The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard two days of oral argument to review four of EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions rules: the "timing" rule, the "tailoring" rule, the "endangerment" rule, and the "tailpipe" rule. These four rules were EPA’s response to Massachusetts v. EPA and represented the bedrock of EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The court’s rulings on these four rules had the potential to halt, delay, modify, or greatly increase the scope of greenhouse gas regulation under the CAA. The stakes were among the highest in recent environmental litigation.
Our distinguished panelists, many of whom participated in the arguments, described and dissected the previous days’ oral arguments and discussed the implications of the potential outcomes.
Welcome & Overview of Oral Arguments
Kevin Holewinski, Partner, Jones Day
Gabriel Pacyniak, Institute Associate, Georgetown University Climate Center
Panel I: Discussion of the oral arguments’ main sticking points and highlights
John Cruden, President, Environmental Law Institute (moderator)
Bill Cobb, Partner, Jackson Walker LLP
Meleah Geertsma, Attorney-Climate and Clean Air Program, NRDC
Tracy Triplett, Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts
Tim Webster, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Panel II: Scenarios and implications: the impact of potential outcomes
David Hunter, US Director, International Emissions Trading Association (moderator)
Kyle Danish, Member, Van Ness Feldman
Dina Kruger, Principal, Kruger Environmental Strategies LLC, formerly director of the Climate Change Division at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Allison Wood, Partner, Hunton & Williams
Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund