The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday denied a motion by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute to file a petitioner’s brief in the case against the Clean Power Plan regarding alleged collusion between the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups during the drafting of the emissions reduction rule.
E&E Legal’s argument, that the EPA participated in improper contact with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Air Task Force while writing the Clean Power Plan, was not included in the petitioners opening brief in the case and thus could not be heard by the court unless filed in a separate brief.
“In order to work with other petitioners, [EELI] agreed to move an issue related to the lack of transparency rendering this rule defective from Petitioner’s opening brief to the opening brief of petitioner-intervenor. … It was only at the last second that EELI was informed that its argument would not be advanced there, and would not be afforded space in petitioner’s opening brief,” the institute explained in a court document. Briefs in the case were limited to 42,000 words.
The court offered no reason for the ruling.
The legal challenge to the rule was launched in October, immediately after the regulation was published in the Federal Register, a measure deemed by the Clean Air Act to be the starting pistol for such challenges. A sizable group, including more than half of the nation’s states, various industry groups, fossil energy companies, and utilities have joined the challenge.
The institute responded immediately to the court’s decision in a written statement: “The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is extremely disappointed that the DC Circuit three judge panel refused to consider whether the EPA was improperly influenced by so called ‘green’ groups when the agency put forth the Clean Power Plan (CPP) that intended to “bankrupt” coal power plants and eliminate coal miners jobs throughout the country.”
