EPA recently filed its opposition to state and industry petitioners’ motion to extend the briefing schedule in their challenge to EPA’s New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new power plants. Petitioners had argued that “[a] short extension of time will allow the parties the opportunity to determine whether an alternative resolution of the petition can be achieved in the new administration.”
EPA argues that petitioners “fall far short” of meeting the “demanding standard for granting extensions arising after argument has been calendared.” EPA points out that it is wholly speculative whether an extension might further judicial economy, and “guesswork that a new Administrator will even have been confirmed” by the new date petitioners propose. EPA also notes the lengthy process involved in an agency action to reconsider or revise a rule—development of a proposal, solicitation of public comment, and preparation and promulgation of a final rule. EPA additionally notes that petitioners “have known for months—and indeed proposed—that their reply briefs would come due the day before the Inauguration of a new president.”
Other recent filings in this case include:
- Carbon Capture and Storage Scientists’ amicus brief in support of EPA,
- Technological Innovation Experts’ amicus brief in support of EPA,
- Institute for Policy Integrity’s amicus brief in support of EPA,
- Saskatchewan Power Corporation’s (operator of Boundary Dam) amicus brief in support of EPA,
- Environmental and Public Health Organizations’ intervenor brief in support of EPA,
- States’ and Municipals’ intervenor brief in support of EPA, and
- Power Companies’ intervenor brief in support of EPA.
