NRDC v. Abraham - 355 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2004)

Rule:

Once new energy efficiency standards for consumer appliances are published under the terms of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the Department of Energy (DOE) has discharged its obligation to prescribe an amended standard or announce its decision not to under the provisions requiring periodic review. Furthermore, once an efficiency standard is published, regardless of the fact that manufacturers have a number of years to bring themselves into compliance, it becomes the "established" standard in the statute's own language, or, in other terms, the "required" minimum efficiency standard, 42 U.S.C.S. § 6295(o)(1). Consequently, and in harmony with this congressional regulatory scheme, § 325(o)(1) of the EPCA (42 U.S.C.S. § 6295(o)(1)) must be read to restrict DOE's subsequent discretionary ability to weaken that standard at any point thereafter. In other words, publication must be read as the triggering event for the operation of § 325(o)(1).

Facts:

The Department of Energy promulgated and published a final rule amending the energy efficiency standards for central air conditioners in January 2001. Subsequently, in February 2001, without any prior notice or comment, the DOE published what it denoted a "final rule" delaying the effective date of the efficiency standards to April 2001. In May 2002, the DOE set the standards lower than those that had been proposed in January 2001. Petitioners, several organizations joined by the attorneys general of 10 states as well as several intervenor organizations, challenged the DOE’s actions, arguing that the DOE’s acts of delaying, withdrawing and replacing the standards promulgated in January 2001 were improper and done in violation of section 325(o)(1) of the EPCA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(1) (2003), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Petitioners also argued that the replacement standards were not supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not conform to mandates Congress set forth elsewhere in section 325 of the EPCA. Petitioners appealed a dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Issue:

Were the DOE’s replacement standards promulgated in May 2002 invalid? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The circuit court agreed with petitioners that 42 U.S.C.S. § 6925(o)(1) barred the DOE from promulgating the lower replacement standards. Once the DOE had complied with § 6925's requirement that it prescribe final rules amending home appliance efficiency standards by publishing them in the Federal Register, § 6925(o)(1) operated to restrict the DOE's discretionary ability to amend standards downward thereafter. Consequently, the circuit court held that the replacement standards promulgated in May 2002 were invalid.