Document Z4jzq5KZyVOZqjvOwnjjBJ0mZ

DownloadViewSend us a messageRandom document
Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Elliott, Don [DEIIiott@cov.com] 4/19/2018 3:44:03 PM Leopold, M att [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Adm inistrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=4e5cdf09a3924dada6d322c6794cc4fa-Leopold, Ma] Raburn, Janice [Janice.Raburn@bp.com]; Baptist, Erik [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=10fclb085eel4c6cb61db378356aleb9-Baptist, Er]; Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=53dla3caa8bb4ebab8a2d28ca59b6f45-Gunasekara,]; Wehrum, Bill [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=33d96ae800cf43a3911d94a7130b6c41-Wehrum, Wil]; Stout, Robert [Robert.Stout@bp.com]; Stutz, Rachel [Rachel.Stutz@bp.com]; Brugato, Thomas [tbrugato@cov.com]; Guzy, Gary [GGuzy@cov.com]; Long, Robert [rlong@cov.com] Re: Thank you and BP letter to EPA Matt, Bill, Erik, and Mandy, Fol1owing up on M r . Sparkman's 1etter about B P 's concerns about the broad-based exemptions of smal 1 refi ners from the RFS that EPA has issued recently, I wanted to cal 1 to your attenti on a reievant case involvi ng one of our favori te topi c s : Chevron deference and excepti ons to same. The case is the Supreme Court's deci si on in MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. AT&T, 512 US 218 (1994), https ://supreme.justi a.com/cases/federal/us/512/218/case.html . It strongly suggests that attempts to "even substanti al 1y " de-regul ate the smal 1 refi ner segment from the RFS would be illegal, as well as that a competi tor not so favored has standi ng to chal 1enge wholesal e exempti on of competi tors from requi rement that sti11 appiy to it. In the MCI v. AT&T case, the statute requi red communi cations common carri ers to fi 1e tari ff s, but authorized the FCC to "modify any requi rement" of same. 47 U.S.C. 203(b)(2). The FCC attempted to use its modi fi cati on authori ty to make tari ff fi 1ing opti onal for one part of the industry, the "non-domi nate 1ong-di stance carri e r s ." In an early appiicati on of what is now cal 1ed the "important questi ons" excepti on to Chevron deference, the Supreme Court held in an opi ni on by Justice Seali a that the agency's interpretati on of the word "modi fy" was not enti tled to deference because the word only appiied to mi nor matters and could not be used to make "fundamental changes" in the regulatory scheme (512 U.S. at 228) or to "introduc [e] ... a whol e new regi me of regul ati on ... [that] is not the one that Congress establ ished." (512 U.S. at 234). In words that clearly resonate with the numerous exempti ons that EPA has recentiy granted from the RF S, the Court went on to state that " [i]t is highly unii kely that Congress would 1eave the determi nati on of whether an industry will be enti reiy , or even substantially, rate-regulated to agency di scretion." (512 U.S. at 231 (emphasis supplied)). It is cl early arguable that the numerous exempti ons that EPA has al ready granted vi olate the pri nei pies of MCI Telecomm. C o rp. v. AT&T, but certai nly blanket de-regulati on of the enti re smal 1 refi nery segment as some have advocated would do s o . See al so UARG v. EPA, 573 U.S. - (2014), https ://supreme.justi a.com/cases/federal/us/573/12-1146/ ("When an agency cl ai ms to di scover in a 1ongextant statute an unheralded power to regulate "a si gni fi cant porti on of the Arneri can economy," Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S., at 159 , we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wi shes to assign to an agency deci si ons of vast "economi c and poiiti cal si gni fi canee." I d ., at 160 ; see al so MCI Tel ecommuni cati ons Corp. v. Arneri can Telephone & Telegraph C o ., 512 U.S. 218 , 231 (1994); Industri al Uni on Dept., AFL-CIO v. Arneri can Petroleum Insti t u te, 448 U.S. 607 , 645-646 (1980) (pi urali ty opi ni o n ) .") Thank you for meeti ng wi th us on Monday and for thi s opportuni ty to share my vi ews wi th you on thi s important topi c . Don El 1iott E. Donaid El 1iott Covington & Burling LLP One Ci tyCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW Washi ngton, DC 20001-4956 T i_______ ex._6_______ ; del 1iott@cov.com<mai 1to :del 1iott@cov.com> w w w .c o v.comchttp://www.c o v .com> | https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/e/donald-el1iott On Apr 17, 2018, at 05:31, Leopold , Matt <Leopold.Matt@epa.gov<mailto:Leopold.Matt@epa.gov wr ot e: Thank you for the bri efi n g . Regards, Matt Leopold Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 2 ED 002061 00181857-00001 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 16, 2018, at 5:17 PM, Raburn, lanice ciani c e .RaburnObp.com<mai1to :lanice.RaburnObp.c o m wrote : Bill, M a tt, Mandy, and Eri k, Thank you for taki ng the time to meet with us today and 1isten to B P 's perspective on the R F S. Attached is the letter I referenced duri ng the meeti ng from Doug Sparkman/BP to US EPA regardi ng concerns with RFS smal 1 refi nery exempti o n s . (The 1etter is al so bei ng deli vered vi a FedEx to Bill Wehrum tomorrow.) Pi ease 1et me know if you have any questi ons for B P . Best regards, lani ce lanice K. Raburn Senior Di rector, Fuels Regulatory Advocacy BP Arne ri ca 1101 New York Ave NW, Suite 700 Washi ngton, DC 20005 Offi ce f 'x 6 1 Mobile t l l l i Z I T jani c e .raburn@bp.comcmai1to :jani c e .raburn@bp.com> <20180416 BP Letter to EPA - RFS exempti o n s .pdf> Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 2 ED 002061 00181857-00002