Chevron Usa Inc Petitioner V Natural Resources Defense Council Inc Et Al American Iron And Steel Institute Et Al Petitioners V Natural Resources Defense Council Inc Et Al William D Ruckelshaus Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Petitioner V Natural Resources Defense Council Inc Et Al
CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC., Petitioner,v.NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, et al., Petitioners, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. William D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioner, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al.
Nos. 82-1005, 82-1247 and 82-1591.
Supreme Court of the United State
Argued Feb. 29, 1984.
Held: The EPA’s plantwide definition is a permissible construction of the statutory term “stationary source.” Pp. 842-866.
With regard to judicial review of an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Pp. 2781-2783.
Examination of the legislation and its history supports the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Congress did not have a specific intention as to the applicability of the “bubble concept” in these cases. Pp. 842-845.
The legislative history of the portion of the 1977 Amendments dealing with nonattainment areas plainly discloses that in the permit program Congress sought to accommodate the conflict between the economic interest in permitting capital improvements to continue and the environmental interest in improving air quality. Pp. 851-853.
222 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 685 F.2d 718 , reversed.
Paul M. Bator, Cambridge, Mass., for petitioners.
Nrdc Calls For Better Regulation Of Sewage Sludge In 2002/2003
In 2002, NRDC released a press release titled “This Just In: Sludge May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” The press release states:
- “The government is using outdated science in assessing the health risk of sewage sludge used as fertilizer. According to a new report by the National Research Council, the standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1993 on the use of “biosolids” for treating soil are based on an unreliable survey identifying hazardous chemicals in sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants. The NRC panel concluded that the agency needs to do more scientific study on the risks to people from exposure to chemicals and disease-causing pathogens in sludge used as fertilizer.
- “The panel’s report underscores that current federal regulations on applying sludge do not protect public health, according to NRDC . Earlier this year, EPA and NRDC reached a legal settlement that requires the agency to develop a plan to address NRC’s recommendations.”
NRDC followed up in 2003 with a press release critiquing the EPA for failing to regulate cancer-causing dioxins in sewage sludge:
- “Dioxins cause cancer and diabetes, as well as nervous system and hormonal problems,” said Nancy Stoner, director of NRDC’s Clean Water Project. “And the EPA is required by law to protect the public from toxic pollutants like dioxins. This decision shows the agency under this administration has forgotten its mission.”
At that time, NRDC made the following recommendations:
Our First 50 Years Are Just The Beginning
The next half century will present unprecedented challenges and even higher stakes. Without urgent and collective climate action, scientists predict that ecosystems will collapse, food supplies will be stretched thin, and extreme-weather events will become more frequent and destructive. As always, low-income communities and people of color will be hit first and hardest.
Our work is cut out for us. But NRDC was made for this moment. We have the science, policy, and legal expertise plus three million passionate supporters.
Together, we are an unstoppable force. Join us.
Recommended Reading: Federal Government Home Renovation Grants
Opposition To Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and as of 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity productionthe largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. An October 2018 proposal from The Nature Conservancy noted that zero-carbon nuclear plants produced 7.8 percent of total world energy output and recommended reducing carbon emissions by increasing nuclear capacity to 33 percent of total world energy output.
NRDC has repeatedly supported the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Environmental Progress accused NRDC of hypocrisy because NRDC advocated for taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar energy but opposed similar assistance for nuclear energy.
In a June 2021 blog post, NRDC senior scientist Mohit Chhabra stated his organization had been working for years to retire the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. During 2017 and 2018 NRDC staffers also argued for shutting down nuclear energy facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Support For Coal Gasification
NRDC has espoused a pragmatic approach to coal that focuses on encouraging coal gasification and carbon capture and storage, a position that has frequently placed the organization at odds with local activists opposing projects such as the Empire Synfuel project in New York. “We can’t eliminate coal,” said Katherine Kennedy, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “So although other technologies are the ones we’re going to favor, we’re looking for solutions on the coal front, too.”
You May Like: Government Health Insurance For College Students
B The Claims Against The Fhfa
The FHFA also moves to dismiss the NRDC’s claim under Rules 12 and 12. The FHFA incorporates the OCC’s earlier arguments regarding constitutional standing and additionally claims that section 4617 precludes this Court from exercising jurisdiction.
The NRDC concedes that the critical question is whether the FHFA’s issuance of the Letter constitutes an exercise of a conservatorship power or function.
If so, this Court lacks jurisdiction under section 4617 and must dismiss the case.
Courts interpreting the scope of section 4617 have relied on decisions addressing the nearly identical jurisdictional bar applicable to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation conservatorships contained in 12 U.S.C. § 1821.
This statute states that no court may take any action, except at the request of the by regulation or order, to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the as a conservator or a receiver.
Although courts have interpreted section 1821 broadly,
93. See12 U.S.C. § 4617 12 U.S.C. § 4617. 94. See Kuriakose,674 F.Supp.2d at 493 . 95. See Town of Babylon,790 F.Supp.2d at 54 .
relief is nonetheless available when an agency has acted beyond its statutorily prescribed powers or functions.
The NRDC argues that the Letter was not a proper exercise of the FHFA’s conservatorship powers.
Accordingly, the Letter is a legitimate exercise of the FHFA’s powers as conservator to preserve and conserve the assets of the Enterprises.
A The Nrdc And The Pace Programs
The NRDC is a national, not-for-profit environmental advocacy group with its principal place of business in New York City.
The NRDC has more than 447,000 members nationwide, with more than 317,000 living in jurisdictions that have enacted PACE-enabling legislation.
The NRDC supports PACE programs, which allow local governments to offer financing to commercial and residential property owners to fund the upfront costs of energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy projects, using the proceeds of municipal or special revenue bonds, government grants, or other funding sources that may be available.
In exchange for upfront financing, property owners who participate in a PACE program agree to an incremental increase on their property taxes over a period of up to twenty years but not to exceed the useful life of the financial improvements.
Twenty-three states have passed legislation authorizing PACE programs.
Often, PACE liens run with the property and the PACE lender steps ahead of the mortgage holder in the priority of its claim against the collateral.
Although subordination of existing mortgages is not inherent in PACE financing, in New York and many jurisdictions, the liens that result from PACE program loans have priority over mortgages, including preexisting first mortgages.
Because first lien status is critical to the success of PACE programs, eliminating the priority lien status would make PACE programs effectively impossible to finance through the capital markets.
Also Check: 251 Government Street Mobile Al 36602
Standing To Pursue Action On Behalf Of Nrdc Members
In order for the NRDC to bring this action on behalf of its members, the NRDC’s members must have standing to sue in their own right.
The OCC contends that the NRDC members cannot meet the redressability requirement because even if the Court were to vacate the Bulletin, it would be pure speculation to think that, as a result of the vacatur, the NRDC members would be able to obtain mortgages, or refinance existing mortgages, on properties that are subject to PACE program priority liens.
The NRDC lists three separate injuries on behalf of its members: the Statement and Bulletin harmed the members’ health interests harmed the economic interest of those members who were unable to obtain PACE financing and caused procedural injury by preventing members from submitting comments on the actions.
The redressability issue in the first two alleged injuries are interrelated. Both depend on whether granting relief would result in resumed support for the PACE programs.
The OCC argues that, as far as its issuance of the Bulletin is concerned, the NRDC cannot demonstrate redressability because redressability will depend on the national banks resuming their support for PACE programs. There is no way to know whether vacating the Bulletin will cause this to happen.
In support of this assertion, the NRDC points to declarations from municipal officials stating that, if the July 6 Directives were vacated, these municipalities would resume development of PACE programs.
Chevron Usa V Natural Res Def Council 467 Us 837
EDS | EDS Cases in the Supreme Court
Chevron is one of the most influential administrative law cases decided by the Supreme Court in the past half-century. It provides principles to determine the extent to which a court reviewing agency action should give deference to the agencys construction of a statute that the agency has been delegated to administer.
The case first arose in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as a challenge to Environmental Protection Agency regulations under the Clean Air Act defining the statutory term stationary source. Ordinarily, a permit may be issued for new or modified major stationary sources of air pollution only if the permittee meets various stringent conditions. Under the regulation challenged in Chevron, EPA allowed the states to treat all pollution control devices in a single plant as one stationary source, such that a polluter could install or modify control equipment in the plant without meeting the new source requirements, as long as the alteration would not increase aggregate emissions for the plant.
The Supreme Court ultimately approved EPAs definition. In the course of the opinion, the Court stated that when a court reviews an agencys construction of the statute it administers, that court must first determine whether Congress has spoken to the precise question at issue.
Chevron has become one of the most-cited cases on the basic standards of review of agency statutory interpretation.
You May Like: Governance Risk And Compliance Analyst Salary
Th Meeting Of The Belt And Road Major Investment Projects And Energy Subcom
On October 26, Lian Weiliang, Vice Chairman of National Development and Reform Commission, and his Royal Highness Prince Abdulaziz Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz, Minister of Energy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, co-chaired the 4th meeting of the Belt and Road, Major Investment Projects and Energy Subcommittee of the Chinese-Saudi High-Level Joint Committee.
On July 22,2022, He Lifeng, head of the National Development and Reform Commission held a video conference with Indonesias Coordinator for Cooperation with China and Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment Luhut Binsar Pandajaitan.
The Cooperation Plan on Promoting Belt and Road Initiative between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Cuba was signed on December 24, 2021.
Counting down the days to the official opening of the China-Laos Railway, 22-year-old Sida Phengphongsawanh was brimming with excitement as an aspiring train driver and a witness to the historical moment.
- On October 16, 2022, the erection task of all box girders along the Jakarta-Bandung High-speed Railway in Indonesia was completed.
- The 8th Bangladesh-China Friendship Bridge officially opened to traffic on September 4. Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Chinese…
- Recently, China Railway Express transported a batch of international mails from Germany to the mail processing center of Chong…
Stay Ahead Of The Curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Access to case data within articles
- Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
- Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Recommended Reading: How To Get Business Funding From Government
Equity Justice And Equal Opportunity
Since NRCS establishment, unfortunately, underserved communities and individuals have experienced significant barriers to equity, equality, and justice in agency programs and policies. NRCS is committed to advancing equity, justice, and opportunity for agency employees and those we serve.
Programs, Practices and Policies to address barriers
Funding for Underserved Producers in awarding project recipients
Equity Division, a first-ever for NRCS
Government Agencies Fail To Take Water Safety Seriously
Is my water safe to drink? This is a fundamental question that government officials should be able to answer without hesitation. Unfortunately for residents in East Chicago, the answer remains a troubling uncertainty.
This weekend, an EPA official was in East Chicago to address the various lead contamination issues facing the city. The EPA official, who claimed not to be a drinking water expert, did not answer the question of whether the water is safe to drink and instead turned the question back on residents, recommending that East Chicagoans decide if they should use a filter.
In late 2016, EPA conducted a pilot study of East Chicagos drinking water, concluding that elevated levels of lead were present in the water system and that the problem was system-wide. Rather than repeat the testing protocol EPA conducted to confirm or refute the federal governments findings, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management conducted its own testing with its own protocol and concluded last month that with certainty no system-wide lead issues are present in East Chicagos drinking water system.
At the same time, EPA staff members have made public statementssuch as at this weekends meeting over the Superfund sitesuggesting they support the general conclusion that IDEMs results reveal the water contamination issue is improving and residents can drink the water without use of filters.
Comparing EPA and IDEMs Testing Protocols
You May Like: Can I Get A Government Grant To Start A Business
Natural Resources Defense CouncilNatural Resources Defense Council
|1970 52 years ago|
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a United States-based 501non-profit international environmentaladvocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City and offices in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Bozeman, and Beijing. Founded in 1970, as of 2019, the NRDC had over three million members, with online activities nationwide, and a staff of about 700 lawyers, scientists and other policy experts.
Mandates Mission Vision And Goals
The Natural Resources Development Corporation is all about harnessing todays technology for a sustainable tomorrow. Guided by the corporations vision, mission, goals and mandates, our efforts in conserving natural resources and properly managing them through innovative technologies allow co-creation of solutions with industry partners.
- Ensure a stable market for natural resources-based products by coordinating production and marketing activities.
- Promote investment in natural resources-based industries by providing financial, technical and management assistance.
- Engage in and encourage the private sector to engage in reforestation and industrial forestry operations through the stumpage sale system and other means.
DENR-EMBs Non-Combustion Destruction Facility for Persistent Organic Pollutants , has undertaken facility upgrades with the support of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization . Using state-of-the-art non-combustion technology , it is the only facility in the country accredited by EMB to treat PCB oil and PCB-containing equipment with concentrations below 10,000 ppm.
Also Check: Government Of Canada Travel Restrictions
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp V Natural Resources Defense Council Inc
|Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC|
|Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.|
|Citations||98 S. Ct. 1197 55 L. Ed. 2d 460 1978 U.S. LEXIS 21|
|Prior||Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 547 F.2d633 cert. granted, 429U.S. 1090.|
|While federal agencies are free to grant additional procedural rights in the exercise of their discretion, reviewing courts are generally not free to impose them if the agencies have not chosen to grant them.|
|Blackmun, Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Administrative Procedure Act|
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a court cannot impose rulemaking procedures on a federal government agency. The federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and an agency’s statutory mandate from Congress establish the maximum requirements for an agency’s rulemaking process. An agency may grant additional procedural rights in the regulatory process . However, a reviewing court cannot “impose upon the agency its own notion of which procedures are ‘best’ or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good” to do so would exceed the limits of judicial review of agency action.