Description: Challenge to prohibitions and restrictions on use of certain hydrofluorocarbons in Significant New Alternatives Policy program.
-
Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Fluor, Inc.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/09/2018 Order List Download Certiorari denied. 08/27/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by EPA in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari. EPA and HFC Manufacturers Opposed Supreme Court Review of 2015 Refrigerant Replacement Rule. EPA joined manufacturers of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants in opposing Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit’s August 2017 decision striking down a 2015 EPA regulation that prohibited or restricted use of certain HFCs as replacements for ozone-depleting substances due to the HFCs’ high global warming potential. EPA told the Court that the case did not warrant Supreme Court review. EPA said that while it argued before the D.C. Circuit that it had authority to issue the 2015 regulation, it had revisited the issue and “now believes that the decision below reflects the better understanding” of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in the case. EPA said the question presented therefore was “of limited prospective importance” and also indicated that “[s]ome of petitioners’ concerns, moreover, may be addressed in an upcoming EPA rulemaking.” 08/27/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by HFC manufacturers in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari. HFC manufacturers argued that certiorari was not warranted because (1) the D.C. Circuit’s decision did not conflict with any decision of any court, (2) the question presented was not sufficiently important, and (3) the D.C. Circuit’s decision was correct. 07/26/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by five U.S. manufacturers of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and commercial refrigeration (HVACR) equipment in support of petitioners. Five of the leading U.S. manufacturers of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and commercial refrigeration (HVACR) equipment filed a brief in support of the petitioners, asserting that the D.C. Circuit’s decision had “torn up” a “well-established and reasonable path toward new, environmentally safer alternatives” and “created enormous uncertainty and associated costs.” 07/26/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Daikin U.S. Corporation in support petitioners. An HVACR equipment manufacturer that also manufactured refrigerants filed a separate amicus brief in support of the petitioners, similarly citing the D.C. Circuit decision’s disruption of a “well-established regulatory regime.” 07/26/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by states in support of petitioners. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners. 06/25/2018 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Chemical Manufacturers Sought Supreme Court Review of Decision That Struck Down HFC Replacement Rule. Two manufacturers filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking review of the D.C. Circuit decision striking down key components of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule prohibiting or restricting use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as replacements for ozone-depleting substances due to the HFCs’ high global warming potential. The manufacturers, which had intervened to defend the rule in the D.C. Circuit, said they and their suppliers had invested more than $1 billion in creating and commercializing safer replacements for ozone-depleting substances. Their petition presented the question of whether EPA lacked authority under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, which created the “safe alternatives policy,” to prohibit use of a less-safe substitute for an ozone-depleting substance in favor of a safer alternative “just because a company has already begun using the less-safe substitute.” The companies argued that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation was incorrect and that the decision “eviscerated” an “immensely consequential” and “extremely effective” federal program, upended the investment-backed expectations of companies such as the petitioners, and harmed the environment. -
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Mexichem Fluor, Inc.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/25/2018 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. NRDC Sought Supreme Court Review of Decision That Struck Down HFC Replacement Rule. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking review of the D.C. Circuit decision striking down key components of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule prohibiting or restricting use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as replacements for ozone-depleting substances due to the HFCs’ high global warming potential. NRDC had intervened to defend the rule in the D.C. Circuit. NRDC’s petition presented the question of “[w]hether EPA has authority under Section 612 to prohibit use of dangerous but non-ozone-depleting substitutes by any person, including by product manufacturers who began using such substitutes before EPA placed them on the prohibited list.” NRDC also argued that the D.C. Circuit majority’s interpretation was at odds with the statute and destroyed a “core Clean Air Act program.” -
Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Fluor Inc.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/08/2018 Order Chief Justice Roberts granted application for extension of time for filing petition for writ of certiorari. 03/05/2018 Application Download Application filed seeking extension of time to file petition for writ of certiorari. -
Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/26/2018 Order Download Panel rehearing denied. D.C. Circuit Denied Rehearing of Decision Vacating HFC Prohibition. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court’s August 2017 decision vacating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rule prohibiting use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as replacement for ozone-depleting substances under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program. HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases. Rehearing was sought by Natural Resources Defense Council and by two companies that had developed “new and better substitutes” for ozone-depleting substances. The court said that a majority of judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the rehearing en banc petitions and noted that Judges Millett and Katsas did not participate. The petitions for panel rehearing were denied because the current panel of two judges was equally divided. The third judge on the panel, Judge Brown, retired on August 31, 2017. She joined the entirety of the majority opinion, including the portion vacating the HFC prohibition. 01/26/2018 Order Download Rehearing en banc denied. 10/23/2017 Reply Download Joint reply filed by intervenor-respondents to response of petitioners to rehearing petition. 10/18/2017 Response Download Response to petitions for rehearing filed by Mexichem Fluor and Arkema. 09/27/2017 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed for invitation to file brief of states as amici curiae in support of intervenor-respondents' petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc. 09/22/2017 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc filed by industry intervenor-respondents. Rehearing Sought of D.C. Circuit Decision Vacating Hydrofluorocarbon Prohibition. After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rule prohibiting use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—which are powerful greenhouse gases—as replacements for ozone-depleting substances, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and two companies that intervened as respondents to defend the rule filed petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. NRDC argued that the panel had committed “two serious errors”: (1) it had reached beyond the 2015 rule at issue to improperly invalidate a rule issued in 1994, and (2) it had adopted a “patently unfounded interpretation of the statutory term ‘replace’ at Step 1” of its Chevron analysis. The two companies also argued that the court had exceeded its jurisdiction by invalidating the 1994 regulation and had incorrectly applied Step 1 of Chevron. The companies asserted that the court had “paradoxically held that even though EPA properly placed HFCs on the prohibited substances list, EPA lacked authority to prohibit pre-existing uses of HFCs” and that the court’s holding amounted to finding that “EPA had one chance, and one chance only, to require a manufacturer to replace an ozone-depleting substance with a safer alternative, no matter how dangerous the replacement might turn out to be or how much safer a newly available alternative is.” 09/22/2017 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Natural Resources Defense Council. 08/08/2017 Opinion Download Rule partially vacated. D.C. Circuit Vacated EPA Requirement to Replace HFCs. In a split opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EPA lacked authority to issue a 2015 rule restricting manufacturers from making certain products containing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because HFCs were greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, EPA removed certain HFCs from a list of safe substitutes created pursuant to Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, which requires manufacturers to replace ozone-depleting substances with safe substitutes. EPA added the HFCs, which are not ozone-depleting substances, to a list of prohibited substitutes. EPA said Section 612 gave EPA authority to prohibit manufacturers that had replaced ozone-depleting substances with HFCs previously on the safe substitutes list from making products containing the now-prohibited HFCs. The D.C. Circuit found that EPA’s “novel reading” of Section 612 was “inconsistent with the statute as written” because it stretched the meaning of “replace” beyond its ordinary meaning. The D.C. Circuit said manufacturers “replace” an ozone-depleting substance only once—when they transition to making the same product with a substitute substance. The court said EPA’s reading of “replace,” in which manufacturers continue to “replace” the ozone-depleting substance every time the substitute is used, would render EPA’s authority “boundless” and that such an interpretation “borders on the absurd.” The D.C. Circuit did, however, uphold EPA’s decision to remove the HFCs from the list of safe substitutes. The court also said EPA did not “squarely articulate” an alternative “retroactive disapproval” rationale for requiring manufacturers to replace HFCs, and said that EPA would have to justify such an approach on remand if it chose to rely on it. Judge Robert L. Wilkins dissented from the conclusion that Section 612 unambiguously prohibited EPA from requiring replacement of the HFCs. In his view, the statutory provision was ambiguous and EPA’s interpretation of the statutory scheme was reasonable. 06/10/2016 Brief Download Industry intervenor-respondents' brief filed. 06/10/2016 Brief Download Intervenor NRDC's brief filed in support of respondent. 05/27/2016 Brief Download Respondent brief filed. 03/28/2016 Brief Download Petitioners' joint brief filed. In Briefs, Parties Attacked and Defended SNAP Program Delisting of Hydrofluorocarbons. Parties filed a first round of briefs in a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals proceeding in which two chemical manufacturers challenge EPA’s final rule prohibiting or restricting use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The program implements Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, which concerns alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. In their opening brief, the chemical manufacturers argued that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority by banning HFCs that were not ozone-depleting. The manufacturers also contended that EPA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, arguing that EPA had not explained why differences in global warming potential (GWP) between banned HFCs and other chemicals were significant, had improperly used GWP as a “proxy” for atmospheric effects, and had not provided an objective standard for what levels of GWP are acceptable. In its brief, EPA responded that it had authority to change the listing of a non-ozone-depleting substance where alternatives were available that posed a lower risk to human health and the environment. EPA also defended its use of GWP in its analysis of atmospheric effects. Other industry participants intervened on EPA’s behalf and argued, among other things, that Section 612 was intended to foster continued development of safer alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. NRDC also intervened on EPA’s behalf, arguing that EPA acted within its statutory and regulatory authority. 09/17/2015 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Manufacturers Challenged New EPA Restrictions on Hydrofluorocarbons. Two chemical manufacturers and a manufacturer of composite preform products used in the marine and transportation industries filed petitions in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of EPA’s final rule prohibiting or restricting use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under its Significant New Alternatives Policy program for replacing ozone-depleting substances under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The final rule changed the status of certain HFCs and HFC blends for end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and air conditioning sectors based on their high global warming potential. EPA determined that alternatives were available or potentially available that posed a lower overall risk to human health and the environment. On September 23, the D.C. Circuit consolidated the three cases. -
Arkema Inc. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/17/2015 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
Compsys, Inc. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/31/2016 Not Available Download Joint status report filed. The challenge to EPA’s final rule prohibiting or restricting use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program by a manufacturer of composite preform products used in the marine and transportation industries was held in abeyance while EPA considers the manufacturer’s request for reconsideration. In May, the parties reported that EPA was still considering the merits of the manufacturer's petition for reconsideration and expected to take final action resolving the issues raised in the petition no later than February 22, 2017. 09/18/2015 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed.