Debrief of the DC Circuit's Oral Arguments on EPA's GHG Rulemakings
Co-sponsored by the Environmental Law Institute; Jones Day; International Emissions Trading Association; Georgetown Climate Center; DC Bar Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Section; and the Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Ecosystems Committee of the ABA's Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources
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.
9:00 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
10:30 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