Docket — Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation

t an *

No. 05-848 .”

Title: Environmental Defense, et al., Petitioners

v.

Duke Energy Corporation et al.

Docketed: January 5, 2006

Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Nos.: (04-1763)

Decision Date: June 15, 2005

Rehearing Denied: August 30, 2005

Questions Presented

~~~Date~~

~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~ —

Nov 15 2005 Application (05A441) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from

November 28, 2005 to January 12, 2006, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Nov 17 2005 Response to application from respondent Duke Energy Corporation filed.

Nov 17 2005 Application (05A441) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until

Dec 28 2005

Jan 31 2006

Mar 7 2006

Mar 8 2006

Mar 8 2006

Mar 8 2006

December 28, 2005.

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 6, 2006)

Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 8, 2006, for all

respondents.

Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed.

Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.

Brief of respondent Duke Energy Corporation in opposition filed.

Brief amici curiae of National Parks Conservation Association, et al. filed.

Mar 21 2006

Mar 22 2006

Apr 17 2006

Reply of petitioners Environmental Defense, et al. filed. (Distributed)

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 14, 2006.

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2006.

Apr 24 2006 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2006.

May 8 2006

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2006.

May 15 2006 Petition GRANTED.

May 22 2006 Extension of time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioners’ brief on the

Jun 5 2006

Jun 5 2006

Jul 5 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006 -

merits to and including July 21, 2006.

Consent for the filing of amicus briefs in support of either/neither party received from

counsel for the respondent.

Extension of time within which to file the respondent's brief on the merits to and

including September 15, 2006.

Consent to the filing of amicus briefs in support of either party received from counsel for

the petitioners.

Brief amici curiae of Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Adirondack Mountain Club filed.

Brief amici curiae of STAPPA and ALAPCO

Brief amici curiae of New Jersey, et al. filed.

Brief of respondent United States in support filed.

Joint appendix filed. (Joint appendix in two volumes).

Brief of petitioners Environmental Defense, et al. filed.

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Jul 21 2006

Brief amici curiae of Law Professors John E. Bonine, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed. :

Brief amici curiae of American Lung Association, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of National Parks Conservation Association, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of Former EPA Administrators Carol M.Browner and Russell E. Train

filed.

Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Members of Congress Henry Waxman, et al.

filed.

Aug 14 2006 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 1, 2006.

Aug 14 2006 CIRCULATED.

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Brief amicus curiae of Manufacturers Aassociation Work Group filed. (Distributed)

Motion of Alabama, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for

divided argument filed.

Brief of respondent Duke Energy Corporation filed. (Distributed)

Sep 15 2006 Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 15 2006

Sep 18 2006

Sep 18 2006

Sep 22 2006

Sep 28 2006

Brief amicus curiae of Electric Utility Industry filed. (Distributed)

Brief amicus curiae of APA Watch filed. (Distributed)

Brief amicus curiae of National Environmental Development Association filed.

(Distributed)

Brief amicus curiae of Walter C. Barber filed. (Distributed)

Brief amicus curiae of U.S. Representative Joe L Barton filed. (Distributed)

Brief amici curiae of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Brief amici curiae of American Public Power Association and National Rural Electric

Cooperative Association filed. (Distributed)

Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)

Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)

Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General.

Petitioners’ response to motion of Alabama, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument

as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2006.

Record received from U.S.C.A. for 4th Circuit. (1 box)

Oct 2 2006 Motion of Alabama, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and

Oct 2 2006

Oct 10 2006

Oct 19 2006

Oct 20 2006

Oct 27 2006

Nov | 2006

for divided argument DENIED.

Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED.

Record received from U.S.D.C. for Middle District of North Carolina (Greensboro) (6

boxes)

Reply of petitioners Environmental Defense, et al. filed. (Distributed).

Reply of United States as respondent supporting peittioners filed. (Distributed).

Petitioner's proposed lodging approved and filed (20 copies each of the brief of Industry

Petitioners, settlement agreement, and certified CA-4 transcript). DISTRIBUTED.

Argued. For petitioners: Sean H. Donahue, Washington, D.C. For respondent United

States in support of petitioners: Thomas G. Hungar, Deputy Solicitor General,

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent Duke Energy Corporation:

Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D.C.

Supreme S.

pee Cag US

05-B4gucuZo 2005

No. 05-__QFICE OF THE CLERK

‘

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

V

DUKE ENERGY CORP., ET AL.,

Respondents.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JEFFREY M. GLEASON

J. BLANDING HOLMAN, IV

CALEB JAFFE

Southern Environmental

Law Center

200 W. Franklin Suite 330

Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516

(434) 967-1450

VICKIE PATTON

Environmental Defense

2334 North Broadway

Denver, Colorado 80304

(303) 447-0987

*Counsel of Record

SEAN H. DONAHUE *

2000 L Street, NW

Suite 808

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 466-2234

DAVID T. GOLDBERG

99 Hudson Street, 8" Floor

New York, N.Y. 10013

(212) 334-8813

Counsel for Petitioners

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

In this civil enforcement action under the Clean Air Act,

the Fourth Circuit ruled that EPA’s definition, embodied in a

1980 regulation, of emissions “increases” for purposes of the

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program

violates the Act because it differs from a regulatory definition

EPA employs to measure emissions increases under another

program under the Act, the New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS). Both the court’s holding and its analysis of

the statute conflict with decisions of other courts, including a

decision rendered by the D.C. Circuit rejecting challenges to

the very regulations at issue in this case, New York v. EPA,

413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Fourth Circuit’s decision violated Section

307(b) of the Act, which provides that national Clean Air

Act regulations are subject to challenge “only” in the D.C.

Circuit by petition for review filed within 60 days of their

promulgation, and “shall not be subject to judicial review”

in enforcement proceedings, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b); and

2. Whether the Act’s definition of “modification,” which

turns on whether there is an “increase” in emissions and

which applies to both the NSPS and PSD programs,

rendered unlawful EPA’s longstanding regulatory test

defining PSD “increases” by reference to actual, annual

emissions.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff the United States, and _plaintiffs-intervenors

Environmental Defense, North Carolina Sierra Club, and

North Carolina Public Interest Research Group Citizen

Lobby/Education Fund were appellants in the court of

appeals. Defendant Duke Energy Corporation was appellee in

the court of appeals.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ee ITI CIID ic tecsncscocenerssnssibtptennsenseenesnseensoncensinie i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING................c.scssscsscssssescesees ii

CR Ie Ce FE OUD crscncinesernccrestonsscerseneierenetaconenne iv

PEE viivienstinctnnesccicrintnmsaestgodunicnmnateensoventanunninses l

IEE shisnididintuceneninentinppematinininitapivencinsmaniinatetinne l

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............cecceeeseees 2

IE tisieitecttidipineiiennsnssetuiivintistnheeviinnanenetocnidntaienions 2

PEPER TEE COD - UU Get ee ererccnnecsrsrsncenvessesnonscesenevesemnsonsen 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT..........cccccesceseees 13

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATED

NATIONAL CAA REGULATIONS IN

VIOLATION OF SECTION 307(b),

IN VIOLATION OF THIS COURT’S

PRECEDENT AND DECISIONS OF

OTHER COURTS OF APPEALG.................sccsscsssesseees

