WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA

Jul 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 11-9559. On Petition for Review of an Order of U.S. EPA. Petitioner WildEarth Guardians seeks review of an order of the EPA denying in part Petitioner's petition for an objection to a Title V operating permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to Intervenor Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for its coal-fired power station located in Morgan County, Colorado.

    In its petition for an objection, Petitioner argued, among other things, that the permit needed to include a plan to bring the power station into compliance with the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. Petitioner contended these PSD requirements, which apply to the construction or "major modification" of a stationary source of air pollution had been triggered when the station underwent major modifications in 1994, 1997, and possibly other years. For support, Petitioner relied in part on a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued to Intervenor by the EPA in 2002.

 

    However, EPA denied Petitioner's petition for an objection on this ground, holding that the NOV was insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance with the Clean Air Act and that Petitioner's additional evidence also failed to demonstrate a violation. The EPA further held the State agency had adequately responded to Petitioner's comments regarding the PSD requirements before it issued the permit. The EPA thus denied the petition for an objection on this ground as well. Petitioner seeks review of the EPA's denial of the petition on these two grounds.

 

    Importantly, the Appeals Court said, "We are not persuaded by the Second Circuit's contrary conclusion that an NOV suffices to demonstrate non-compliance, see N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Grp., Inc., 427 F.3d at 181-82, since this conclusion fails to adequately take into account the preliminary nature of an NOV. Instead, like the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, we find the EPA's interpretation of the demonstration requirement to be persuasive and thus entitled to deference. Nothing about the statute requires the EPA to find that a petitioner has demonstrated noncompliance simply by pointing to the existence of an NOV, and we will defer to the EPA's persuasive conclusion that an NOV alone is insufficient to meet this burden of demonstration."

 

    The Appeals Court rules further, "We further conclude that the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate noncompliance in this case. The agency held that Petitioner had not demonstrated PSD noncompliance because Petitioner's evidence failed to show there had been a major modification as defined by the Colorado SIP, which requires, among other things, consideration of the actual emissions increase resulting from a particular modification, as well as 'a determination of any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the source that are contemporaneous with the particular change and are otherwise creditable.' (J.A. at 200-01.) As the agency explained, Petitioner's evidence did not address key parts of this test, particularly the question of net emissions increases. . . Viewing the record as a whole, we are not persuaded that the EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in holding that Plaintiff had not demonstrated noncompliance. Thus, under our deferential standard of review, we affirm the EPA's denial of the petition on this ground."

 

    On the second claim, the Appeals Court says, "Finally, Petitioner argues the EPA erred in concluding that CDPHE adequately responded to Petitioner's comments during the public comment period. For support, Petitioner relies mainly on a prior EPA order where the EPA held that a state agency had failed to adequately respond to a petitioner's comments. However, the state agency's response in the previous case contained only two sentences referring vaguely to 'the rules that existed at the time of each modification.' (J.A. at 229.) Here, the state agency gave a much more thorough explanation in its response, and we are not persuaded that the EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding this response was adequate. We therefore affirm the EPA's denial of the petition on this ground as well."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Air, #CA10]