New Jersey v. E.P.A.

Decision Date08 February 2008
Docket NumberNo. 05-1263.,No. 06-1287.,No. 05-1275.,No. 05-1189.,No. 05-1271.,No. 05-1183.,No. 05-1116.,No. 05-1267.,No. 05-1104.,No. 05-1175.,No. 05-1270.,No. 05-1167.,No. 05-1097.,No. 06-1293.,No. 05-1277.,No. 05-1164.,No. 05-1162.,No. 06-1211.,No. 05-1118.,No. 06-1291.,No. 06-1294.,No. 05-1160.,No. 05-1158.,No. 06-1220.,No. 05-1163.,No. 05-1176.,No. 06-1231.,No. 05-1174.,No. 05-1159.,05-1097.,05-1104.,05-1116.,05-1118.,05-1158.,05-1159.,05-1160.,05-1162.,05-1163.,05-1164.,05-1167.,05-1174.,05-1175.,05-1176.,05-1183.,05-1189.,05-1263.,05-1267.,05-1270.,05-1271.,05-1275.,05-1277.,06-1211.,06-1220.,06-1231.,06-1287.,06-1291.,06-1293.,06-1294.
PartiesState of NEW JERSEY, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent Utility Air Regulatory Group, et al., Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Wendy L. Blake, Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, entered an appearance.

Lee B. Zeugin argued the cause for Industry State Intervenors and State Amici Curiae. With him on the briefs were Troy King, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Alabama, Milt E. Belcher, Assistant Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of North Dakota, Paul Seby, Special Assistant, Lyle Witham, Solicitor General, Steve Carter, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of South Dakota, Roxanne Giedd, Deputy Attorney General, Mark J. Rudolph, Senior Counsel, State of West Virginia, Department of Environmental Protection, Peter H. Wyckoff, Henri D. Bartholomot, Jon C. Bruning, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Nebraska, Jodi Fenner, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Crank, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Wyoming, Nancy Vehr, Assistant Attorney General, Henry V. Nickel, F. William Brownell, Lee B. Zeugin, William M. Bumpers, Debra J. Jezouit, and Peter Glaser. Valerie M. Tachtiris, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of State of Indiana, Jay A. Jerde and Vicci M. Colgan, Assistant Attorneys General, Attorney General's Office of State of Wyoming, Kevin C. Newsom, Harold P. Quinn, Jr., and Claudia M. O'Brien entered appearances.

Leah W. Casey was on the brief for intervenor for petitioner Adirondack Mountain Club.

Charles H. Knauss, Sandra P. Franco, and David G. Scott, II were on the brief for intervenors Producers for Electric Reliability and West Associates. Karma B. Brown entered an appearance.

John T. Suttles, Jr. was on the brief for intervenors Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al.

Peter Glaser, Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of respondent.

Before: ROGERS, TATEL and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge:

Before the court are petitions for review of two final rules promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the emission of hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs") from electric utility steam generating units ("EGUs"). The first rule removes coal- and oil-fired EGUs from the list of sources whose emissions are regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 7412. Revision of December 2000 Regulatory Finding ("Delisting Rule"), 70 Fed.Reg. 15,994 (Mar. 29, 2005). The second rule sets performance standards pursuant to section 111, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, for new coal-fired EGUs and establishes total mercury emissions limits for States and certain tribal areas, along with a voluntary cap-and-trade program for new and existing coal-fired EGUs. Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units ("CAMR"), 70 Fed.Reg. 28,606 (May 18, 2005).

