Appalachian Power Co, et al v. EPA, No. 99-1268 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 8, 2001.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 99 1268 September Term, 2002 Filed On: March 7, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL., INTERVENORS Consolidated with 99 1270, 99 1274, 99 1276, 99 1277, 99 1279, 99 1280, 99 1281, 99 1286, 99 1287, 00 1169, 00 1187, 00 1189, 00 1190, 00 1191, 00 1192, 00 1194 On Motion for Attorneys Fees Before: EDWARDS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. ORDER Upon consideration of the motion for attorneys fees, the response thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion be denied. A remand occasioned by an agency s failure to respond to comments is a 2 purely procedural victory for the petitioner and is therefore insufficient to support an award of attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. ยง 7607(f). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 769 F.2d 796, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1985). In the most similar case in which this court did award attorneys fees, Michigan v. EPA, 254 F.3d 1087, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (vacating EPA rule for want of notice and comment before promulgation), the Agency had to reopen the record or receive new comments on remand, thus creating a greater probability that it would alter the rule. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: Deputy Clerk
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
