Kavanaugh’s environmental decisions
Log in to view your state's edition
You are not logged in
State:
Free Special Reports
Get Your FREE Special Report. Download Any One Of These FREE Special Reports, Instantly!
Featured Special Report
Claim Your Free Copy of 2018 EHS Salary Guide

This report will help you evaluate if you are being paid a fair amount for the responsibilities you are shouldering.

In addition, EHS managers can find the information to keep their departments competitive and efficient—an easy way to guarantee you are paying the right amount to retain hard-to-fill positions but not overpaying on others.

Download Now!
Bookmark and Share
July 10, 2018
Kavanaugh’s environmental decisions

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s choice to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court, has served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, three years after he was nominated for the position by President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh had worked in the Bush administration advising the president on choices for the federal courts. His decisions were viewed by Senate Democrats as political, resulting in the extended period of debate. Following negotiations between Democrat and Republican senators, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh in 57–36 vote. He was sworn in as a member of the D.C. Circuit by Justice Kennedy.

As an EHS professional, it’s hard to tell if you are being paid competitively, and as an employer, it’s hard to tell if you are offering salaries that are competitive and efficient. For a Limited Time we’re offering a FREE copy of the 2018 EHS Salary Guide! Download Now

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the chamber will vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination this Fall before the midterm elections. Prior to that, Kavanaugh will need to endure what are expected to be bruising confirmation hearings. Some questions directed at Kavanaugh may arise from the following environmental rulings in which he participated in the D.C. Circuit.

White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, April 15, 2014

States, industry, and environmental groups challenged the EPA’s 2012 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule to regulate emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric power plants. The industry argument was that the Agency had not met its obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to find that the regulation was appropriate and necessary. Environmental groups contended the rule was insufficiently stringent. The court ruled in EPA’s favor. Kavanaugh agreed that EPA’s action should be upheld, but in a separate opinion dissented from the majority’s view “to exclude consideration of costs in determining whether it is ‘appropriate’ to impose significant new regulations on electric utilities.”

“To be sure, EPA could conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs. But the problem here is that EPA did not even consider the costs. And the costs are huge, about $9.6 billion a year—that’s billion with a b—by EPA’s own calculation,” said Kavanaugh.

EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, August 21, 2012  

Various states, local governments, industry groups, and labor organizations petitioned for review of the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CASPR), which implemented the Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor provision. Writing for the majority, Kavanaugh agreed with petitioners that the rule exceeded the EPA’s CAA authority for two reasons. Kavanaugh wrote:

“First, the statutory text grants EPA authority to require upwind States to reduce only their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. But under the Transport Rule, upwind States may be required to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text.”

“Second, the Clean Air Act affords States the initial opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the good neighbor provision. But here, when EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the States the initial opportunity to implement the required reductions with respect to sources within their borders. Instead, EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations and simultaneously set forth EPA-designed Federal Implementation Plans, or FIPs, to implement those obligations at the State level.”

Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, December 20, 2012 

The case involved industry challenges to the EPA’s 2010 Tailoring Rule and Timing Rule, which for the first time included greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Agency’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. The rules changed the PSD and Title V pollution thresholds, which, according the petitioners, was impermissible under the CAA. A D.C. Circuit panel denied the petitions. Petitioners requested an en banc hearing, which in this decision, the court denied. Kavanaugh dissented, writing:

“Our job as a court is…to ensure that EPA has acted within the authority granted to it by Congress. In this case, I conclude that EPA has exceeded its statutory authority.”

“In particular, the question is whether the term ‘air pollutant’ here covers not just the NAAQS pollutants, which can cause breathing problems or other health issues, but also greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming.”

“EPA chose the broader interpretation of ‘air pollutant,’ thereby greatly expanding the reach of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute. But that broader interpretation has a glaring problem, as EPA itself recognized. In the context of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute, EPA’s broader interpretation would not mesh with other provisions of the statute and would lead to absurd results.”

Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA, April 23, 2013 

Mingo petitioned the court to invalidate the EPA’s use of Clean Water Act section 404(c) to veto two sites the company wanted to use for disposal at its mountaintop mine in West Virginia. The company argued that the EPA’s withdrawal of the specified sites was illegal because the Agency lacks statutory authority to withdraw site specification after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit that authorized use of the sites for disposal. A district court judge agreed with Mingo. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit overturned the district court. Writing for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Henderson noted that in the CWA, Congress made plain its intent to grant the Administrator authority to prohibit/deny/restrict/withdraw a specification at anytime. Kavanaugh concurred.

Featured Special Report:
2018 EHS Salary Guide
   
   
 
 
Twitter   Facebook   Linked In
Follow Us