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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT