{"id":1532,"date":"2012-06-28T09:19:45","date_gmt":"2012-06-28T14:19:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=1532"},"modified":"2012-07-05T09:24:30","modified_gmt":"2012-07-05T14:24:30","slug":"d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/","title":{"rendered":"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

By: Danielle Sugarman, Fellow
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in a major victory for the environment and President Obama\u2019s Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a series of challenges to EPA\u2019s body of greenhouse gas regulation.\u00a0 The cases, called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, were brought by various states and industry groups.<\/p>\n

In Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em>, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases \u201cunambiguous[ly]\u201d may be regulated as an \u201cair pollutant\u201d under the Clean Air Act (CAA), (id. <\/em>at 529), and that EPA had a \u201cstatutory obligation\u201d to regulate harmful greenhouse gases. (Id. <\/em>at 534). In direct response, EPA then issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it determined that greenhouse gases may \u201creasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.\u201d See<\/em> 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 7521(a)(1). This finding led to the promulgation of a series of greenhouse gas-related rules.\u00a0 First, EPA issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light-duty trucks.\u00a0 EPA next determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits.\u00a0 However, due to the fact that immediate regulation of all such sources would result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring Rules.\u00a0 The Timing Rule required that new controls of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources be triggered Jan. 2, 2011.\u00a0 The Tailoring Rule determined that only the largest stationary sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.<\/p>\n

Petitioners challenged all four of these rules, arguing that they were based on improper constructions of the CAA and were otherwise arbitrary and capricious.\u00a0 However, the three-judge panel, which included Chief Judge David Sentelle, a conservative appointed by President Reagan, Judge Judith Rogers and Judge David Tatel, both Clinton appointees, concluded that: 1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule were neither arbitrary nor capricious; 2) EPA\u2019s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions was unambiguously correct; and 3) no petitioner had standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. \u00a0The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and denied the remainder of the petitions.\u00a0 The major points of reasoning behind the courts holdings are explained below.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

1) The Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are Neither Arbitrary Nor Capricious<\/strong><\/p>\n

In arguing that the Endangerment finding was arbitrary and capricious, Industry Petitioners alleged that EPA \u201cimproperly interpreted CAA \u00a7 202(a)(1) as restricting the Endangerment Finding to a science-based judgment devoid of considerations of policy concerns and regulatory consequences.\u201d\u00a0 (Decision at <\/em>22-23). \u00a0In reaching its decision, the appeals court ruled that Petitioners\u2019 contentions were foreclosed by the language of the statute and the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em>.\u00a0 The court reasoned that Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em> required only that the endangerment evaluation \u201crelate to whether an air pollutant \u2018cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.\u2019\u201d (Decision at 23). \u00a0\u201cThese questions require a \u2018scientific judgment\u2019 about the potential risks greenhouse gas emissions pose to public health or welfare\u2014not policy discussions.\u201d\u00a0 (Decision at 23, quoting<\/em> Massachusetts v. EPA,<\/em> 549 U.S. at 549).\u00a0 The court reiterated that, as in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em>, a \u201c\u2018laundry list of reasons not to regulate\u2019 simply has \u2018nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.\u2019\u201d (Decision at 25). So long as EPA grounded its reasons for action in the statute, its obligations had been met.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Additionally, State and Industry Petitioners asserted that EPA improperly \u201cdelegated\u201d its judgment to the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC by relying on these assessments of climate-change science.\u00a0 The appeals court disagreed, finding that EPA had properly sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a finding of endangerment was warranted.\u00a0 The court stated that \u201cEPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.\u201d\u00a0 (Decision at 28).\u00a0 Rather, the court gives \u201can extreme degree of deference to the agency when it is evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise.\u201d (Decision at 28).\u00a0 Furthermore, the court also rejected Petitioners\u2019 attempts to invoke Petitions for Reconsideration of series of internal emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia\u2019s Climate Research Unit (CRU) as proof that the scientific evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding was undermined.\u00a0 The court found that EPA had properly considered these documents and agreed that the documents \u201cwere exaggerated, contradicted by other evidence, and not a material or reliable basis for questioning the credibility of the body of science at issue . . . .\u201d (Decision at 37).<\/p>\n

Similarly, the court dismissed the Petitioners\u2019 contention that the scientific evidence left too much uncertainty to support the Endangerment Finding.\u00a0 The court stressed that \u201c[r]equiring that EPA find \u2018certain\u2019 endangerment of public health or welfare before regulating greenhouse gases would effectively prevent EPA from doing the job Congress gave it . . . utilizing emission standards to prevent reasonably anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm.\u201d (Decision at 31).\u00a0 Ultimately, \u201c[a]waiting certainty will often allow for only reactive, not preventive, regulation,\u201d (Decision at 31, quoting<\/em> Ethyl Corp. v. EPA<\/em>, 541 F.2d 1, 25 (D.C. Cir. 1976)), and would be contrary to the Statute\u2019s precautionary purpose.<\/p>\n

Finally, Petitioners contended that the Endangerment Finding was arbitrary and capricious because EPA did not \u201cdefine,\u201d \u201cmeasure,\u201d or \u201cquantify\u201d either the atmospheric concentration at which greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, the rate or type of climate change that it anticipates will endanger public health or welfare, or the risks or impacts of climate change, and thus, EPA\u2019s Endangerment finding was a \u201csubjective decision.\u201d (Decision at 33).\u00a0 In discounting this challenge, the court reasoned that EPA\u2019s failure to \u201cdistill this ocean of evidence into a specific number at which greenhouse gases cause \u2018dangerous\u2019 climate change is a function of the precautionary thrust of the CAA and the multivariate and sometimes uncertain nature of climate science, not a sign of arbitrary or capricious decision-making.\u201d (Decision at 33).<\/p>\n

With regard to the Tailpipe Rule, State and Industry Petitioners contended that in promulgating the Tailpipe Rule EPA relied on an improper interpretation of CAA \u00a7 202(a)(1), and was arbitrary and capricious in failing to justify and consider the cost impacts of its conclusion that the Rule triggers stationary-source regulation under the PSD and Title V provisions. (Decision at 39).\u00a0 The court found that the plain text of 202(a) as well as legal precedent precluded Petitioners\u2019 contentions.\u00a0 Ultimately, Congress vested a non-discretionary duty on EPA to issue motor vehicle emission standards regardless of stationary-source costs.\u00a0 (Decision at 40).\u00a0 Thus, \u201c[h]aving made the Endangerment Finding pursuant to CAA \u00a7 202(a) . . . EPA lacked discretion to defer promulgation of the Tailpipe Rule on the basis of its trigger of stationary-source permitting requirements under the PSD program and Title V.\u201d \u00a0The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA <\/em>further compelled this interpretation.\u00a0 (Decision at 41). The plain text of Section 202(a)(1) also negated Industry Petitioners\u2019 contention that EPA had discretion to defer the Tailpipe Rule on the basis of NHTSA\u2019s authority to regulate fuel economy as the Supreme Court dismissed a near-identical argument in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em> (Decision at 41).<\/p>\n

2) EPA\u2019s Interpretation of the Governing CAA Provisions is Unambiguously Correct<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next Industry Petitioners challenged EPA\u2019s stationary source regulations.\u00a0 EPA\u2019s historic interpretation of the CAA requires PSD and Title V permits for stationary sources whose potential emissions exceed statutory thresholds for any <\/em>regulated pollutant\u2014including greenhouse gases. \u00a0Industry Petitioners now raised challenges to EPA\u2019s longstanding interpretation of the scope of the permitting requirements for construction and modification of major emitting facilities under CAA Sections 165(a) and 169(1) (\u201cthe PSD permitting triggers\u201d). (Decision at 45).\u00a0 While holding that Petitioners challenges were in fact timely, (Decision at 50) the court went on to uphold EPA\u2019s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions.<\/p>\n

The Court summarized that the key substantive provision in the PSD program is CAA Section 165(a) which establishes permitting requirements for \u201cmajor emitting facilities\u201d located in attainment or unclassifiable regions. \u00a0Section 165(a) provides that \u201c[n]o major emitting facility . . . may be constructed in any area to which this part applies\u201d unless the facility obtains a PSD permit. \u00a042 U.S.C. \u00a7 7475(a). \u00a0To obtain a PSD permit, a covered source must, among other things, install the \u201cbest available control technology [BACT] for each pollutant subject to regulation under [the CAA]\u201d- regardless of whether that pollutant is a NAAQS pollutant. \u00a0Id<\/em>. at \u00a7 7475(a)(4). (Decision at 52).\u00a0 Since the Tailpipe Rule became effective, EPA has regulated automotive greenhouse gas emissions under Title II of the Act. \u00a0Thus, greenhouse gases are now a \u201cpollutant subject to regulation under\u201d the Act, and, as required by the statute itself, any \u201cmajor emitting facility\u201d covered by the PSD program must install BACT for greenhouse gases. (Decision at 52-53).<\/p>\n

The court reasoned that Congress intended the PSD program to cover all regulated pollutants, regardless of the type of harm those pollutants cause, and therefore, \u201cthe PSD program was intended to protect against precisely the types of harms caused by greenhouse gases.\u201d (Decision at 63)\u00a0 Thus, in light of the PSD program\u2019s broad scope of regulation and the express purposes of the statute consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA,<\/em> Industry Petitioners\u2019 \u201cattempt to fashion a greenhouse gas-exclusive interpretation of \u2018pollutant\u2019 is \u2018a plainly unreasonable reading\u2019 of the statute.\u201d (Decision at 63)\u00a0 Further, the court concluded that \u201cEPA\u2019s 34-year-old interpretation of the PSD permitting triggers is statutorily compelled: a source must obtain a permit if it emits major amounts of any regulated pollutant and is located in an area that is in attainment or unclassifiable for any NAAQS pollutant.\u201d\u00a0 (Decision at 72).<\/p>\n

3) No Petitioner had Standing to Challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules<\/strong><\/p>\n

With regard to the Timing Rule, the court immediately noted that Petitioners failed to make any real arguments against the rule. \u00a0State Petitioners contended that the Timing Rule constituted an attempt \u201cto extend the PSD and Title V permitting requirements to greenhouse-gas emissions.\u201d (Decision at 73)\u00a0 In rejecting this argument outright, the court stated that greenhouse gases are regulated under PSD and Title V \u201cpursuant to automatic operation of the CAA.\u201d\u00a0 The purpose of the Timing Rule was simply \u201cto delay the applicability of these programs, providing that major emitters of greenhouse gases would be subject to PSD and Title V permitting requirements only once the Tailpipe Rule actually took effect on January 2, 2011.\u201d (Decision at 73).<\/p>\n

As for the Tailoring Rule, EPA announced that it was \u201crelieving overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of this rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources.\u201d \u00a0Thus, instead of immediately requiring permits for all sources exceeding the emissions threshold, EPA decided to \u201cphas[e] in the applicability of these programs to [greenhouse gas] sources, starting with the largest [greenhouse gas] emitters.\u201d (Decision at 74-75).\u00a0 This phased in approach was supported by three administrative law doctrines: the doctrine of absurd results; the doctrine of administrative necessity; and the one-step-at-a-time doctrine.\u00a0 (Decision at 76). Petitioners argued that none of these doctrines permit EPA to \u201cdepart unilaterally from the [CAA\u2019s] permitting thresholds and replace them with numbers of its own choosing.\u201d (Decision at 76).<\/p>\n

However, the court never reached the merits of this argument as it held that Petitioners lacked standing to raise the claims.\u00a0 The court found that Petitioners failed to establish that the Timing and Tailoring Rules caused them \u201c\u2018injury in fact,\u2019 much less injury that could be redressed by the Rules\u2019 vacatur.\u201d (Decision at 77).\u00a0 While the Industry Petitioners argued that they were injured because they are subject to regulation of greenhouse gases and State Petitioners claim injury because they own some regulated sources and because they now carry a heavier administrative burden, the court again explained that the CAA mandates PSD and Title V coverage for major emitters of greenhouse gases. \u00a0Thus, \u201cIndustry Petitioners were regulated and State Petitioners required to issue permits not because of anything EPA did in the Timing and Tailoring Rules, but by automatic operation of the statute.\u201d\u00a0 (Decision at 77)\u00a0 As a result, neither the Timing nor Tailoring Rules caused the injury Petitioners allege \u2013 namely \u2013 having to comply with PSD and Title V for greenhouse gases.\u00a0 (Decision at 77).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Danielle Sugarman, Fellow On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in a major victory for the environment and President Obama\u2019s Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a series of challenges to EPA\u2019s body of greenhouse gas regulation.\u00a0 The cases, called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, were brought by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":703,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5677,264],"tags":[5529,9426,9423],"class_list":{"0":"post-1532","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-clean-air-act","7":"category-supreme-court","8":"tag-epa-clean-air-act-ghg-rules","9":"tag-climate-disclosures","10":"tag-supreme-court","11":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nD.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By: Danielle Sugarman, Fellow On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in a major victory for the environment and President Obama\u2019s Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a series of challenges to EPA\u2019s body of greenhouse gas regulation.\u00a0 The cases, called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, were brought by […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-06-28T14:19:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-07-05T14:24:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Danielle Sugarman\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Danielle Sugarman\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Danielle Sugarman\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e\"},\"headline\":\"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-06-28T14:19:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-07-05T14:24:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2013,\"commentCount\":3,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"Climate Disclosures\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/\",\"name\":\"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-06-28T14:19:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-07-05T14:24:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2012\\\/06\\\/28\\\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e\",\"name\":\"Danielle Sugarman\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/dsugar1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"By: Danielle Sugarman, Fellow On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in a major victory for the environment and President Obama\u2019s Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a series of challenges to EPA\u2019s body of greenhouse gas regulation.\u00a0 The cases, called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, were brought by […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2012-06-28T14:19:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-07-05T14:24:30+00:00","author":"Danielle Sugarman","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Danielle Sugarman","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/"},"author":{"name":"Danielle Sugarman","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e"},"headline":"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation","datePublished":"2012-06-28T14:19:45+00:00","dateModified":"2012-07-05T14:24:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/"},"wordCount":2013,"commentCount":3,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"keywords":["Clean Air Act","Climate Disclosures","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Clean Air Act","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/","name":"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-06-28T14:19:45+00:00","dateModified":"2012-07-05T14:24:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/06\/28\/d-c-court-of-appeals-dismisses-challenges-to-epa-climate-regulation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.C. Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenges to EPA Climate Regulation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e","name":"Danielle Sugarman","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/dsugar1\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/703"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}