In our previous coverage of Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Perry Rosen noted that one likely course of action was for NHTSA to petition for a rehearing en banc - before the full Ninth Circuit, rather than just the typical panel of three judges. NHTSA recently filed just such a petition before the Ninth Circuit.

In the original ruling, the judges found that the new CAFE (fuel economy) standards were arbitrary and capricious. In addition, the court held that the Environmental Assessment (EA) was inadequate, and ordered NHTSA to produce a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that accounts for the effect of emissions on climate change. An EIS is required when an agency find that its proposed action will have a significant impact on the environment.

NHTSA’s petition focuses on the second aspect of the decision, and argues that the 9th Circuit does not have the authority to order a full EIS. Instead, NHTSA argues that it should be allowed, on remand, to address any deficiencies in the EA and potentially avoid the preparation of a full EIS.

NHTSA argues that administrative law “only allows a reviewing court to ‘hold unlawful and set aside’ agency action that if finds arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Citing a long string of Supreme Court cases, the agency writes that “when a reviewing court finds that an administrative agency has erred, the appropriate remedy is to remand the matter back to the agency for ‘further consideration.’” The court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency, but merely reviews the agency’s determinations.

Read the rest of this entry »

For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.

Leveraging the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, public interest groups are using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to challenge approvals of coal-fired power plants on global warming grounds. Montana Environmental Information Center v. USDA, No. 07-1311 (D. D.C. July 23, 2007).

The groups sued to enjoin Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, from providing federal loans for construction of a coal-fired power plant. The plaintiffs asserted that the agency failed to assess adequately the proposed plant’s environmental impacts, including the impact of CO₂ emissions on global warming. The plaintiffs claimed further that the proposed plant, along with other coal-fired power plants seeking funding from RUS, “could account for a significant share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.” RUS’s failure to consider these cumulative impacts on global warming in its Environmental Impact Statement, according to plaintiffs, violates its obligations under NEPA to take a “hard look” at actions that could impact the environment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA did not involve NEPA and did not address whether federal agencies must consider global warming potential when undertaking such actions as permit approvals or funding decisions. The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, however, concluded that regardless of whether climate change is outside the control of the agency whose action is at issue, NEPA obligates the agency to assess the effects of its own actions on greenhouse gas emissions. Courts’ willingness to require agencies to consider global warming in regulatory decisionmaking will complicate previously routine actions such as funding coal-fired power plants.

Briefing in the case is slated to begin March 7, 2008 and conclude May 30, 2008.

For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.