Il. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ RULING

THAT EPA MUST ADOPT IDENTICAL

REGULATORY DEFINITIONS OF |

EMISSIONS “INCREASE” UNDER THE

NSPS AND PSD PROGRAMS IS

INCORRECT AND CONTRARY

TO DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS ...........:cs00000

If]. THE CASE PRESENTS RECURRING ISSUES

OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE ...........c:ccccseceesseeeeenes

SR Dive senccnerssstansepsvennennaseinngnennsgneienenentantanainntinets

ili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States,

SP a BFR Cee Pe eerrsterennststecteeotmnnanmatntiit passim

Alabama Power v. Costle,

636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) 0.00.0... eee sennaemeseniine passim

Alaska Dept. of Env’l Cons. v. E.P.A.,

a Es Ge CID scsetiniscictietnitsneinnniatinmeiiianiadie 3,4

ASARCO Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319 (D.C. Cir. 1978)......... 21

Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc.

v. Dept. of Army, 111 F.3d 1485 (10th Cir. 1997)............ 12

Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ........c0000 12

Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000)............. 18

Citizens for Clean Air v. EPA, 959 F.2d 839 .....cccccsssscsseeneees 5

(9" Cir. 1992)

City of Seabrook v. EPA, 659 F.2d 1349 ..cccccscsesssesseesseeevess 17

(5™ Cir. 1981)

Enviro Tech International, Inc. v. EPA,

EP bo ly le me SRE 14

General Dynamics Land Systems v. Cline,

SRD UTS... FB0 CAG DP ccwscossccssnserccsccsecesccnnsesccsssncsestcostuisenti 24

iv

Greenpeace, Inc. v. Waste Technologies Industries,

ee ES CO cctetetensennenncessnncenenvicctonnstsvemnees 14

Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20 (1989)............ 15

Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U.S. 578 (1980) ..15,22

Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc. v. E.P.A.,, 723 F.2d 1440

EE REE 14,15

Koons Buick-Pontiac GMC v. Nigh,

a i aerate inriemerteeeeneerinnpuntions 25

New York v. Environmental Protection Agency,

ee es Se CN cccccrnccrnsdnsecnstonnmsesssnngeasees passim

Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League,

ein inntengpentnentinmnencemaneanetees 25

Ohio Environmental Council v. United States

District Court, 565 F.2d 393 (6th Cir. 1977)............00000 14

Pan American Grain Mfg. Co., Inc. v. EPA,

In MUTI, TTI. os ieeniatentneenseninnttionsionen 14

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. EPA,

SF a | 5

Puerto Rican Cement Co. v. EPA, 889 F.2d 292

EES SESE nena are ee passim

Raygor v. Regents of U. of Minnesota,

TEETER ee eee 25

Rowan Companies, Inc. v. United States,

| passim

Siegelman v. EPA, 911 F.2d 499 (11th Cir. 1990)...........000. 14

Union Elec. v. EPA., 427 U.S. 246 (1976) .......cccccccceseeeeeeeseees 4

United States v. Cleveland Indian Baseball Co.,

ee 24

United States v. Ethyl Corp.,

ES fi.) ts 2) 14

United States v. Ho, 311 F.3d 589 (Sth Cir. 2002) .............. 17

United States v. Walsh, 8 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 1993).............. 14

US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002)..........-0+++ 25

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Reilly,

$93 F.2d 9O1 (7 Cir. 1990) .......c.-cceccveccsercscessesnseresenses passim

STATUTES:

Pub. L. No. 91- 604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970)...........:ccccssceceereeees 3

Pub. L. No. 95-190, § 14, 91 Stat. 1393 (1977)......... selene 24

iE, | | 1

i SE eee ee eee |

, |! nee en eee nenenen sen Hoo 1

GB CREE, FF ccscecetnesencsnsqnecscemeresecsersmesessnsinmnemncenannesi 29

a 29

GRUGBE, GD cccererenemntrtesestssnstncsctcenatatennnmnnnsnnnnnions 24

UT dl EE 24

| obiy ese anaeeeroreNe 4

IIE, Wc -cccsrsintecshinsiirdintatinenesisnensiindiaendnadiiimmanimieeatanninal 4

es AIT cinisensinttntecnseinteniniinnsiiciimapiaaiateaiingaiad passim

ls MPU ciicicicestenitcnthctittninieiginaitieantieimeen iene! 4

lye een Oe NOON ER EI OE nT 5

TTS ee Le ET MT 5

es SRT <cssinrtecintentietndienieinanibnpediiancuiaesensttielibasizals 1,6

NN ear Te 5

i 5

Sir Tle TT dnsesninritiinmetnintntndinrttgiaiiiimamneiiametaiimeidelaneldeiial 5

i ictiniiinieteniriesrinniictritninitpitiniadasiaiactisiaanasiieles passim

IS, I nn cece cinta iccatdialiaiisiiadliadibadeialll 4

Se ees SI IIITITTTIscircrnctenirestteicintcinanstinaithaibsiinaiiabiiieaiaiiiiatal ]

ea UTI tihhtininsinrnicrindinrsictiiinamntiapininsiinangtiaiatnaitadnmiamtiail 28

LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS:

EE IIIT ins sserrsrninaiieanteniementetmimmeantoneaniag 23

