# Docket — Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0237%3A01

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Docket
- **Published:** January 1, 2007
- **Citation:** 549 U.S. 561

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0237%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.