North Carolina v. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 11 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-1228.,No. 05-1259.,No. 05-1250.,No. 06-1217.,No. 05-1256.,No. 05-1251.,No. 06-1226.,No. 06-1232.,No. 06-1243.,No. 05-1260.,No. 06-1235.,No. 06-1237.,No. 06-1222.,No. 06-1236.,No. 05-1244.,No. 05-1253.,No. 06-1242.,No. 05-1246.,No. 06-1227.,No. 07-1115.,No. 06-1229.,No. 06-1224.,No. 05-1262.,No. 05-1252.,No. 06-1238.,No. 05-1254.,No. 06-1241.,No. 06-1245.,No. 06-1240.,No. 06-1233.,No. 05-1249.,No. 06-1230.,05-1244.,05-1246.,05-1249.,05-1250.,05-1251.,05-1252.,05-1253.,05-1254.,05-1256.,05-1259.,05-1260.,05-1262.,06-1217.,06-1222.,06-1224.,06-1226.,06-1227.,06-1228.,06-1229.,06-1230.,06-1232.,06-1233.,06-1235.,06-1236.,06-1237.,06-1238.,06-1240.,06-1241.,06-1242.,06-1243.,06-1245.,07-1115. |
| Citation | 531 F.3d 896 |
| Parties | State of NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent Utility Air Regulatory Group, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Robin L. Juni argued the cause for petitioners on SO2 Issues. Bart E. Cassidy argued the cause for petitioners on Title IV Exempt Units Issues. With them on the briefs were Peter H. Wyckoff, Jeffrey A. Knight, Lisa M. Jaeger, Brian J. McManus, William H. Lewis Jr., Steven J. Shimberg, Deborah E. Jennings, Meredith DuBarry Huston, Michael R. Barr, Sheldon A. Zabel, Kathleen C. Bassi, Stephen J. Bonebrake, Sam Kalen, Kyle W. Danish, and Alvin Bruce Davis. Carol F. McCabe entered an appearance.
Marc D. Bernstein, Special Deputies Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of State of North Carolina, argued the cause for petitioners on North Carolina Issues. With him on the briefs were Roy Cooper, Attorney General, James C. Gulick, Senior Deputy Attorney General, J. Allen Jernigan, Special Deputies Attorney General, and John C. Evans, Assistant Attorney General.
William M. Bumpers, Robert A. Manning, and Michael W. Steinberg argued the causes for petitioners on Border State Issues. With them on the briefs were David A. Savage, Michael B. Heister, William H. Lewis Jr., and Alvin Bruce Davis. James S. Alves and Winston K. Borkowski entered appearances.
Alvin B. Davis argued the cause for petitioners on Fuel-Adjustment Issues. With him on the briefs was David A. Savage. Joshua B. Frank entered an appearance.
Sheldon A. Zabel, Kathleen C. Bassi, Stephen J. Bonebrake, and Robert A. Manning were on the briefs of petitioners Northern Indiana Public Service Company and Florida Association of Electric Utilities on NOx-Related Claims.
Angeline Purdy and Norman L. Rave, Jr., Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief were John C. Cruden, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Steven E. Silverman and Geoffrey Wilcox, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Paul D. Tanaka, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered and appearance.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
General, Daniel Chepaitis, Assistant Solicitor General, J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Connecticut, Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New Jersey, Joseph R. Biden, III, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Delaware, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Illinois, Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Maryland, Martha Coakley, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New Hampshire, Gary K. King, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office for the State of New Mexico, Patrick C. Lynch, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Rhode Island, and Linda Singer, Attorney General at the time the brief was filed, Attorney General's Office for the District of Columbia, were on the brief of amici states in support of petitioner North Carolina. Michael J. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New York, Matthew I. Levine, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Connecticut, Jean P. Reilly, Ruth E. Carter, and Kevin P. Auerbacher, Assistant Attorneys General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New Jersey, and James R. Milkey, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, entered appearances.
Kristen M. Campfield, Attorney, was on the brief for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, in support of petitioner ARIPPA and seeking remand.
Sean H. Donahue, Vickie L. Patton, and John D. Walke were on the joint brief of intervenors in support of respondent.
Peter Glaser, Harold P. Quinn, Norman W. Fichthorn, C. Grady Moore III, P. Stephen Gidiere III, Claudia M. O'Brien, and Nathan H. Seltzer were on the brief for industry intervenors.
Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
These consolidated petitions for review challenge various aspects of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. Because we find more than several fatal flaws in the rule and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") adopted the rule as one, integral action, we vacate the rule in its entirety and remand to EPA to promulgate a rule that is consistent with this opinion.
Title I of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., requires EPA to issue national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for each air pollutant that "cause[s] or contribute[s] to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare [and] the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources ...," id. § 7408(a)(1)(A), (B). It also requires EPA to divide the country into areas designated as "nonattainment," "attainment," or "unclassifiable" for each air pollutant, depending on whether the area meets the NAAQS. Id. § 7407(c), (d). Title I gives states "the primary responsibility for assuring air quality" within their borders, id. § 7407(a), and requires each state to create a state implementation plan ("SIP") to meet the NAAQS for each air pollutant and submit it to EPA for its approval, id. § 7410. If a state is untimely in submitting a compliant SIP to EPA, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan ("FIP") for the state to follow. Id. § 7410(c)(1).