Ses SS SN IIE CIEE cscntntenscnepisienenseniimnenntvetiiitiiiat 5

IT sincrrincisinnentantaitchioneseninaniieepeietsinndl 6

hs ae IIIPS Ui iciicnisercntsincsinteninteneriniatniotesionsiiapei 24

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS:

ee Sr cicniiecectnnnsinenatinanisnnaitenanamesisanmntnatmiil 6

I 6

a es SD STII cosicnsnsentzasicnsbeccniesttinseneennntings 18

eR 18

ie I iniiniritensincncncemntscaninapinecnnttetnnginasats 15,18

ata ticcrsrtrictiiniininpaiateminniaiidinniniaiiiniaaiesil 18

aE 18

43 Fed. Reg. 26380 (Jume 19, 1978) ..............ccccceeseceeeceeeneeeeees 6

44 Fed. Reg. 51924 (Sept. 5, 1979) ...........cccecsccccessessessesecseeees 5

45 Fed. Reg. 52676 (Aug. 7, 1980) ...............sccccccesecseeserensees 18

sh BB ee 20

67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (Dec. 31, 2002) ...........ccccccccsecceeeeeeeeneees 20

70 Fed. Reg. 61081 (Oct. 20, 2005)...............ccccceeceseeeeees 12,30

vii

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the district court is reported at 278 F. Supp.

2d 619 and is reproduced in the Appendix (“App.”) at page

22a. That court’s order granting summary judgment is

unreported and is reproduced at App. 85a. The court of

appeals’ order requesting supplemental briefing is reprinted at

App. 21a, and its opinion is published at 411 F.3d 539 and

reproduced at App. la. The court of appeals’ unreported

order denying rehearing en banc is reproduced at App. 20a.

JURISDICTION

The district court’s jurisdiction was based upon 28 U.S.C.

1331. The court of appeals had appellate jurisdiction based

on 28 U.S.C. 1291. The scope of both courts’ jurisdiction was

limited by 42 U.S.C. 7607(b).

The court of appeals entered judgment on June 15, 2005,

and denied petitioners’ and the United States’ petitions for

rehearing en banc on August 30, 2005. On November 17,

2005, the Chief Justice extended the time for petitioners to

file a petition for certiorari to December 28, 2005. This

Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Clean Air Act (CAA) defines a “modification” for

purposes of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs

as “any physical change in, or change in the method of

operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount

of any air pollutant emitted by such source[.]” 42 U.S.C.

7411(a), 7949(2)(C). Section 307(b), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b),

provides that judicial review of “nationally applicable

regulations” under the Act may be had “only” by petition for

review in D.C. Circuit filed with 60 days of promulgation,

and that such regulations and “any other final action” subject

to such review “shall not be subject to judicial review” in

enforcement proceedings. These and other relevant provisions

of the Act and its implementing regulations are reproduced at

App. 96a-106a.

INTRODUCTION

In this Clean Air Act enforcement action, the Fourth

Circuit set aside, as contrary to the statute, EPA’s regulatory

test, embodied in regulations adopted in 1980, defining an

“increase” in emissions for purposes of the Act’s PSD

program. In so doing, the court contravened Section 307(b)

of the Act, which expressly confines challenges to national

CAA regulations to petitions for review filed in the D.C.

Circuit within 60 days, and which expressly forbids such

challenges in enforcement proceedings.

Nine days after the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the D.C.

Circuit denied petitions for review brought by an industry

coalition (including respondent Duke Energy) challenging the

very 1980 regulation that was held contrary to statute by the

Fourth Circuit here. New York v. Environmental Protection

Agency, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In that decision, the

D.C. Circuit found that the industry petitioners had waived

the statutory theory adopted by the Fourth Circuit here, and it

rejected a related statute challenge that was made to the 1980

PSD regulations attacking EPA’s emissions “increase” test as

contrary to the statutory definition of modification. New York

also held, contrary to the decision here, that the CAA’s PSD

provisions not only permit, but compel, an “actual emissions”

test for PSD modifications. The Fourth Circuit’s reading of

the Act thus directly conflicts with that of the court whose

exclusive jurisdiction it invaded.

The Fourth Circuit reasoned that EPA’s “actual annual

emissions” test for PSD emissions increases is unlawful

because the CAA uses the same definition of “modification”

for PSD and for the separate NSPS program, for which EPA

has a different test of emissions “increases.” The court based

this decision on what it called an “effectively irrebuttable”

presumption that identical statutory definitions governing two

different CAA programs require that regulations

2

implementing component terms in those statutory definitions

themselves be “identical.” That ruling, however, rested on a

grave misreading of this Court’s tax decision, Rowan

Companies, Inc. v. United States, 452 U.S. 257 (1981);

disregarded this Court’s repeated instructions on statutory

construction; overlooks marked differences between the

NSPS and PSD programs; is directly contrary to decisions of

the D.C. Circuit and other courts of appeals, and disregards

this Court’s basic teachings on statutory interpretation.

This case is exceptionally important to the integrity and

stability of the jurisdictional regime established in the CAA

(and virtually every other major environmental statute) and to

the administration of one of the most broadly applicable

programs established by Congress to protect and enhance the

nation’s air quality. It merits this Court’s review.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Statutory and Regulatory Background. Congress enacted

the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-604,

84 Stat. 1676, “to protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and

welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” 42

U.S.C. 7401(b). The Act assigns EPA the responsibility to

adopt implementing regulations and to enforce the statute in

tandem with the states. e.g., Alaska Dept. of Environmental

Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (ADEC).

In order to promote the “even and consistent national

application” of EPA’s implementing regulations, S. Rep. No.

91-1196, at 40-41 (1979), Congress in Section 307(b) directed

that petitions for review of nationally applicable CAA

regulations may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit, within 60

days of promulgation, and that suits to review other final

actions of regional or loca! application be brought only in the

appropriate regional courts of appeals, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b). See

Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U.S. 378 (1980);

Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978).

Section 307(b)(2) provides that “[a]ction of the Administrator

with respect to which review could have been obtained [by

such petition for review] shall not be subject to judicial

review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.”

Section 307(e) provides “[n]othing in this chapter shall be

construed to authorize judicial review of regulations or orders

of the Administrator under this chapter, except as provided in

this section.” 42 U.S.C. 7607(e).

The 1970 legislation directs EPA to develop national

technology-based standards intended to “force” the

development of new and better control technologies. See

Union Elec. v. EPA., 427 U.S. 246, 257 (1976). The New

Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) require new and

“modified” sources to meet technology-based standards

developed by EPA and applicable to entire categories of

equipment. 42 U.S.C. 7411. “Modification,” for purposes of

that program, is defined as “any physical change in, or change

in the method of operation of, a stationary source which

increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such

source[.]” /d. 7411(a). The CAA also directs EPA to

establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

for air pollutants at a level requisite to. protect human health

and the environment, 42 U.S.C. 7409. States are authorized to

establish state implementation plans to achieve and maintain

the NAAQS. /d. 7410.

In 1977, Congress comprehensively amended the Act.

Among this “lengthy, detailed, technical, complex and

comprehensive response to a major social issue,” Chevron

USA, Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S.

837, 848 (1984), the 1977 amendments introduced a statutory

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program, 42

U.S.C. 7470-7479, “designed to ensure that the air quality in

attainment areas or areas that are already ‘clean’ will not

degrade.” ADEC, 540 U.S. at 470-71 (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted); see 42 U.S.C. 7470(1) (PSD

intended to “insure that economic growth would occur in a

manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air

resources”). States manage increments — caps on permissible

4