[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Case number 22, that 1139 at concerned household Electricity Consumers Council at out petitioners versus environmental protection agency.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
Mr. McDougall for the petitioners.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
Mr. Link for the respondents.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
Mr. Mcdougall.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
I'm Harry Mcdougall representing the petitioners with me is my co-counsel Francis Minton of New York.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
We petitioned the EPA for rulemaking with respect to the 2009 Endangerment Fund.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
And with our petitions and supporting material, we demonstrated that the 2009 Endangerment Funding is based on a house of cards.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Could you start with standing?

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
There are two elements.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
As petitioners for rulemaking,

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
We're entitled under mass versus EPA to file the appeal with respect to injury.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
In fact, our injury is the engagement finding drives legally requires greenhouse gas regulation, comprehensively, not just the electric power sector.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
And that drives up electricity prices.

[00:01:18] Speaker 04:
So the endangerment finding talks about the contribution of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines to greenhouse gas air pollution.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
How is that related to your asserted harm about electricity in your home?

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
Because the 2009 endangerment finding touches off a regulatory cascade or tsunami that drives regulation.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
throughout the Clean Air Act with the exception of the areas carved out by the UR decision.

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
Other endangerment findings under other parts of the Clean Air Act rest and incorporate the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
And the position of the EPA is that they are obligated

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
regulate greenhouse gases due to these endangerment findings, including in every such rule, a reference to the 2009 endangerment finding.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
Could you point us to one such regulation you cited in the blue brief?

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
We did not cite a particular regulation in the brief, Your Honor.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
The legal obligation of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the endangerment finding is undisputed.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
the evolution of the rules that carry out that obligation has been in fits and starts since 2009.

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
I mean, what you're what you're saying makes intuitive sense to me at 200,000 foot level of generality.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
But I mean, I don't know how the endangerment finding

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
compels the tailpipe rule, which compels Lord knows what else.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
That's your job to spell out for us.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
So, for example, the new source performance standard for the methane rule is predicated on a 2009 endangerment finding in part.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
And I know that these rules are no longer in play, but the Clean Power Plan also was predicated on the 2009 endangerment finding.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
The ACE rule was predicated on the 2009 endangerment finding.

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
The new source performance standard

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
for electric power units from 2015 was predicated on the endangerment finding.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
The 2016 aircraft rule under Section 231 was predicated in part on the 2009 endangerment finding.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
And the court has ruled in American Law Association versus EPA that EPA is obliged

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
But the regulations that drive electricity prices are not limited to the power sector.

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
EPA also comprehensively seeks to regulate the fossil fuel industry at every point of regulatory contact from exploration, extraction, transportation, refining, and consumption.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
And this constrains the supply and drives up the price of everything that uses that energy, including most of the electricity the United States has generated from fossil fuels.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
So the effect is manifested through the entire scope of regulation that ultimately rests on the 2009 investment fund.

[00:04:53] Speaker 04:
So weren't you required to submit an affidavit to provide evidence to support your standing?

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
I don't see such an affidavit.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
I don't, uh, your honor, I don't believe there's a categorical requirement for an affidavit.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
We need to demonstrate a plausible, a reasonable basis for the injury that we claim.

[00:05:13] Speaker 04:
I believe there's authority of this court that says you can't do that in a brief.

[00:05:17] Speaker 04:
There has to be evidence.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
In our original petition that we filed more than six years ago,

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
We have an entire section on standing where we articulate our argument about why greenhouse gas regulation drives higher electricity prices.

[00:05:32] Speaker 04:
Is that evidence or just argument?

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
Pardon me?

[00:05:35] Speaker 04:
It has to be evidence.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
There are categories of cases where evidence is required and there are categories of cases where the allegations and the record

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
and the legal requirements on the regulating entity are sufficient to demonstrate.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
Can you tell me what authority says that?

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
That it doesn't have to be evidence?

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
Well, the Spokio and Laidlaw discuss that the quantum of proof varies according to the procedural posture of the case.

[00:06:09] Speaker 04:
But if we need a quantum of proof, that implies evidence.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
We have supplied the court

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
with real world evidence that every jurisdiction that has tried to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector has experienced significant price increases, particularly when they move to renewable energy.

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
So we have real world examples, California, UK, Germany,

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
And elsewhere, they're experiencing, I mean, California prices are three times what they are in the rest of the country because of their commitment to replace fossil fuel power generation with renewable source.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
And the reason that that's so is that it requires a much higher capital investment by the utility to overcome intermittency and low capacity factor.

[00:07:04] Speaker 04:
And that has to be recovered from the rate

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
I mean, I just want to finish this thought, which is, what is the authority that says that you don't have to file an affidavit, that you can just rely on things that you state in your brief?

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
The rule says the petitioner may file affidavits.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say the petitioner must file.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
Well, it's your burden to show standing, so you may.

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
But if you don't, you might not meet your burden.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
That's the risk I agree on.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
And we believe that the combination of the legal compulsion to regulate greenhouse gases comprehensively, combined with the real world examples that we provided, where power prices go up significantly when such a program is undertaken, suffice to carry that burden.

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
The usual case where you don't file an affidavit is where the party before the court

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
is the regulated entity.

[00:08:02] Speaker 02:
It's the object of the regulation.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
But the Supreme Court has said that standing is substantially more difficult when the theory of causation depends on the actions of third parties not before the court, which is this case.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
I mean, you all are consumers of electricity, not the power generator.

[00:08:29] Speaker ?:
Right.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
I mean, we we can take notice that EPA

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
position is they must regulate greenhouse gas emissions comprehensively everywhere that they're able to do so under the law, that they are obligated to do so.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
And the current posture we're in with respect to rulemaking is that a new replacement for the Clean Power Plan and the ACE rule is forthcoming this spring.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
EPA's position is not that they're not going to regulate.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
They are going to regulate.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
They proposed a rule Wednesday this week to require two-thirds of new cars to be electric by 2032.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
And if that happens, that increased demand for electricity will naturally cost prices to increase.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
So we're in an environment where the government is not saying they're not going to regulate.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
They're obligated to regulate.

[00:09:25] Speaker 01:
We don't know the exact form that that's going to take, but it's impossible to know.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
But it's plausible

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
is substantially plausible to expect.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
It's what happened everywhere else in the world this has been trying will happen here as well.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
Now, on the merits, I'm down to 35 seconds, Your Honor, so would you like me to address the merits?

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
Would you like me to sit down?

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
Well, why don't you sit down and we'll give you a couple of minutes to reply.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
Well, at that point, I'd like to address the merits.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
I don't want to be foreclosed in doing so for not having brought it up now.

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
Understood.

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
Mr. Link.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
I'm going to lower the.

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
My name is Brian Link.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
the Department of Justice and I present argument on EPA's behalf with me at table is Melina Williams from EPA's Office of General Counsel.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
Petition for review of EPA's denial of reconsideration of its 2009 endangerment findings should be dismissed the lack of standing because petitioners have not shown any concrete

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
and particularized injury and fat traceable through an EPA action as they were required to do in their opening.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
I'd like to just briefly touch on the types of standing, the types of injury they're relying.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
But I also want to answer a question you posed earlier.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
Is it okay to simply make the assertions in the brief

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
In most cases, no.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
It is true that the court's rules say where standing is not self-evident, that the parties are required to present the affidavits or other evidence.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
But this is an action brought by parties that aren't actually themselves subject to any of these rules.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
And of course, the endangerment finding and this denial are not actions that actually impose emissions limitations themselves.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
So this is not the rare case where, for example,

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
EPA promulgates an emission limitation.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
It regulates sources.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
Someone in that category says, this rule imposes compliance costs on us.

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
We have economic harm.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
We have standing to sue.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
That would be the type of case where maybe it's self-evident.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
That is not this case.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
So looking, for example, at... It is a case where the chain of causation runs through actions of third parties, which is a strong point in your favor.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
Absolutely.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
But isn't it fair to say that as a result of the endangerment finding over the last 15 or so years, there's been a very massive and very pervasive set of regulations passed, imposed on cars, on power plants, on fossil fuels.

[00:12:35] Speaker 02:
Do we need to blind ourselves to that general point?

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
There have in the 13 years since the finding was first issued been rules promulgated.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
Some took effect.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
Some obviously never took effect due to litigation.

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
But if anything, I think the fact that we have that much time to look back on makes it even more problematic that the petitioners didn't present evidence.

[00:12:57] Speaker 00:
I mean, it would stand to reason that they could have looked at any of these rules that they have talked about today and actually provided an affidavit or some other direct evidence that shows that this hypothesis they're making about how they will indirectly suffer economically actually

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
that he did pass a rule and that it did lead to increased electric bills, for example, for CHEX members.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
We don't have that.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
In the CEI case, which was also brought by petitioners not subject to the order they were challenging, they actually came forward with evidence of the higher internet service rates they complained of and an affidavit that explained how that order likely caused that increase.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
So it's not impossible at all to meet this burden where the facts support the assertions.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
But these petitions did not.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
Have you looked at this affidavit in CEI?

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
I have.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
I mean, I have.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
It's not the most overwhelming.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
But I would say it's really- There was an increase in prices.

[00:13:58] Speaker 02:
There was an economic theory that costs are passed on.

