Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17629, 538 F.3d 1172, 67 ERC (BNA) 1393 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's rulemaking under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) is arbitrary and capricious if it fails to adequately account for benefits like carbon emissions reduction in its cost-benefit analysis or to meet statutory requirements for establishing maximum feasible fuel economy levels. Furthermore, an agency's Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is inadequate if it fails to take a "hard look" at cumulative environmental impacts and does not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives.
Facts:
- In 1975, following the Mideast oil embargo, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to decrease foreign oil dependence, enhance national security, and achieve efficient energy utilization.
- Title V of EPCA mandates that the Secretary of Transportation (authority delegated to NHTSA) set Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for non-passenger automobiles (light trucks) at the "maximum feasible average fuel economy level," considering technological feasibility, economic practicability, effects of other motor vehicle standards, and the nation's energy conservation needs.
- From Model Years (MYs) 1996 to 2004, Congress froze the light truck CAFE standard at 20.7 mpg, which contributed to an increase in light truck popularity and a decline in overall average fuel economy.
- A 2002 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report found that CAFE standards contributed to increased fuel economy but noted that the distinction between cars and trucks was stretched, and that significant fuel consumption reductions were technologically feasible, with a key reason being concern over global warming caused by greenhouse gases.
- On April 6, 2006, NHTSA issued a Final Rule establishing CAFE standards for light trucks for MYs 2008-2011, using traditional fleet-wide averages (Unreformed CAFE) for MYs 2008-2010 and introducing a new system based on vehicle size ("footprint") (Reformed CAFE) for MY 2011 and beyond.
- In its cost-benefit analysis for the Final Rule, NHTSA did not monetize the benefits of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction, citing "uncertainty," and excluded weight reduction for vehicles between 4,000 and 5,000 lbs. curb weight as a measure to improve fuel economy.
- NHTSA rejected a "backstop" (a minimum overall fleet-wide average) for Reformed CAFE, did not revise regulatory definitions to close the "SUV loophole" allowing many SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks to meet lower light truck standards, and declined to regulate most vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs. GVWR (Class 2b trucks), other than Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs).
- NHTSA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule, concluding it would have no significant environmental impact based on a "modest 0.2 percent decrease in carbon emissions" compared to a baseline, and considered a narrow range of alternatives mainly derived from its own cost-benefit analysis.
Procedural Posture:
- Eleven states, the District of Columbia, the City of New York, and four public interest organizations filed petitions for review of the Final Rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously filed an opinion on November 15, 2007, and published it at 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir.2007).
- That opinion was subsequently vacated and withdrawn by an Order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- A new opinion was filed simultaneously by the Ninth Circuit, replacing the vacated and withdrawn opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Final Rule setting light truck fuel economy standards for Model Years 2008-2011 violate the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) by failing to adequately monetize the benefits of carbon emissions reduction, failing to adopt a "backstop" for Reformed CAFE, failing to revise passenger automobile/light truck classifications (the "SUV loophole"), and failing to regulate all vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR); and does its Environmental Assessment (EA) violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to take a "hard look" at greenhouse gas implications, analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, and examine the rule's cumulative impact?
Opinions:
Majority - Betty B. Fletcher
Yes, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Final Rule for light truck fuel economy standards for Model Years 2008-2011 violates both the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court found NHTSA’s rulemaking arbitrary and capricious under EPCA for several reasons. First, NHTSA's decision to assign zero value to carbon emissions reduction in its cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious, as the value is "certainly not zero" and NHTSA had monetized other uncertain benefits, ignoring scientific literature and recommendations from commenters. Second, NHTSA arbitrarily failed to adopt a "backstop" (a guaranteed minimum average fuel economy level) for its Reformed CAFE system, improperly prioritizing consumer demand over EPCA's "overarching goal of fuel conservation" and failing to adequately consider statutory factors like technological feasibility and the nation's energy needs. Third, NHTSA's decision not to revise the regulatory definitions of passenger automobiles and light trucks to close the "SUV loophole" was arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned explanation and contradicting evidence that many light trucks are primarily used for passenger transport. Fourth, NHTSA's decision to exclude most vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs. GVWR (Class 2b trucks), other than MDPVs, from CAFE regulation was arbitrary and capricious, as there was compelling evidence that setting standards for these vehicles is feasible, would significantly conserve energy, and they are substantially used for the same purposes as smaller vehicles, satisfying EPCA's criteria. The court also held that NHTSA's Environmental Assessment (EA) was inadequate under NEPA because it failed to take a "hard look" at the environmental consequences and consider a reasonable range of alternatives. The EA's cumulative impacts analysis was deficient, merely quantifying CO2 emissions but failing to evaluate their actual environmental effects or place them in context of other rulemakings, relying on a conclusory assertion of insignificance without supporting analysis. Additionally, the EA considered a very narrow range of alternatives, primarily derived from NHTSA's own cost-benefit analysis, rather than vigorously exploring all reasonable options, including more stringent standards proposed by petitioners. The court remanded the case to NHTSA to promulgate new standards consistent with this opinion as expeditiously as possible for the earliest practicable model year, and to prepare either a revised EA or, if necessary, a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Siler
No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) failure to adopt a backstop for a minimum level of average fuel economy in its Final Rule for light truck CAFE standards was not arbitrary or capricious. While concurring with the majority on all other points, Judge Siler dissented on this specific issue. He reasoned that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) does not explicitly require NHTSA to adopt a backstop. Given the significant deference owed to an agency under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard, NHTSA's decision did not ignore any factors that Congress mandated it consider. Therefore, he would not find NHTSA's action arbitrary or capricious for this omission.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces an administrative agency's obligations under both EPCA and NEPA, particularly regarding environmental considerations and climate change. It establishes that agencies cannot simply disregard or assign zero value to quantifiable environmental benefits, such as carbon emissions reduction, in their economic analyses, even when faced with a range of uncertainty. The ruling clarifies that agencies must take a genuinely "hard look" at cumulative environmental impacts, providing substantive analysis beyond mere quantification, and are compelled to explore a truly "reasonable range" of alternatives in their EAs, rather than limiting options to those aligning with an initial preferred outcome. This decision will likely necessitate more robust environmental reviews and a more comprehensive integration of environmental costs and benefits into agency decision-making processes, particularly for regulations with climate change implications.
