United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1302 September Term, 2014

EPA-47FR45210

EPA-76FR43159

EPA-76FR48208

Filed On: October 23, 2014

EME Homer City Generation, L.P.,

Petitioner

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

------------------------------

San Miguel Electric Cooperative, et al.,

Intervenors

------------------------------

Consolidated with 11-1315, 11-1323,

11-1329, 11-1338, 11-1340, 11-1350,

11-1357, 11-1358, 11-1359, 11-1360,

11-1361, 11-1362, 11-1363, 11-1364,

11-1365, 11-1366, 11-1367, 11-1368,

11-1369, 11-1371, 11-1372, 11-1373,

11-1374, 11-1375, 11-1376, 11-1377,

11-1378, 11-1379, 11-1380, 11-1381,

11-1382, 11-1383, 11-1384, 11-1385,

11-1386, 11-1387, 11-1388, 11-1389,

11-1390, 11-1391, 11-1392, 11-1393,

11-1394, 11-1395

USCA Case #11-1302 Document #1518738 Filed: 10/23/2014 Page 1 of 5
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1302 September Term, 2014

No. 11-1427

EPA-76FR43159

State of Georgia,

Petitioner

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

------------------------------

Georgia Power Company and Municipal

Electric Authority of Georgia,

Intervenors

No. 12-1019 September Term, 2014

EPA-76FR48208

State of Kansas,

Petitioner

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

------------------------------

City of New York, et al.,

Intervenors

------------------------------

Consolidated with 11-1333

Page 2

USCA Case #11-1302 Document #1518738 Filed: 10/23/2014 Page 2 of 5
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1302 September Term, 2014

BEFORE: Rogers, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the joint motion of the States of Kansas and Georgia to

reactivate the SIP disapproval cases and consolidate with (or in the alternative, to

coordinate with) case No. 11-1302, et al., the response and the amended response in

support, the oppositions to the joint motion, and the corrected reply; EPA’s motion to lift

stay entered December 30, 2011, the amended response in support, the oppositions to

the motion, and the reply; the Public Health Intervenors’ motion for alternative relief, the

joint oppositions thereto, and the reply; the motion of Luminant for summary vacatur,

the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion of Texas, et al., for summary vacatur,

the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion of EPA to govern future proceedings,

the oppositions thereto, and the consolidated reply; the motions of State/Local

Petitioners, Industry/Labor Petitioners, and Texas, et al., to govern future proceedings,

the oppositions thereto, and the replies; and the motions of the State of Wisconsin, the

State of Louisiana, et al., and the City of Ames, Iowa to govern future proceedings, and

the oppositions thereto, it is

ORDERED that the joint motion to consolidate or, in the alternative coordinate,

be denied. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary vacatur be denied. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that EPA’s motion to lift the stay be granted. The stay of

the Transport Rule, entered on December 30, 2011, is hereby lifted. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that this case be scheduled for oral argument at 

9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 11, 2015. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the following briefing format and schedule will apply

in these consolidated cases: 

Briefs for Petitioners December 10, 2014

(not to exceed 14,000 words, to be

 apportioned as the parties see fit) 

Page 3

USCA Case #11-1302 Document #1518738 Filed: 10/23/2014 Page 3 of 5
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1302 September Term, 2014

Joint Brief for Intervenors and Amicus December 12, 2014

Curiae in Support of Petitioners

(not to exceed 8,750 words)

Brief for Respondent January 16, 2015

(not to exceed 14,000 words)

Briefs for Intervenors Supporting January 23, 2015

Respondent

(not to exceed 8,750 words, to be 

 apportioned as the parties see fit)

Reply Briefs of Petitioners February 6, 2015

(not to exceed 14,000 words, to be

 apportioned as the parties see fit) 

The parties are directed to cite to the previously-filed March 14, 2012 joint

appendix rather than file a new joint appendix. Although the parties must cite to the

previously-filed joint appendix, they are advised that the court will not refer to

previously-filed briefs. 

In addition to electronic filing, the parties are directed to hand deliver paper

copies of their briefs to the Clerk’s office by the date due. The parties are also directed

to hand deliver 6 paper copies of the March 14, 2012 previously-filed appendix to the

Clerk’s office on December 10, 2014. To enhance the clarity of their briefs, the parties

are urged to limit the use of abbreviations, including acronyms. While acronyms may

be used for entities and statutes with widely recognized initials, briefs should not

contain acronyms that are not widely known. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice

and Procedures 41 (2013); Notice Regarding Use of Acronyms (D.C. Cir. Jan. 26,

2010).

Page 4

USCA Case #11-1302 Document #1518738 Filed: 10/23/2014 Page 4 of 5
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1302 September Term, 2014

Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of oral argument, the court

will grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling

reasons. The briefs must contain the date the case is scheduled for oral 

argument at the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(8). 

A separate order will issue regarding allocation of oral argument time. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark 

Deputy Clerk

Page 5

USCA Case #11-1302 Document #1518738 Filed: 10/23/2014 Page 5 of 5