[00:14:05] Speaker 02:
And there was honestly sort of a pro forma affidavit that said, yes, cost passed on.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
So we're missing that.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
Fair point, your honor.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
But even just having provided evidence, direct evidence of the increased bills and that it happened shortly after the order is a far stretch better than what we have here.

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
For example, just citing an article that says electricity rates went up in California last year.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
I could send you a source just as easily, in fact I have it,

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
Dallas Morning News that says electricity rates went up in Texas last year.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
I don't think anybody would assume that's because the state of Texas adopted a plan to decarbonize its economy.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
And in fact, the source attributes it to higher fossil fuel prices, natural gas.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
So this is a problem with relying on speculation as the basis for standing instead of actually introducing concrete evidence.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
I'd like to talk a little bit about informational injury.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
The electronic privacy information center case says that to establish that basis for standing, you have to show denial of access to or deprivation of information that a statute required the government or a third party to disclose to the petitioner, and evidence that the petitioner suffered the type of harm that Congress was seeking to prevent when it imposed that requirement.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
We don't have here any explanation in the reply where they first mentioned the statute

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
about what creates the actionable right.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
At least one court, Fourth Circuit, Salt Institute versus Levitt, 440 F3rd at 159, has held squarely that it does not create a third party actionable right to access information or correctness of evidence.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
And this court, in Mississippi versus EPA, 744 F3rd at 1346, considered a claim where a petitioner was

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
making similar arguments about the Information Quality Act to oppose EPA's revision of the air quality standard.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
And it said, basically, what they were really just saying is that EPA's interpretation of data was wrong and that a different scientist's interpretation was right.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
That's not a compliance issue.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
It's actually a compliance issue when it comes to information.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
Same is true here.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
When you look at their brief, pages 33 to 35, all they're really saying about informational injury is that EPA, in their view, didn't have enough temperature data to support its findings.

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
And they say that the data was adjusted by third parties in an improper way.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
But they didn't dispute our response that said all of those adjustments were publicly disclosed.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
They were transparently disclosed in peer-reviewed literature.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
They were right there for the protectionists to look at.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
So this isn't a case of denial of information, deprivation of information.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
It's just a scientific argument that EPA was making.

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
Briefly touching back on their organizational standing over other concerns about fossil fuel availability.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
I mean, the things that they articulate in their brief are the classic statement of advocacy interest.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
And the court has held many times that just having an advocacy interest is not enough to create Article III standing.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
You have to show some concrete injury to the individual or to the organization.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
And if it's an organization, you have to show that the organization used its resources to counteract that harm in some way, other than just advocate.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
They haven't shown that in this brief.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
Unless the court has further questions about the merits, we're prepared to rest on our briefs.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
Why don't you just briefly address the merits?

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
EPA in this denial provided 40 pages of careful analysis to explain why it found no merit in the objections to its 2009 finding that increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the health and welfare of future generations.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
It explained why the complaints about inadequacy or invalidity of data were unfounded.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
It identified problems and deficiencies in the studies that the petitioners submitted that made those studies unpersuasive.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
And it also corrected

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
petitioners arguments about what they had called the tropical hotspot and explained that they had misunderstood EPA's analysis and that the things they were saying did not provide any reason to go back and reopen what EPA found in 2009, particularly when considered in light of all of the additional scientific assessments that have been done for the past 13 years.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
Those assessments have made EPA's conclusions, if anything, more certain, not less than they were in 2009.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
uh, EPA rationally determined that there was no reason to go back and reel that out.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
Mr. Madugo, you have two minutes.

[00:19:06] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
On the merits, the first point I'd like to discuss is what we're calling the tropical hotspot, which is a distinctive pattern of warming in the global tropical troposphere that is a key element of the theoretical understanding of climate and is predicted by all models.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
The charts that are in our opening brief at pages 22 and 23 show how it is modeled to occur.

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
And the red blob you see in the middle there is what is referred to as the hot spot.

[00:19:42] Speaker 01:
But it's not just a single spot in space.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
It's the troposphere at the biggest part of the globe around the equator.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
And it is essential to the physical understanding.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
The observations show that that predicted phenomenon does not exist.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
The key to science.

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
is comparing the predictions of your model to observations.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
And as Richard Feynman memorably explained, if the observations do not match the predictions of your model or your theory, the theory is wrong and that's all there is to it.

[00:20:19] Speaker 01:
That is a fundamental requirement of rational decision making on scientific questions.

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
The evidence that's presented with our petitions shows a fundamental mismatch between model predictions, theory predictions, and observations, and there's only one conclusion to draw from that.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
which is that models are invalid and incapable of predicting climate or serving as a basis for climate policy, particularly ones as radical as those that are on the table now that would transform the entire civilization.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:20:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you.