# Opposition Brief — Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1198%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2001 - **Citation:** 532 U.S. 903 ## Text Nos. 00-632 and 00-633 In The Supreme Court of the United STATE OF MICHIGAN, ef al., Petitioners U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Respondents. STATES OF OHIO AND INDIANA, Petitioners, vs. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ef al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL BOILER OWNERS, WEST VIRGINIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION. MICHIGAN MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND VIRGINIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION William C. Porth Gene E. Godley Kim Brown Poland (COUNSEL OF RECORD) Robert E. Lannan, II Scott H. Segal ROBINSON & MCELWEE, L.L.P. Lisa M. Jaeger 600 United Center BRACEWELL & PATTERSON, L.L.P. Post Office Box 1791 2000 K Street, N.W., Ste 500 Charleston, WV 25326 Washington, D.C. 20006-1872 (304) 347-8248 (202) 828-5800 Counsel for Respondent Counsel for Respondent West Virginia Manufacturers Council of Industrial Association Boiler Owners Additional Counsel listed on inside cover Thomas E. Knauer WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS 1021 East Cary Street P.O. Box 1320 Richmond, VA 23218-1320 (804) 783-6913 Counsel for Respondent Virginia Manufacturers Association Rhonda Lee Ross WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD, L.L.P. 2000 Town Center Suite 2700 Southfield, MI 48075-1318 (248) 784-5088 Counsel for Respondent Michigan Manufacturers Association Nos. 00-632 and 00-633 3u The Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF MICHIGAN, ef al., Petitioners, vs. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ef ai., Respondents. STATES OF OHIO AND INDIANA, Petitioners, VS. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ef ai., Respondents. BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL BOILER OWNERS, WEST VIRGINIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND VIRGINIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to United States Supreme Court Rule 29.6, parties joining this brief have no parent corporations nor are owned by 10% or more by a publicly held company. STATEMENT Respondents Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (“CIBO”), West Virginia Manufacturers Association (“WVMA”), Michigan Manufacturers Association (“MMA”), and Virginia Manufacturers Association (“ VMA”) support the petition of the States of Michigan, West Virginia, South 2 Carolina, Alabama and the Commonwealth of Virginia (No. 00-662) and the petition of the States of Ohio and Indiana (No. 00-663) for a writ of certiorari to review the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Michigan v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Some of the Respondents have filed a brief in support of the petition challenging the same ruling filed by Appalachian Power Company, ef al. (No. 00-445). As Respondents pointed out in their brief supporting the earlier-filed petition, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) rule at issue in these cases effectively charges industrial sources with violations of Section 110 the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7410(a)(2)(D), yet the basis for the violations is an extra-statutory construct that conflicts with longstanding precedent. Respondents are concerned that if the ruling in Michigan v. EPA stands, EPA will be encouraged to ignore, where expedient, the plain meaning of the Clean Air Act and impose its own “short-cut” interpretation of the statute. Likewise, Respondents are concerned that the ruling left standing will permit EPA to bypass congressional directives regarding when and how regulatory costs should be considered, and impose instead the agency’s own judgment. Further, Respondents agree with State Petitioners that EPA's approach has deprived states of the prerogative to determine how to achieve any necessary emissions reductions. The rule significantly impacts the industrial sector in a manner that Respondents believe Congress did not intend by imposing a burden to reduce emissions based on the cost of controls, rather than the actual emissions contribution of the source or other sources in a given state to another state. 3 For these reasons and for those expressed in Respondents’ brief filed in support of Petition No. 00-445, Respondents urge this Court to grant certiorari in these cases. Respectfully submitted, Gene E. Godley Counsel of Record Scott H. Segal Lisa M. Jaeger BRACEWELL & PATTERSON, L.L.P. 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006-1872 (202) 828-5800 Counsel for Respondent Council of Industrial Boiler Owners William C. Porth Kim Brown Poland Robert E. Lannan, II ROBINSON & MCELWEE, L.L.P. 600 United Center Post Office Box 1791 Charleston, WV 25326 (304) 347-8248 Counsel for Respondent West Virginia Manufacturers Association 4 Rhonda L. Ross WARNER Norcross & Jupp L.L.P. 2000 Town Center, Suite 2700 Southfield, MI 48075-1318 (248) 784-5088 Counsel for Respondent Michigan Manufacturers Association Thomas E. Knauer WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS 1021 East Cary Street P.O. Box 1320 Richmond, VA 23218-1320 (804) 783-6913 Counsel for Respondent Virginia Manufacturers Association Dated: November 8, 2000 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1198%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.