 1369
B. The Validity of DOE's Definition ................................ 1372
C. DOE's Rationale for its Definition .............................. 1377
III. DOE'S METHOD OF DETERMINING SAVINGS THAT WOULD RESULT FROM
STANDARDS .......................................................... 1383
A. Statutory Authority for Subtracting "Base-Case" Savings from
"Standards" Savings ......................................... 1384
B. The ORNL Model .................................................. 1385
IV. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY .................................. 1391
A. The Statute ..................................................... 1391
B. DOE's Treatment of Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels ...... 1392
C. DOE's Compliance with EPCA ...................................... 1394
1. DOE's Failure to Determine Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels ..................................................... 1394
2. DOE's Refusal to Consider Standards Based on All
Technologically Feasible Design Options .................... 1396
a. Prototypes .............................................. 1396
b. Foreign Market Design Options ........................... 1403
c. The Five-Year Payback Period ............................ 1404
d. Lead Times .............................................. 1407
e. Specific Design Options ................................. 1408
3. DOE's Reliance on 1980 Data ................................. 1408
V. ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION ............................................. 1410
A. DOE's Analysis of Benefits ...................................... 1410
1. DOE's Discussion of the Nation's Need to Save Electricity
and Energy Savings ......................................... 1410
2. DOE's Use of a 10 Percent Real Discount Rate ................ 1412
3. DOE's Calculation of Benefits from Central Air Conditioner
Standards .................................................. 1414
a. Possible Reduction of Peak Load Electrical Demand ....... 1414
b. Failure to Consider High-Efficiency Models .............. 1417
c. Flaws in Cost Efficiency Curve .......................... 1418
d. Hours of Operation ...................................... 1418
B. DOE's Analysis of Burdens ....................................... 1419
1. The Financial Impacts Model ................................. 1419
2. The FIM Results for Central Air Conditioner Standards ....... 1422
3. Forgone Investment and Reductions in Performance or Utility . 1424
C. DOE's Weighing of Burdens Against Benefits ...................... 1425
VI. DOE's REFUSAL TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ........................... 1425
VII. DOE's FAILURE TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ..................................... 1429
The petitions in these consolidated cases require us to interpret section 325 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295, which was enacted in 1975 as part of a "comprehensive national energy policy." S.Rep. No. 516, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 116 (1975), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1975, p. 1762 (conference report). In its initial version, section 325 required the Federal Energy Administrator to prescribe energy efficiency improvement targets for thirteen named household appliances, called "covered products." See EPCA Sec. 325(a)(1)-(2), Pub.L. No. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871, 923-24 (1975). 1 If the Administrator determined that manufacturers of any of the covered products were not likely to achieve the aggregate gain in efficiency specified in the target by 1980, he was directed to begin a proceeding to prescribe a mandatory "energy efficiency standard" for that appliance. See id. Sec. 325(a)(4)(A)-(B), 89 Stat. at 924.
In 1978, however, Congress amended EPCA to "eliminate[ ] the target approach and improve[ ] the procedures for establishing standards to ensure that efficiency improvements will be made expeditiously." H.R.Rep. No. 496, Pt. 4, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 46 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 7659, 8493; see National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) Sec. 422, Pub.L. No. 95-619, 92 Stat. 3206, 3259 (1978). The amended version of section 325(a) orders the Secretary of Energy to prescribe energy efficiency standards for the thirteen covered products without first establishing industry targets. Under the Act, "[e]nergy efficiency standards for each type (or class) of covered products ... shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified." EPCA Sec. 325(c). If the Secretary prescribes a standard at a level lower than the maximum technologically feasible level, the Secretary must explain why that lower level was chosen. Id. Sec. 325(i)(3). The Act also declares that if, for any type or class of covered product, 2 a standard would not The final rules challenged here apply to eight of the nine covered products given priority under EPCA. 4 The Department of Energy (DOE) 5 determined that for seven of those eight products, a mandatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club v. Watkins
...agency convincingly established that changes in the project sufficiently reduced it to a minimum.'" Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1430 (D.C.Cir. 1985) (quoting Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1413 (D.C.Cir.1983)). The Sierra Club presents seve......
-
Coalition On Sensible Transp. Inc. v. Dole
...finding of no significant impact in a `concise public document' called an `environmental assessment.'" Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1430 (D.C.Cir.1985) (quoting 40 C.F.R. ?? 1501.4(a)-(b), 1508.9 (1984)). The EA must "provide sufficient evidence and analys......
-
Sierra Club v. US Forest Service
...the agency use of a computer model to assist in decision making is not arbitrary and capricious. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1391 (D.C.Cir.1985) (quoting Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 334-35 (D.C.Cir.1981)). See also Connecticut v. E.P.A., 69......
-
NATIONAL COM. TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SEC. v. Bowen
...sanctioned,' ... a reviewing court must intervene to enforce the policy decisions made by Congress." Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1383 (D.C.Cir.1985) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Congress has already spoken by providing a broad grant of standing ......
-
The Role of Energy Efficiency in Deep Decarbonization
...products) and 431 (industrial and commercial products). 15. 42 U.S.C. §6295(o)(2); see also Natural Res. Def. Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 15 ELR 20781 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 16. 42 U.S.C. §6295(o)(2)(B)(I)-(VII) (consumer products); 42 U.S.C. §6313(a)6)(B)(ii) (commercial and industria......
-
Lighting, Appliances, and Other Equipment
...3cb2-49ac-9177-d60629e8c1ee/. 30. Natural Res. Def. Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1421, 15 ELR 20781 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (discussing the history of appliance eiciency rulemaking during President Ronald Reagan’s irst term). 31. Id . 32. Id . at 1368. 33. Id . NRDC again iled suit, chall......
-
Proposed Revisions to Improve and Modernize CEQ's NEPA Regulations
...in dictum from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit in Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Herrington , 768 F.2d 1355, 1431, 15 ELR 20781 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Copyright © 2019 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, htt......