STATE OF NEW YORK et al v. E. SCOTT PRUITT et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Fee Status:Filing Fee Waived) filed by STATE OF NEW YORK. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(Gore, Christopher) (Attachment 1 replaced on 4/6/2018) (jd)

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE
OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF
IOWA, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF
NEW MEXICO, STATE OF OREGON, COMMONWEALTH
OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND,
STATE OF VERMONT, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CITY OF CHICAGO
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT
– against –
Index No. 1:18-cv-773
E. SCOTT PRUITT, in his official capacity as Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
The States of New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New
Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts
and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the City of Chicago (collectively “Plaintiffs” or
“States and Local Governments”) bring this action to compel E. Scott Pruitt, in his official
capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (together, “EPA”), to comply with the nondiscretionary
duty under the Clean Air Act (“Act”) to establish guidelines for limiting methane emissions from
existing sources in the oil and natural gas sector, thereby remedying EPA’s unreasonable delay
in establishing such emission guidelines.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to section 304(a) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), which authorizes any person, after duly giving notice, to commence an
1

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 2 of 20

action in district court to compel agency action unreasonably delayed. The Court also has
jurisdiction to hear this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (action to compel officer or agency to perform a duty owed to plaintiffs).
2.

Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), because this civil

action is brought against an agency of the United States and an officer of the United States,
acting in his official capacity, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in this judicial district, as the Administrator’s failure to perform his
nondiscretionary duty to establish guidelines for limiting methane emissions from existing
sources in the oil and natural gas sector occurred in this district, and EPA maintains an office in
this district.
3.

Since the action unreasonably delayed would be reviewable in the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under section 307(b) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. § 7607(b), venue is also proper in this Court under section 304(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7604(a) (“[A]n action to compel agency action referred to in section 7607(b) of this title
which is unreasonably delayed may only be filed in a United States District Court within the
circuit in which such action would be reviewable under section 7607(b) of this title.”).
NOTICE
4.

On June 29, 2017, Plaintiffs sent EPA notices of intent to sue for EPA’s failure to

establish guidelines for standards of performance for methane emissions from existing oil and
natural gas sources. The letters provided 180-day notice for an action to compel agency action
unreasonably delayed under section 304(a).
5.

More than 180 days have passed since the Plaintiffs sent the notice letters, and

EPA still has not completed its mandatory obligation to issue guidelines for the control of

2

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 3 of 20

methane emissions from existing oil and natural gas sources to remedy its unreasonable delay
in issuing such guidelines.
PARTIES
6.

Plaintiff State of New York is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
7.

Plaintiff State of California is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
8.

Plaintiff State of Connecticut is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its

own behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their
health and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
9.

Plaintiff State of Illinois is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
10.

Plaintiff State of Iowa is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
11.

Plaintiff State of Maine is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.

3

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 4 of 20

12.

Plaintiff State of Maryland is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
13.

Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a sovereign entity that brings this

action on its own behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to
protect their health and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
14.

Plaintiff State of New Mexico is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its

own behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their
health and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
15.

Plaintiff State of Oregon is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
16.

Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a sovereign entity that brings this

action on its own behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to
protect their health and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
17.

Plaintiff State of Rhode Island is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its

own behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their
health and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
18.

Plaintiff State of Vermont is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their health
and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.

4

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 5 of 20

19.

Plaintiff State of Washington is a sovereign entity that brings this action on its

own behalf to protect state property and on behalf of its citizens and residents to protect their
health and well-being and to protect natural resources held in trust by the State.
20.

Plaintiff District of Columbia is a municipal entity that brings this action on its

own behalf to protect city property and on behalf of its residents to protect their health and
well-being.
21.

Plaintiff City of Chicago is a municipal entity that brings this action on its own

behalf to protect city property and on behalf of its residents to protect their health and wellbeing.
22.

Each of the plaintiffs is a “person” as defined in the applicable provision of the

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(e).
23.

