HARDI Responds to Motion Opposing Its Standing in Court

A press release from HARDI and reposted here:

HARDI Responds to Motion Opposing Its Standing in Court


Columbus, Oh
io – Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) submitted a court filing Tuesday, May 28, 2013, in the Regional Efficiency Standards lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals. This filing is in response to a motion by the American Public Gas Association (APGA) which seeks to deny HARDI an opportunity to present compelling information before the court.

On May 1, 2013, when the court accepted a stay from the furnace standard, it asked all parties involved to schedule additional briefings with the court. HARDI has sought to comply with the court’s wishes to schedule briefings, but filings by other parties have complicated and delayed the process.

HARDI believes the court should deny APGA’s motion and recognize that HARDI has standing to challenge the Direct Final Rule in its entirety.

Jon Melchi, HARDI director of government affairs, said, “HARDI continues to believe the facts of this case are on its side and will take every opportunity possible to communicate those facts. HARDI, with the support of the membership, will continue to fight this case of government overreach which we believe harms the HVAC industry.”

Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, who is representing HARDI in this lawsuit, said, “We hope the court honors the merits that HARDI brings to this case so that they can continue to fight against the abuse of discretion by the Department of Energy that is affecting thousands of Americans.”

 

For more information about HARDI’s case against the Department of Energy click here.

CoA Argues in 9th Circuit to Help Save Drakes Bay Oyster Farm

Drake’s Bay Oyster Farm Fights to Stay Open

The future of the company is now in the hands of three judges

By Joe Rosato Jr.
|  Tuesday, May 14, 2013  |  Updated 7:25 PM PDT
The owners of Drake s Bay Oyster Company on Tuesday asked a Federal Appeals Court to grant it an injunction to remain in business while the case plays out in court. Joe Rosato Jr. reports.

The owners of Drake’s Bay Oyster Company on Tuesday asked a Federal Appeals Court to grant it an injunction to remain in business while the case plays out in court.

Attorneys for Cause of Action, the government watchdog group representing the oyster farm, appeared before a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The group is appealing then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision in November to refuse to extend the oyster company’s lease on National Park land.

The 9th circuit is reviewing a U.S. District court’s refusal to grant the oyster farm a preliminary injunction, halting the federal closure order. In the meantime, the oyster farm which employs 30 people continues to operate on a temporary emergency order.

“We hope the decision will come down that we get the injunction,” said Kevin Lunny, co-owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Company. “We continue to plant our oysters and we continue to plant food for the San Francisco Bay Area.”

In court Tuesday, attorneys for Lunny laid out their case that Salazar relied on faulty scientific data in order to make his decision. But Federal judge Paul Watford questioned whether Congress had granted Salazar the power to make the decision at his own discretion.

“At the end of the day,” said Watford, “the secretary said the more important objective is to give effect essentially to Congress’ intent that this area be returned to wilderness status.”

Attorneys for the Department of Justice, which is defending Salazar’s decision, echoed that the former interior secretary was within his right to end the farm’s lease.

“His decision was based on the incompatibility of commercial activities in wilderness on a policy basis,” said government attorney David Gunter, “not on any disputed science.”

The panel of judges didn’t immediately issue a ruling, and has no timetable for issuing its decision. Meanwhile, strange bedfellows have come to Lunny’s cause. Famed chef Alice Waters has filed a brief in support of the farm, and Republicans attached a proposal to extend the farm’s lease twenty years, to a proposed bill to open the Keystone Pipeline in Alaska.

“We’re appreciative of anybody who be willing to stand up for what’s right,” responded Lunny. Environmental groups who have called for the oyster operation’s removal say the case could set a precedence for groups hoping to open National Park lands to commercial enterprises.

“There are definitely special interests out there who are not looking out for the American people, “said Neal Desai of the National Parks Conservation Association, which supports the farm’s removal. If Lunny prevails at the federal appeals court, the case would return to the same Oakland U.S. District Court which denied the oyster farm’s initial request for an injunction.

Standing out front of the federal court, dressed in a suit and tie, Lunny considered the long legal road ahead.

“Our livelihood’s threatened right now by the fact that we may or may not be able to continue farming,” Lunny said.

Court Grants HARDI Opportunity to Challenge Department of Energy’s Decision-Making

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   

May 3, 2012

 

Court Grants HARDI Opportunity to Challenge Department of Energy’s Decision-Making

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Referred Heating and Air-conditioning Group’s Claims to a Merits Panel for Further Review

 

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action, the government accountability group fighting against federal agency overreach and abuse, today responded to an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding its client, Heating, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), and their fight against the Department of Energy (DOE).

Violating both congressional intent and long-standing agency practice, the DOE exceeded its statutory authority when it circumvented required procedural protections to issue a direct final rule that imposes new energy efficiency standards.

