WE KNOW ENERGY®
Bracewell & Giuliani
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Courts, Crude and Products, DOE, Electric, Enforcement, Environmental, Litigation, Midstream, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Offshore, Power, Regional Energy Law, Renewable Energy/Cleantech, Shale Development, Transmission, Upstream Energy
Supreme Court to Determine Whether Agencies Must Undergo Notice and Comment Prior to Changing an InterpretationMonday, June 16, 2014 2:07 pm by Grant MacIntyre and Kevin Ewing
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could have far-ranging implications for agency proclamations that impact the business community. On Monday, June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc., No. 13-1052. The Supreme Court will address “[w]hether agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act are categorically prohibited from revising their interpretative rules unless such revisions are made through notice-and-comment rulemaking.” (more…)
Sandra Snyder, Richard Alonso and Grant MacIntyre
EPA suffered a major loss on May 30 when the D.C. Circuit refused to uphold EPA’s attempt to narrow the ruling in the Summit aggregation case to only the states in the 6th Cir. Reversing more than 20 years of EPA practice, the Summit case directed EPA to refrain from using interdependency or the functional interrelatedness of various sources when making a determination regarding whether to aggregate the emissions from those sources for NSR and Title V permitting purposes.
In December 2012 after the Summit decision was final, EPA issued a memo that said the Agency would only apply the Sixth Circuit’s Summit decision in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Michigan. The memo was challenged by an industry trade association, the National Environmental Development Association (NEDA). (more…)
Richard Alonso and Grant MacIntyre
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed an expansive rule that would impose additional requirements at petroleum refineries. The proposed rule (which spans 813 pages) is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register, and interested parties will have 60 days from publication to file public comments.
The proposal is a response to a lawsuit from environmental and public health groups alleging that EPA missed statutory deadlines to review the existing refinery Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules. EPA settled the litigation, agreeing to either propose additional regulations or propose a determination that additional regulations are not necessary. EPA has decided to propose additional regulations and is required to take final action on the proposal by April 17, 2015. (more…)
On May 1, 2014, Bracewell partner Jeff Holmstead was interviewed in a live on-air chat by the Huffington Post, along with John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and law professor Dan Farber of the University of California at Berkeley. The discussion focused on how the rule works and what the ruling means for coal-fired power plants.
On Monday, April 7, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Monroe Energy v. EPA, No. 13-1265, which challenges the 2013 renewable fuels standards (RFS). Judges Rogers, Griffith, and Pillard presided over the argument. Monroe Energy, an independent refiner, and trade associations API and AFPM challenged the 2013 RFS. PBF Holding Company LLC intervened on behalf of Petitioners, and multiple parties intervened on behalf of EPA. (more…)