Defendant E. Scott Pruitt is Administrator of the EPA. The Administrator is

charged with implementing and enforcing the Act, including the nondiscretionary requirement
in section 111(d), 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), to establish guidelines for limiting emissions of any
non-criteria and non-hazardous air pollutants from existing sources in a source category when
EPA establishes standards of performance for emissions of air pollutants from new sources in
the source category under section 111(b).
24.

Defendant EPA is an executive agency of the federal government charged with

implementing and enforcing the Act in coordination with the states.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
25.

Section 111 of the Act requires EPA to develop air pollution control performance

standards that apply to specific categories of stationary sources. Section 111(b) requires the
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that the Administrator finds “cause[], or

5

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 6 of 20

contribute[] significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(A). The Administrator then must establish
“standards of performance” for emissions of air pollutants from new and modified sources
within each such category (“new source performance standards” or “NSPS”). Id. §
7411(b)(1)(B).
26.

Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Act, EPA must, “at least every eight years,

review and, if appropriate, revise such standards” following the procedure required for
promulgation of such standards. Id. § 7411(b)(1)(B).
27.

When EPA establishes performance standards for new sources in a particular

source category, EPA is also required under section 111(d) and applicable regulations to
publish guidelines for controlling emissions from existing sources in that source category,
subject to two narrow exceptions not applicable here. EPA’s regulations provide that such
guidelines will be issued “[c]oncurrently upon or after proposal of [section 111(b)] standards of
performance for the control of a designated pollutant from affected facilities.” 40 C.F.R. §
60.22(a).
28.

After EPA issues final guidelines for existing sources for a designated pollutant,

states have nine months to develop and submit state plans containing emission standards for
control of that pollutant from designated facilities within the state. 40 C.F.R. § 60.23(a)(1).
EPA must then take final action on the state plans within four months of the due date for those
plans. Id. § 60.27(b). If EPA disapproves a state plan (or a portion thereof), it must promulgate
a plan for the state within six months after the date required for submission of the plan. Id. §
60.27(d).

6

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 7 of 20

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.

Methane Pollution
29.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas—pound for pound, it warms the climate

twenty-eight to thirty-six times more over a one hundred-year time frame than carbon dioxide.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) 5th Assessment Report
(2013), methane is the second leading climate-forcing agent after carbon dioxide globally. The
IPCC has also found that, on a twenty-year timeframe, methane is about eighty-six times more
potent than carbon dioxide.
30.

In December 2009, EPA determined that methane, along with other greenhouse

gases, endangers public health and welfare because of its contribution to climate change. 74
Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).
31.

EPA has found that methane “contributes to warming of the atmosphere, which,

over time, leads to increased air and ocean temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns,
melting and thawing of global glaciers and ice, increasingly severe weather events, such as
hurricanes of greater intensity and sea level rise.” 77 Fed. Reg. 49,490, 49,535 (Aug. 23, 2011).
32.

According to EPA’s 2015 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Sinks,” total methane emissions from the oil and gas industry account for about 31 percent of
the total methane emissions from all U.S. sources and account for about 10 percent of all U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, with oil and natural gas systems being the
single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S..
33.

Methane emissions from oil and natural gas sources harm plaintiffs and their

citizens by significantly contributing to air pollution that causes climate change.

7

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 8 of 20

34.

Plaintiffs and their citizens have experienced and will continue to experience

injuries from climate change, including, but not limited to:
a.

increased heat deaths and illnesses due to intensified and prolonged heat
waves;

b.

increased ground-level ozone pollution, with concomitant increases in
asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, and emphysema, as well as coughing,
throat irritation, and lung tissue damage;

c.

beach erosion, temporary and permanent inundation of portions of coastal
state property, damage to publicly owned coastal facilities and
infrastructure, and salinization of water supplies from accelerated sea level
rise;

d.

more frequent flooding from more severe rains and higher storm surges
resulting in property damage and hazard to human safety;

e.

diminished water supplies and adverse impacts to agriculture due to
reduced snowpack and more frequent and severe droughts;

f.

deaths, property damage, and impairment of air and water quality from
increasingly more severe and damaging wildfires;

g.

additional state emergency response costs caused by more frequent and
intense storm surges, floods, and wildfires; and

h.

widespread loss of species and biodiversity, including the disappearance
of hardwood forests from the northern United States.

35.

The need for EPA to proceed promptly with the regulation of existing sources is

especially pressing because the lion’s share of methane emissions from the oil and natural gas

8

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 9 of 20

sector comes from existing sources. Indeed, sources in existence prior to 2012 are projected to
be responsible for up to 90 percent of the methane emissions in the oil and natural gas sector in
2018. ICF Int’l, Economic Analysis of Methane Emission Reduction Opportunities in the U.S.
Onshore Oil and Natural Gas Industries 1 (2014) (available at
http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/methane_cost_curve_report.pdf).
36.

The same study found that industry could cut emissions forty percent below the

projected 2018 levels at an average annual cost of less than one cent per thousand cubic feet of
natural gas produced. Taking into account the total economic value of the natural gas that
would be recovered through the use of these additional emissions controls, this forty percent
reduction would yield savings of over $100 million dollars per year for the U.S. economy and
consumers.
B.

EPA’s Failure to Timely Issue Emissions Guidelines for Methane Pollution from
Existing Oil and Natural Gas Operations
37.

The oil and natural gas sector is listed as a category of stationary sources that the

Administrator has found causes or contributes significantly to air pollution that may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 44 Fed. Reg. 49,222 (Aug. 21, 1979).
38.

EPA originally promulgated standards of performance for sources in the oil and

natural gas sector in 1985. 50 Fed. Reg. 26,122 (June 24, 1985); 50 Fed. Reg. 40,158 (Oct. 1,
1985).
39.

EPA’s failure to timely review the 1985 standards for sources in the oil and

natural gas sector led multiple groups to file suit in 2009 to compel such review. That case,
Wild Earth Guardians v. EPA, No. 1:09-CV-00089 (D.D.C.), resulted in the Court’s entering a
consent decree setting forth a schedule for EPA to propose and finalize any revisions to the oil

9

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 10 of 20

and gas sector standards of performance. The consent decree, as modified, required EPA to
propose standards by July 28, 2011, and to take final action by April 17, 2012.
40.

In August 2011, EPA proposed revisions to the oil and natural gas standards of

performance. 76 Fed. Reg. 52,738 (Aug. 23, 2011). EPA acknowledged in the proposal that
“processes in the Oil and Natural Gas source category emit significant amounts of methane,”
and that such emissions are equivalent to more than 328 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
each year. Id. at 52,756. However, EPA did not propose any standards for methane emissions,
despite having previously determined in 2009 that methane and other greenhouse gases
endanger public health and welfare.
41.

EPA signed a final rule revising some aspects of the oil and natural gas standards

in April 2012, which was published on August 16, 2012 (“2012 Final Rule”). 77 Fed. Reg.
49,490.
42.

In violation of its mandatory 8-year review obligation under section 111(b)(1)(B)

of the Act, EPA failed to determine in the 2012 Final Rule whether it was appropriate to
establish methane standards. Instead, EPA stated that “[i]n this rule, we are not taking final
action with respect to regulation of methane. Rather, we intend to continue to evaluate the
appropriateness of regulating methane with an eye toward taking additional steps if
appropriate.” Id. at 49,513. The agency stated that “over time,” it would assess emissions data
received pursuant to the recently implemented greenhouse gas emissions reporting program,
which would help it evaluate whether to directly regulate methane and identify cost-effective
ways to do so. Id. EPA set forth no timetable for taking final action to address methane
emissions.

10

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 11 of 20

43.

EPA stated that the standards it adopted in the 2012 Final Rule for emissions of

volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) and hazardous air pollutants would have the incidental
benefit of also reducing annual methane emissions by about 19 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent, id. at 49,535, which is only a small fraction of the 328 million metric tons
of total carbon dioxide equivalent methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector.
44.