Petitioners contend that the Delisting Rule is contrary to the plain text and structure of section 112. In response, EPA and certain intervenors rely on section 112(n), which sets special conditions before EGUs can be regulated under section 112, to justify the rule. We hold that the delisting was unlawful. Section 112 requires EPA to regulate emissions of HAPs. Section 112(n) requires EPA to regulate EGUs under section 112 when it concludes that doing so is "appropriate and necessary." In December 2000, EPA concluded that it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants under section 112 and listed these EGUs as sources of HAPs regulated under that section. In 2005, after reconsidering its previous determination, EPA purported to remove these EGUs from the section 112 list. Thereafter it promulgated CAMR under section 111. EPA's removal of these EGUs from the section 112 list violates the CAA because section 112(c)(9) requires EPA to make specific findings before removing a source listed under section 112; EPA concedes it never made such findings. Because coal-fired EGUs are listed sources under section 112, regulation of existing coal-fired EGUs' mercury emissions under section 111 is prohibited, effectively invalidating CAMR's regulatory approach. Accordingly, the court grants the petitions and vacates both rules.

I.

In 1970, Congress added section 112 to the CAA. Pub.L. No. 91-604, § 4(a), 84 Stat. 1676, 1685 (1970). In its original form, section 112 required EPA to list HAPs that should be regulated because they could "cause, or contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible[ ] or incapacitating reversible[ ] illness." Id. § 112(a)(1). Over the next eighteen years, however, EPA listed only eight...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 29, 2016
  • Cottage Health System v. Sebelius
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 7, 2009
    ... ... at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778; State of New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 581 (D.C.Cir. 2008). If, however, the statute is silent or ambiguous on the specific issue, "the question for the court is ... ...
  • Murray Energy Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • August 23, 2019
  • Baystate Medical Center v. Leavitt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 31, 2008
    ... ... at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778; State of New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 581 (D.C.Cir. 2008). If, however, the statute is silent or ambiguous on the specific issue, "the question for the court is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Plants: What’s in Store for New and Existing Plants?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 11, 2013
    ...the D.C. Circuit over its Clean Air Mercury Rule, but the court did not acknowledge the issue in deciding the case. See New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. Texas v. EPA, 726 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (upholding EPA rules overriding Texas' GHG permitting authority for stationary sourc......
  • Federal Court Of Appeals Holds FDA Lacks Authority To Rescind 510(k) Clearance
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 14, 2014
    ...such circumstances, we concluded, "it is not reasonable to infer authority to reconsider agency action." Id.; see also New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("Congress . . . undoubtedly can limit an agency's discretion to reverse itself"). Put more simply, our cases assume t......
29 books & journal articles
  • Control of Hazardous Air Pollution
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility SteamGenerating Units (CAMR), 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 (May 18, 2005). 116. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 38 ELR 20046 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 117. Court Sets Precedent for Air Toxics Limits on New Power Plants , 19 Clean Air Rep. (Inside EPA) 4 (Dec......
  • Interstate Air Pollution Control Using Economic-Based Air Pollution Controls
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...to the petitions. his moved the deadline to respond to after President Barack Obama took oice 217 With 214. Id . 215. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 38 ELR 20046 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 216. EPA Urges High Court to Review Vacatur of Agency’s Mercury Air Rule , 25 Envtl. Pol’y Alert (Inside EPA)......
  • (If) Things Fall Apart: Searching for Optimal Regulatory Solutions to Combating Climate Change Under Title I of the Existing CAA if Congressional Action Fails
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 40-9, September 2010
    • September 1, 2010
    ...Petitioners, explaining that, “[c]ourts would likely consider the Section 111(a)(1) deinition to be a clariication 173. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 583-84, 38 ELR 20046 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 174. Compare Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the CAA, 73 Fed. Reg. 44354, 44490 (July 30,......
  • EPA's Fine Particulate Air Pollution Control Program
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 44-11, November 2014
    • November 1, 2014
    ...there are few sources, then the 425. 42 U.S.C. §7411. 426. 40 C.F.R. pt. 60, subpt. AAA. 427. 42 U.S.C. §7412. 428. See New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 578 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 429. See Arnold W. Reitze Jr. & Randy Lowell, Control of Hazardous Air Pollu- tion , 28 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 229......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • IL Register Vol.32 issue 49. Issue 49 December 5, 2008 Pages 18458-18915
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • Invalid date
    ...Support Document that relied on several published studies and reports: State of New Jersey, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Addition of Method 29 t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT