Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
508 F.3d 508, 2007 WL 3378240 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious if its cost-benefit analysis fails to monetize a significant, quantifiable benefit, such as reducing carbon dioxide emissions, by assigning it a value of zero. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency must prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when substantial questions are raised about a rule's potentially significant cumulative environmental impacts, particularly concerning climate change.
Facts:
- In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), directing the Secretary of Transportation to set 'maximum feasible' fuel economy standards for light trucks.
- EPCA requires consideration of four factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other government standards, and the need of the U.S. to conserve energy.
- Over time, manufacturers designed more SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks to be classified as 'light trucks,' which are subject to less stringent fuel economy standards than passenger cars, creating an 'SUV loophole.'
- As the market share of light trucks grew to roughly half of all new vehicles, the overall average fuel economy of the U.S. vehicle fleet declined from its peak in 1987.
- NHTSA has statutory authority to regulate vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), but historically excluded vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds.
- During the rulemaking process, NHTSA received extensive scientific evidence, including reports from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), linking CO2 emissions to global warming and suggesting monetary values for the benefit of reducing those emissions.
- NHTSA issued a Final Rule for light truck CAFE standards for Model Years 2008-2011, which utilized a cost-benefit analysis but assigned a value of zero to the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, citing uncertainty.
- The Final Rule also declined to close the 'SUV loophole' or regulate most trucks in the 8,500-10,000 pound GVWR category, and it created a new 'Reformed CAFE' system without a minimum fleet-wide average 'backstop' for MY 2011 and beyond.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a Final Rule, 'Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, Model Years 2008-2011.'
- Concurrently, NHTSA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), concluding a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required.
- Eleven states, the District of Columbia, New York City, and four public interest organizations (Petitioners) filed a petition for review of the Final Rule directly in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- Petitioners alleged the rule was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under both the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and NEPA.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rule setting fuel economy standards arbitrary and capricious under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failing to properly value carbon emissions, set adequate standards for all light trucks, and conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Fletcher
Yes, the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious under both the EPCA and NEPA. NHTSA's decision not to place any value on the benefits of reducing carbon emissions was arbitrary; while the exact value is uncertain, the record showed a range of reasonable, non-zero values, and the benefit is certainly not zero. The agency also acted arbitrarily under EPCA by: (1) failing to include a 'backstop' to its Reformed CAFE system, which impermissibly prioritized consumer demand over EPCA's core goal of energy conservation; (2) failing to close the 'SUV loophole' by updating vehicle definitions, offering no reasoned explanation for its inaction; and (3) failing to regulate trucks between 8,500-10,000 lbs, as evidence showed it was feasible and would result in significant energy savings. Furthermore, the Environmental Assessment under NEPA was inadequate because it failed to take a 'hard look' at the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and did not consider a reasonable range of more stringent alternatives. Because petitioners raised substantial questions about the rule's significant impact on climate change, a full Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge Siler
No, in part. The majority is correct on all points except for the 'backstop' issue. Because the EPCA does not explicitly require a backstop, NHTSA's decision not to adopt one was a permissible exercise of its discretion. Given the deferential 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review, the court should not find the agency's action on this specific point to be unlawful.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision that solidified the connection between administrative rulemaking and climate change. It established the crucial precedent that an agency, when conducting a cost-benefit analysis, cannot assign a zero value to the benefit of carbon emissions reduction simply because of scientific uncertainty, particularly when a range of reasonable values exists. The ruling significantly strengthened NEPA's role in climate-related decisions, requiring agencies to conduct a 'hard look' at the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and consider more environmentally protective alternatives. The case signals that an agency's statutory discretion cannot be used to undermine the fundamental purpose of its governing statute—here, energy conservation.
