Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al. (2015 Ozone NAAQS)

Case Updates

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit denied the petitions for review filed by the U.S. Chamber, other industry groups, and states against the EPA’s primary and secondary ozone standards. The D.C. Circuit also denied petitions for review filed by environmental groups in almost all respects: the only two exceptions were a remand (without vacatur) for further explanation of why the secondary standard was adequate to protect against visible damage to tree leaves and vacatur of the EPA’s decision to grandfather permit applications into the previous (less stringent standards) if the permit applications were submitted before the new standards went into effect.

Click here to view the order.

Click here to view the order.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, joined by other national business groups, filed a motion to intervene in the D.C. Circuit to oppose a lawsuit by several special interest groups seeking to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone below the 70 parts per billion (ppb) level set in 2015.

In December, a U.S. Chamber-led coalition filed suit against EPA’s decision to tighten the ozone standard to 70 ppb. Several environmental special interest groups also filed suit against EPA to tighten the standard even further, threatening greater widespread economic impacts.

“As our own lawsuit details, the EPA’s 70 ppb mandate is unattainable for many communities and will stifle economic expansion opportunities in areas across the country,” said William Kovacs, senior vice president, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs for the U.S. Chamber. “The even more stringent standard sought by these special interest groups would force a far greater number of cities and counties into EPA’s economic ‘penalty box,’ and would be devastating to American business. The Chamber will continue to push back against unreasonable regulatory overreach from the EPA and third-party litigants.”

The U.S. Chamber was joined in the motion to intervene by the National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, Utility Air Regulatory Group, Portland Cement Association, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Oilseed Processors Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Foundry Society, American Iron and Steel Institute, and the American Wood Council.

James R. Bieke, Roger R. Martella, and Joel F. Visser of Sidley Austin LLP served as co-counsel for the amici.