Throughout this time, EPA had compelling data demonstrating that many

measures to avoid (or reduce) methane leaks from new and existing oil and natural gas
operations are available and cost-effective. For instance, through EPA’s voluntary Natural Gas
Star Program—a public-private partnership with the oil and natural gas industry launched in
1993—“many of [the] technologies and management practices” available to control methane
emissions from the sector “have been well documented (including information on cost, benefits
and reduction potential) and implemented in oil and gas systems throughout the U.S.” EPA,
Office of Air & Radiation, Technical Support Document for the Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases; Stationary Sources, Sec. VII, at 30 (June 2008).
45.

On December 11, 2012, several of the Plaintiff States notified EPA of their intent

to sue the agency for violating the Clean Air Act by failing to determine in the 2012
rulemaking whether standards limiting methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations
under section 111 were appropriate and by failing to set performance standards for new sources
and guidelines for existing sources that curb emissions of methane from the oil and natural gas
sector. The letter notified EPA that such failures were both a violation of a nondiscretionary
duty under section 111 of the Act and constituted unreasonable delay in taking agency action.
46.

In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan that, among other

things, committed his administration to developing a comprehensive, interagency strategy to

11

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 12 of 20

reduce methane emissions. That strategy, released in March 2014, committed EPA to a number
of activities, including assessing significant sources of methane and other emissions from the
oil and natural gas sector, soliciting input from independent experts through a series of
technical white papers, and determining how best to pursue further methane reductions from
these sources. Because of EPA’s actions demonstrating progress in addressing these sources,
the Plaintiff States that had previously notified EPA of their intent to sue held the filing of a
lawsuit in abeyance.
47.

On April 15, 2014, EPA released five technical white papers regarding sources of

and mitigation techniques to control methane and VOC emissions in the oil and natural gas
sector. EPA sought independent peer review of the white papers and received more than 43,000
comments from the public, including several of the Plaintiff States. EPA stated that it intended
to use the technical documents and public comments received to “solidify its understanding of
these potentially significant sources,” enabling the agency “to fully evaluate the range of
options for cost-effectively cutting VOC and methane waste and emissions.”
48.

In September 2015, EPA proposed overdue regulations to require new and

modified oil and natural gas facilities to meet standards to limit their methane emissions. 80
Fed. Reg. 56,593 (Sept. 18, 2015). Numerous Attorneys General submitted comments on the
proposed standards for new and modified sources, and further urged EPA to move forward
expeditiously with regulation of existing sources, which is mandated under the Act once a rule
on new and modified sources is finalized.
49.

On June 3, 2016, EPA finally promulgated much-delayed final performance

standards for methane emissions from new and modified oil and natural gas sources. Oil and
Natural Gas Sector Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed and Modified Sources, 81 Fed.

12

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 13 of 20

Reg. 35,824 (June 3, 2016) (“New Source Rule”). EPA’s promulgation of those new source
standards triggered its mandatory obligation under 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) and 40 C.F.R. §
60.22(a) to issue existing source guidelines.
50.

In recognition of that obligation, on the same day that it issued the New Source

Rule, EPA published notice that it would be issuing an information collection request (“ICR”)
to obtain “more specific information that would be of critical use in addressing existing source
emissions pursuant to CAA section 111(d).” 81 Fed. Reg, 35,763, 35,764 (June 3, 2016). After
two rounds of notice and comment, and review by the Office of Management and Budget,
resulting in narrower requests for information and lower compliance costs, EPA issued the
Final Methane ICR on November 10, 2016. The ICR had two parts: (1) an operator survey,
designed to obtain basic information from onshore oil and natural gas facilities to better
understand the number and types of equipment at production facilities; and (2) a facility survey,
sent to select oil and natural gas facilities to obtain more detailed information on sources of
methane emissions and emissions control devices or practices. EPA began receiving the
requested information from oil and natural gas operators in January 2017.
51.

Nineteen months later, EPA has not yet fulfilled its mandatory obligation under

the Act, outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) and 40 C.F.R. § 60.22(a), to issue guidelines for the
control of methane emissions from existing oil and natural gas sources once it promulgated the
New Source Rule.
52.

Quite the contrary, on March 2, 2017, one day after eleven states, mostly oil and

gas-producing states, wrote to Administrator Pruitt requesting that he suspend and withdraw the
ICR. Without any notice or opportunity for comment, EPA withdrew the Final Methane ICR.

13

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 14 of 20

82 Fed. Reg. 12,817 (Mar. 7, 2017). On April 3, 2017, several of the Plaintiff States submitted
a letter to Administrator Pruitt objecting to the ICR withdrawal.
53.

Further indicating its disinterest in regulating air pollutant emissions from existing

oil and natural gas sources, on March 1, 2018, EPA proposed a complete withdrawal of its
2016 Control Techniques Guidelines (“CTGs”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. The CTGs
are technical recommendations critical to reducing emissions of VOCs from existing oil and
natural gas facilities, which would have the co-benefit of reducing some methane emissions.
See Notice of Proposed Withdrawal of the Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and
Natural Gas Industry, 83 Fed. Reg. 10,478 (Mar. 9, 2018).
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Continuing Unreasonable Delay in Performing Mandatory Duty to
Issue Emission Guidelines for Control of Methane Emissions from Existing Sources
54.

The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference.
55.

As set forth above, EPA has a nondiscretionary legal duty to propose guidelines

for methane emissions from existing facilities in the oil and natural gas sector when it issues
standards of performance for methane emissions from new oil and natural gas sources.
56.

After extensive agency delay, EPA finally promulgated standards of performance

for methane emissions from new oil and natural gas sources in the final New Source Rule on
June 3, 2016, but to date has failed to fulfill its corresponding obligation under section 111(d)
to publish emission guidelines covering methane emissions from existing oil and natural gas
sources.
57.

EPA’s failure has harmed and continues to harm Plaintiffs by delaying the

adoption and implementation of methane standards for existing oil and natural gas operations
14

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 15 of 20

that would result in cleaner and healthier air in the States and that would reduce and delay the
harmful impacts from climate change, to the benefit of Plaintiffs and the health and welfare of
their citizens.
58.

EPA has known since at least 1997 that oil and natural gas operations are one of

the nation’s largest methane sources.
59.

EPA has known since at least 2009 that methane endangers public health and

welfare because of its contribution to climate change.
60.

EPA has long had ample data on cost-effective measures for controlling methane

emissions from oil and natural gas sources, for example, through the Natural Gas STAR
Program, which started in 1993.
61.

Since at least 2011, EPA has been assessing the significant emissions of methane

from oil and natural gas operations and evaluating actions to address those emissions. See 76
Fed. Reg. at 52,756 (“Although this proposed rule does not include standards for regulating
[methane emissions], we continue to assess these significant emissions and evaluate appropriate
actions for addressing these concerns.”).
62.

EPA also has a vast amount of scientific and technical data on emissions and

control strategies developed over the last several years, including from its white papers, the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, and its 2016 CTGs for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.
63.

Notwithstanding the detailed information EPA already has in its possession, EPA

has not established guidelines for controlling methane emissions from existing oil and natural
gas sources.
64.

EPA’s delay in failing to establish methane emissions guidelines covering

existing oil and natural gas sources as required by section 111(d) of the Act and EPA’s

15

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 16 of 20

implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 60.22(a), constitutes unreasonable delay in the
performance of an act or duty within the meaning of section 304(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. § 7604(a), which delay is ongoing as of the present time.
65.

EPA’s unreasonable delay in issuing these guidelines in turn delays both the date

by which states must submit plans for the control of methane from existing oil and natural gas
operations, 40 C.F.R. § 60.23(a), and the date by which existing sources must comply with
approved pollution control standards, see id. § 60.24(c).
66.

