Description: Action challenging constitutionality of the Oregon Clean Fuels Program.
-
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O’Keeffe
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/13/2019 Order List Download Certiorari denied. Supreme Court Declined to Review Constitutionality of Oregon Clean Fuel Program. The U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the Oregon Clean Fuel Program. The certiorari petition was filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Consumer Energy Alliance, who argued that the Program constituted impermissible extraterritorial regulation and discriminated against interstate commerce. 04/22/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed. 04/05/2019 Brief Download Brief in opposition filed by Oregon respondents and State of Washington. 02/08/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae law professors in support of petitioners. 02/08/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae Pacific Legal Institute et al. filed in support of petitioners. 02/08/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae Indiana and eight other states filed in support of petitioners. 02/08/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief for amici curiae U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers filed in support of petitioners. 02/08/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae Western State Petroleum Association and American Petroleum Institute in support of petitioners. 01/07/2019 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Supreme Court Review Sought of Ninth Circuit Decision Upholding Oregon Clean Fuel Program. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Consumer Energy Alliance filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion upholding the Oregon Clean Fuel Program. In particular, they sought review on the questions of whether the Program’s regulation of fuels based on a “life-cycle” analysis constituted impermissible extraterritorial regulation. In addition, they sought review on whether the Program—which they contended was “designed to require and has the effect of requiring out-of-state competitors to subsidize in-state producers”—violated the Commerce Clause. The petitioners argued that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion implicated a circuit split on the extraterritorial regulation issue and that the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the program did not discriminate against interstate commerce was at odds with Supreme Court precedent and the decisions of other circuit courts of appeals. -
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O’Keeffe
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/07/2018 Opinion Download Dismissal of lawsuit affirmed. Ninth Circuit Upheld Oregon Clean Fuels Program. Over the dissent of one judge, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the Oregon Clean Fuels Program, which regulates production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. The Ninth Circuit held that the Oregon program did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause and that it was not preempted by the Clean Air Act. With respect to the dormant Commerce Clause, the Ninth Circuit said its 2013 decision in Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey upholding California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) “squarely controlled” on the issue of whether the Oregon program facially discriminated based on the state of origin. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, like the LCFS, the Oregon program distinguished among fuels based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not based on origin. The Ninth Circuit also upheld the district court’s finding that allegedly discriminatory statements by Oregon public officials did not undermine the Oregon program’s stated purposes of reducing Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the contentions that the Oregon program placed impermissible burdens on out-of-state fuels or provided impermissible benefits to in-state entities such as Oregon biofuel producers. Applying the Pike balancing test, the Ninth Circuit found that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that any burden on importers of out-of-state fuels was “clearly excessive” in light of the “substantial state interest” in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. The Ninth Circuit also rejected a claim that the Oregon program regulated extraterritorially since, as with California’s LCFS in Rocky Mountain, the program applies only to fuels sold in, imported to, or exported from Oregon. With respect to preemption, the Ninth Circuit held that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s exclusion of methane from the definition of volatile organic compounds did not constitute a finding pursuant to Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act that regulation of methane was unnecessary. The exclusion therefore did not have a preemptive effect. In his dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that in his view the pleadings plausibly alleged that the Oregon program discriminated in practical effect and that it was plausible that there were nondiscriminatory means to advance Oregon’s interest in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. 06/13/2016 Reply Download Reply brief filed by plaintiffs-appellants. 05/18/2016 Order Download Defendants-appellees' motion to assign appeal to prior panel denied. 04/29/2016 Brief Download Appellees' brief filed. 04/29/2016 Brief Download Brief filed by California Air Resources Board and State of Washington, intervenors-defendants-appellees. 04/29/2016 Brief Download Brief of defendants-intervenors-appellees environmental organizations filed. 04/29/2016 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants-appellees to assign appeal to prior panel. 02/01/2016 Brief Download Opening brief filed by plaintiffs-appellants. -
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O’Keeffe
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/23/2015 Opinion and Order Download Opinion and order issued. The federal district court for the District of Oregon dismissed a challenge to an Oregon law and its implementing regulations that establish a low carbon transportation fuel mandate. The law requires a 10% decrease over 10 years in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels produced in or imported to Oregon. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ dormant Commerce Clause discrimination claims were “largely barred by on-point precedent”—the 2013 decision Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, in which the Ninth Circuit rejected dormant Commerce Clause claims against California’s low carbon fuel standard. The Oregon district court nonetheless addressed the discrimination claims and found that the plaintiffs had not stated claims that the Oregon low carbon fuel mandate would facially discriminate or that it would discriminate in purpose or effect against out-of-state fuels. The court also dismissed the claim that the Oregon law was extraterritorial regulation, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that their claim was different from the unsuccessful extraterritoriality claim in Rocky Mountain Farmers Union because it was independently based on principles of interstate federalism, not just on the dormant Commerce Clause. The court also said that neither the Clean Air Act nor EPA’s Reformulated Gasoline Rule expressly preempted the Oregon law. The court dismissed a conflict preemption claim as well, finding both that plaintiffs did not have prudential standing since they did not intend to produce or sell the type of fuel they alleged the Oregon law would bar and also that the allegations of conflicts with federal programs were implausible. 03/23/2015 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Three trade associations—American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Association, and Consumer Energy Alliance—filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oregon to enjoin the state’s Clean Fuels Program. The plaintiffs claimed that the program, which requires reductions in the carbon intensity of fuels produced in or imported into the state, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause because it discriminates against transportation fuels imported into Oregon and attempts to regulate economic activities such as extraction, production, and distribution of transportation fuels that occur outside Oregon’s borders. The plaintiffs contended that the regulation of economic conduct outside the state also violates “principles of interstate federalism embodied in the federal structure of the United States Constitution.” The three organizations also claimed that the Clean Fuels Program violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the federal Renewable Fuels Standard.