ILNews

Indiana joins other states challenging EPA regulatory authority

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Indiana has joined 11 other states in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, taking the unusual tactic of challenging the federal government’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases rather than challenging the rule itself.

The complaint, filed Aug. 1 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asserts the federal agency overstepped its authority by attempting to regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants. At the center of the dispute is a section of the federal code which was passed by Congress and signed by the president without two separate amendments being reconciled between the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

iplcoalplant-1-15col.jpg Indianapolis Power & Light’s Harding Street plant will stop burning coal in 2016. (IL Photo/Eric Learned)

That Indiana is among the states bringing this lawsuit is not surprising. The Hoosier State is heavily dependent on coal-fired power plants and is one of the highest consumers of coal among its neighbors.

Any EPA regulation tightening greenhouse gas emissions would mean higher electric bills for both industry and households in Indiana.

The states challenging the EPA’s authority have significant hurdles to clear. By arguing the agency is exceeding its authority, they

are trying to convince the court to take the uncommon step of stopping a proposed rule rather than a final rule. In addition, they are trying to persuade the court to hear their suit even though it was filed well after the deadline.

Still, Jeff Stemerick, associate at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, was not quick to dismiss the states’ chances. Should they prevail, there would be serious consequences for the federal government.

“I think if (the states) win,” Stemerick said, “I don’t think the EPA could do much to curb emission from existing power plants.”

Source of the dispute

The lawsuit stems from a settlement agreement the EPA reached in 2010 with a collection of states, mostly from the Northeast, and environmental groups including the Sierra Club.

Under the agreement, the EPA proposed rules under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new and modified power plants. The agency also proposed rules under the same section for existing power plants.

coal-bars.gifIndiana and its co-petitioners contend regulating power plants already in operation was a step too far.

Specifically, the states argue the EPA is prohibited from regulating emissions from existing sources under CAA Section 111(d) because it has already placed limits on those sources under CAA Section 112.

“It’s a Hail Mary,” said Joanne Spalding, senior managing attorney at the Sierra Club, referring to the lawsuit.

Spalding expects the D.C. Circuit will dismiss the lawsuit “in the blink of an eye” because the court typically does not consider challenges to proposed agency actions. It is unlikely the court will stop the EPA from making the rule.

In addition, Spalding said, the states are attacking the settlement but, regardless of the settlement agreement, the federal agency has an independent legal obligation to follow the law. And the law requires the EPA to regulate new as well as existing sources of carbon dioxide.

Amy Romig, partner at Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, said the states have made a solid legal argument in their lawsuit. The petition is asking the court to provide guidance to clear up confusion surrounding the Clean Air Act.

“I really do think that this will result in an important decision saying how the various sections of the Clean Air Act interact with each other,” Romig said.

The states argue for a plain reading of Section 111(d). They bolster their claim by citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in American Electric Power Co. Inc., v. Connecticut. In a footnote, the court held the EPA cannot use Section 111(d) if the “existing stationary sources of the pollutant” are regulated under the “hazardous air pollutants’ program” of Section 112.

The conflicting interpretation of the Clean Air Act arises from 1990 amendments. Both chambers of Congress passed separate amendments to Section 111(d) but they were never reconciled during the conference committee. Both were enacted into law.

The Senate amendment excludes the regulation of any pollutant “included on a list published under Section 112(b).” Conversely, the House amendment excludes the regulation of any pollutant which is “emitted from a source category which is regulated under Section 112.”

The EPA maintains that since the two versions create an ambiguity, it may “reasonably construe” it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under Section 111(d).

Coal country

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said the state’s lawsuits against the federal government, including this one over greenhouse gases, are a way of preserving the balance between Washington, D.C., and state governments. In a letter sent to Indiana newspapers, Zoeller said the lawsuits are not policy debates but rather are testing whether the federal government’s actions are permissible under law.

The state’s residents might see the lawsuit as more of a pocketbook issue.

Although the economy and the increased use of natural gas have eaten into Indiana’s coal consumption, the state depends primarily on coal to generate electricity. According to statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Indiana gets more than 80 percent of its electricity from coal.

“To comply with carbon limits, no question that will cost money,” said Douglas Gotham, director of the State Utility Forecasting Group at Purdue University. “That will be reflected in higher electric rates than we would have otherwise.”

While consumers do not like paying more for utilities, many do not like the pollution that often pours from coal plants’ smoke stacks.

Recently, Indianapolis Power & Light responded to such criticism when announcing it plans to stop burning coal at its complex on Harding Street in 2016. The decision came after numerous complaints from residents and environmental groups over the pollutants which accounted for about 88 percent of Marion County’s toxic industrial emissions, according to The Associated Press.

Other plants around the state have been retired as they have outlived their usefulness, Gotham said. Also, retrofitting them to meet the current environmental regulations is too expensive.

Even with the closures, Indiana will still be a coal state. The amount of investment and money needed to significantly reduce Indiana’s dependence on coal “would be kind of astounding,” Gotham said.

Too late?

Before getting to its arguments over the EPA’s authority, the states have a significant procedural hurdle to clear. The petitioners filed their lawsuit well beyond the 60-day limit to comment on the 2010 settlement agreement.

Stemerick said the states made a “pretty good argument” in explaining their reason for filing beyond the deadline. They contend the issue ripened only when EPA announced its “flawed view of its Section 111(d) authority.”

Whether the lawsuit is too late to challenge the 2010 settlement is a close call, Romig said. Especially since the American Electric Power decision was not handed down until 2011.

Even if the lawsuit is dismissed, Romig said the fight against greenhouse gas regulation will not die. The final rule will likely be challenged, although the effort might be more limited because the rule will have been finalized.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT