City, State Seek to Intervene in Litigation Over EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Power Plants
The attempt by the coalition of states and localities to intervene on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency is for a limited purpose: defending the EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants under section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act.
October 11, 2019 at 03:55 PM
5 minute read
In yet another state- and locality-driven legal maneuver aimed at environmental protection, both New York State and New York City have asked to intervene in three federal cases in which coal mining companies and other industry interests are challenging the EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, according to city Law Department news release and a copy of the motion to intervene.
The state and city are part of a coalition of 30 states and local governments, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who together have filed the motion to intervene in the three lawsuits, according to the Law Department and the intervenor motion. The three lawsuits are part of a larger set of cases consolidated by, and pending before, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The attempt by the coalition of states and localities to intervene on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency is for a limited purpose, according to the intervenor motion. And the tactic itself appears to be unique for New York State and New York City, which have generally joined or launched lawsuits in recent years that have sought to fight Trump Administration attempts to ease environmental regulations put in place under President Barack Obama.
In this instance, the coalition is seeking to intervene in the suits "for the limited purpose of defending EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants under section 111 of the [federal] Clean Air Act," the 28-page motion paper states.
Moreover, the coalition notes in the motion document that "recent actions taken by EPA call into question its commitment to robustly defend its statutory authority to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions."
"State and Municipal Intervenors have a compelling interest in preventing the adverse effects of global climate change on human health and the environment," the document also says.
The intervenor motion goes on to explain that the three cases "involve review of EPA's final action," or rule, "titled Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations, 84 Fed. Reg. 32,520 (July 8, 2019)."
"Although State and Municipal Intervenors vigorously dispute the lawfulness and reasonableness of many aspects of the Rule, they support EPA's conclusion that it has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants under section 111 of the Act," the intervenor motion document notes.
"Many State and Municipal Intervenors have long sought to compel the use of, and to vindicate, EPA's legal authority in this regard," the motion also states. It then further explains that "industry petitioners in the cases in which movants seek to intervene have raised or will likely raise at least three specific challenges to EPA's authority," before next going on to list the raised or expected industry challenges.
An EPA spokesperson said in an email that the EPA does not comment on pending litigation.
The motion filing notes that the intervenors sought out the position of the plaintiffs in the three cases—brought by plaintiffs including Robinson Enterprises, Westmoreland Mining Holdings and The North American Coal Corp.—on the coalition's wish to intervene, and that in two cases petitioners' counsel took no position, while in the Robison Enterprises case, their counsel was opposed to the motion.
Theodore Hadzi-Antich, a senior attorney for the Center for the American Future, is a counsel to a petitioner or petitioners in the lawsuit in which Robison Enterprises is the first named petitioner. He could not be reached for comment Friday.
Mark DeLaquil, a Baker & Hostetler partner in Washington, D.C., is a counsel to petitioner Westmoreland Mining Holdings in one of the other three lawsuits. He could not be immediately reached for comment Friday.
Charles Wehland, a Jones Day partner in Chicago, is a counsel to petitioner North American Coal Corp. in one of the other three lawsuits, and he also could not be immediately reached for comment Friday.
In the city Law Department's news release issued Tuesday, acting corporation counsel Georgia Pestana, said, "The City of New York is proud to join states and cities across the country in rigorously defending EPA's lawful authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases against baseless challenges brought by the fossil fuel industry."
The Law Department also noted in the release that the motion to intervene in the three coal mining company cases is "separate and distinct from a lawsuit filed by the state and municipal coalition against EPA over its roll-back of the Clean Power Plan, the first-ever nationwide limits on one of the largest sources of climate change pollution—existing fossil-fueled power plants."
That particular "lawsuit brought by states and local governments contends that the rule change is unlawful and should be prevented from being implemented, and that EPA has not only the authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants but the affirmative obligation to ensure that compliance with the Clean Air Act is based on the emissions reductions achievable through the 'best system of emission reduction,'" the news release says.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLukoil Pan Americas Sues Investment Firm Over Alleged $18 Million Breach
Judge Dismisses Solar Power Startup from Lawsuit Alleging Fraud By Ex-CEO
Trending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250