“Despite the government’s efforts to prevent our client, Heating, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), from making its case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has rightly afforded HARDI the opportunity to be heard,” stated Executive Director Dan Epstein of Cause of Action. “By sending this case to a merits panel for further briefing, the D.C. Circuit has given HARDI a chance to explain how the Department of Energy’s abuse of the Direct Final Rule process has real costs on thousands of HVAC distributors and therefore millions of Americans.”

The D.C. Circuit also granted an emergency motion for a stay of a compliance deadline for regional energy conservation standards for certain furnaces.

“We have long believed that this regulation would have a negative impact on the many small businesses in the HVAC industry. The DOE’s abuse of process in establishing the standard is a classic example of why the small business community is frustrated with Washington, stated Jon Melchi, Director of Government Affairs of HARDI.  “We are pleased that we will have an additional opportunity to state our case and protect our members.”

The court document can be found here.

 

E&E Daily: Court allows oyster farm on national seashore to stay open until at least May

INTERIOR: Court allows oyster farm on national seashore to stay open until at least May

Jessica Estepa, E&E reporter
Tuesday, February 26, 2013

A California oyster farm that was slated to close this week will remain open until at least May thanks to a decision yesterday from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In May, the court will hear Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s appeal of a denied injunction that would keep the farm open while its lawsuit against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is still pending. Drakes Bay was supposed to shutter operations Thursday, but the court has granted an emergency motion that keeps the farm in the Point Reyes National Seashore open until it has heard the injunction case.

The decision drew praise from the company’s backers and a key Republican but criticism from environmentalists.

In the order, the court said it did so “because there are serious legal questions and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the appellants’ favor.”

The order cited another case in which the Alliance for the Wild Rockies appealed to the 9th Circuit after its injunction was denied. In that case, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision.

“We are grateful that the Ninth Circuit has chosen to allow Drakes Bay Oyster Co. to continue operating and recognized the hardships that would have resulted from shutting down the farm before its case could be heard,” said Amber Abbasi, chief counsel for regulatory affairs at Cause of Action, a government watchdog group that is representing Drakes Bay in the case.

Oyster farm owner Kevin Lunny said he is “thrilled” that the company — which finds itself in the center of an ongoing environmental battle — will stay open while his lawsuit against Salazar continues.

“Our fight has always been about more than just our business,” he said in a statement. “Our fight is, and will continue to be, about the great service Drakes Bay Oyster Farm provides to the community as an innovative sustainable farm, an education resource and part of the economic fiber of Marin County.”

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, likewise praised the decision.

“Interior attempted to flat out kill this oyster farm and its jobs by using misleading science and ignoring economic impacts,” Vitter said in a statement. “I applaud the Ninth Circuit for taking this first step to recognizing that the Interior agency bureaucrats, including Ken Salazar, almost put people out of work for no good reason.”

But the environmentalists who have pushed for the farm’s closure point out that a decision from U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers still stands. Earlier this month, Gonzalez Rogers denied the injunction, saying that the court had no jurisdiction over Salazar’s decision to end Drakes Bay’s lease (Greenwire, Feb. 5).

“We are confident the district court got it right when it decided that the Interior secretary had full discretion to let the lease expire and that the oyster company was unlikely to win its lawsuit,” said Neal Desai, Pacific region associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “The 9th Circuit Court’s decision today unfortunately delays by two months the ability for Americans to enjoy their national park wilderness.”

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Applauds 9th Circuit Ruling for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

Vitter Applauds Court Decision Blocking Interior’s Attempt to Close an Oyster Farm

Learn More

Morning News for Monday, February 25, 2013

From the Washington Examiner:

By any fair estimate, the NLRB, which is funded with taxpayer dollars, has operated as a vehicle for Big Labor to achieve bureaucratic victories it could not otherwise see enacted in the legislature.

From Huffington Post:

Helen Grieco’s strange post “Tilting at Windmills” (Huff Post Green, February 20, 2013) takes a lot of cheap shots at Drakes Bay Oyster Farm. The post is riddled with errors and false implications.

Wall Street Journal:

Senate Democrats are in a hurry to confirm Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury before anyone notices his biography. Otherwise, liberal lawmakers might be embarrassed voting for a man who represents everything they’ve been campaigning against.

Morning News for Wednesday, February 20, 2013

From NBC Bay Area:

Dollar oysters, already a happy hour rarity, could be a thing of the past once the supply of ocean-bound bivalves shortens following the closure of Drakes Bay Oysters Co., according to reports.

From the Washington Examiner:

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., revealed that he has found “widespread” use of banned, unofficial email accounts at the Environmental Protection Agency. At least two regional administrators used the unofficial email accounts, including the acting agency leader and one person resigning as the investigation gets underway.

Politico:

Three years after the landmark Citizens United decision that dramatically changed campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will take up another campaign finance case challenging how much donors can give to campaigns and committees.