EPA’s failure to issue required guidelines for states to develop plans to limit

methane emissions from existing sources harms Plaintiffs and their citizens by delaying
adoption of such plans, resulting in higher emissions of methane and other pollutants from
existing sources in the oil and natural gas sector than would be permitted if EPA were to
complete the required actions.

REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against
defendants as follows:
A.

Declaring that EPA’s failure to publish emission guidelines for the control of

methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and natural gas sector, as required by section
111(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), and EPA’s implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. §
60.22(a), constitutes agency action unreasonably delayed within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
7604(a), in violation of the Act;
B.

Ordering EPA to propose and subsequently promulgate emission guidelines for

methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas sector, in accordance with 42 U.S.C.

16

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 17 of 20

§ 7411(d) and 40 C.F.R. § 60.22(a), pursuant to an expeditious deadline established by this
Court;
C.

Retaining jurisdiction over this matter until such time as EPA has issued such

guidelines;
D.

Awarding Plaintiffs the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

E.

Awarding such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

and

Dated: April 5, 2018
FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General
By:
/s/ Christopher C. Gore_____
MICHAEL J. MYERS
MORGAN A. COSTELLO
CHRISTOPHER C. GORE
Assistant Attorneys General
Environmental Protection Bureau
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
[phone]

17

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 18 of 20

FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE STATE OF IOWA

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General
Timothy E. Sullivan
Daniel M. Lucas
Kavita P. Lesser
Deputy Attorneys General
California Department of Justice
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
[phone]
Attorneys for the State of California, by
and through the California Air
Resources Board and Attorney General
Xavier Becerra

TOM MILLER
Attorney General
JACOB LARSON
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Law Division
Hoover State Office Building
1305 E. Walnut St., 2nd Floor
Des Moines, IA 50319
[phone]
FOR THE STATE OF MAINE
JANET T. MILLS
Attorney General
GERALD D. REID
Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Natural Resources Division
Maine Attorney General’s Office
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0006
[phone]

FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
GEORGE JEPSEN
Attorney General
MATTHEW LEVINE
JILL LACEDONIA
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
[phone]

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
BRIAN E. FROSH
Attorney General
LEAH J. TULIN
Assistant Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202
[phone]

FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
MATTHEW DUNN
GERALD KARR
DANIEL ROTTENBERG
Assistant Attorneys General
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
69 W. Washington St., 18th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
[phone]

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS
MAURA HEALEY
Attorney General
MELISSA HOFFER
Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Energy and Environment Bureau
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
[phone]
18

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 19 of 20

FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

FOR THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

HECTOR H. BALDERAS
Attorney General
WILLIAM GRANTHAM
BRIAN E. MCMATH
Consumer & Environmental Protection
Division
New Mexico Office of the Attorney General
201 Third St. NW, Suite 300
Albuquerque, NM 87102
[phone]

PETER F. KILMARTIN
Attorney General
GREGORY S. SCHULTZ
Special Assistant Attorney General
Rhode Island Department of Attorney
General
150 South Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
[phone]
FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT

FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.
Attorney General
NICHOLAS F. PERSAMPIERI
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609
[phone]

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
PAUL GARRAHAN
Attorney-in-Charge, Natural Resources
Section
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court St. NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
[phone]

FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
KATHARINE G. SHIREY
Assistant Attorney General
Washington State Attorney General’s Office
PO Box 40117
Olympia, WA 98504
[phone]

JOSH SHAPIRO
Attorney General
MICHAEL J. FISCHER
Chief Deputy Attorney General
ROBERT A. REILEY
Assistant Director, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection Section
Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
[phone]

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KARL A. RACINE
Attorney General
DAVID S. HOFFMAN
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
of the District of Columbia
441 Fourth St. NW Ste. 600-S
Washington, D.C. 20001
[phone]

19

Case 1:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 20 of 20

FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO
EDWARD N. SISKEL
Corporation Counsel
JARED POLICCHIO*
Supervising Assistant Corporation Counsel
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602
[phone]
*motion to appear pro hac vice to be
submitted promptly

20