One provision of Title I requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions — (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [NAAQS]....
42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (). In 1998, EPA relied on this provision to promulgate the NOx SIP Call, which imposed a duty on certain upwind sources to reduce their NOx emissions by a specified amount so that they no longer "`contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,' a downwind State." Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone, 63 Fed.Reg. 57,356, 57,358 (Oct. 27, 1998) ("NOx SIP Call"). The NOx SIP Call created an optional cap-and-trade program for nitrogen oxides ("NOx"). Id. at 57,359. Like the NOx SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule—Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call, 70 Fed.Reg. 25,162 (May 12, 2005) ("CAIR")—which is the rule at issue in these consolidated petitions for review, also derives its statutory authority from section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Title IV of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7651-7651 o, aims to reduce acid rain deposition nationwide and in doing so creates a cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide ("SO2") emitted by fossil fuel-fired combustion devices. Congress capped SO2 emissions for affected units, or electric generating units ("EGUs"), at 8.9 million tons nationwide, id. § 7651b(a)(1), and distributed "allowances" among those units. One "allowance" is an authorization for an EGU to emit one ton of SO2 in a year. Id. § 7651a(3). Title IV includes detailed provisions for allocating allowances among EGUs based for the most part on their share of total heat input of all Title IV EGUs during a 1985-87 baseline period. Id. §§ 7651a(4), 7651c, 7651d, 7651e, 7651h, 7651i. Whenever an EGU emits one ton of SO2 in a year, it must surrender one allowance to EPA. See id. § 7651b(g). But Title IV also permits EGUs to transfer unused allowances to deficient EGUs throughout the nation or to "bank" excess allowances and use or sell them in future years. Id. § 7651b(b).
Title IV exempts EGUs that are "simple combustion turbines, or units which serve a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 Mwe [megawatt electrical] or less," 42 U.S.C. § 7651a(8), those that are not fossil fuel-fired, id. § 7651a(15), those that do not sell electricity, id. § 7651a(17)(A)(i), and those that cogenerate steam and electricity unless they sell a certain amount of electricity, id. § 7651a(17)(C). It also provides that certain exempt units—"qualifying small power production facilities" and "qualifying cogeneration facilities," defined in 16 U.S.C. § 796(17)(C), (18)(B) (), and certain "new independent power production facilities," defined in 42 U.S.C § 7651o (a)(1) — may elect to become a part of Title IV. 42 U.S.C. § 7651d(g)(6)(A); see id. § 7651i (detailing "electing — in" provisions).
Pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1302
...words, EPA could use cost considerations to lower an upwind State's obligations under the good neighbor provision.2 In North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), we considered a challenge to EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR. See 70 Fed. Reg. 25,162 (May 12, 2005). CA......
-
Arizona Public Service Co. v. U.S. E.P.A.
...113, 116 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.2002). This is not a case, moreover, where the EPA has determined section 307(d) applies. Cf. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 906 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (reviewing the EPA's action under the Clean Air Act instead of the Administrative Procedure Act, because the EPA spec......
-
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...statutory prohibition against contribution of pollution in downwind states from sources within the upwind states. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908 (D.C.Cir.2008) ; see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C.Cir.2008) (en banc) (deciding to leave the Clean Air Interstate Rul......
-
Natural Resources Defense Council v. E.P.A.
...pollution. We therefore grant the petitions with respect to those aspects of the Phase 2 Rule. In view of our decision in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008), in which we granted a petition for review of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), we defer consideration of the Phase 2 Rule......
-
Recent Developments In Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
...The Court consolidated the cases and allotted a total of one hour for oral argument. 2 North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, 531 F. 3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on rehearing, 550 F. 3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 3 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 11, United States Environmental P......
-
EPA Finalizes Long-Awaited Transport Rule To Replace CAIR
...Rule ("CAIR"), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated in North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, 531 F. 3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on rehearing, 550 F. 3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) based on the court's finding that the program had "fatal flaws." More ......
-
EPA Petitions DC Circuit For Rehearing Of EME Homer City Generation, L.P. Decision
...arguing that they are power generators who relied upon Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), and North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), investing in cleaner generation and emissions control technologies to prepare for a market-based program that reduces emissions of......
-
Is 'CSAPR' A Ghost? U.S. Circuit Court Vacates U.S. EPA's Sweeping Cross-State Air Emission Rule
...not require any upwind State to 'share the burden of reducing other upwind states' emissions.'" Id. at 25 quoting North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 921 (D.C. Finding that EPA's interpretation stretched "far beyond" the statute, the court also held that EPA's interpretation was not suppor......
-
The State Implementation Plan Process
...California Ports Pollution Plan Faces Major Legal Hurdles , 19 Clean Air Rep. (Inside EPA) 30 (Nov. 13, 2008). 438. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 29 ELR 20306 (D.C. Cir. 2008). his issue continues to evolve and is discussed in chapter 4. which prevents state failures from being ident......
-
Environmental crimes.
...allocated to a person by the Administrator, may be received, held, and temporarily or permanently transferred...."); North Carolina v. EPA 531 F.3d 896, 921-22 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (invalidating EPA regulations allowing for the automatic retiring of allowances or their removal from the market, ......
-
Environmental crimes.
...to create provisions prohibiting "emissions activity" affecting the ability of other states to comply with NAAQS); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Appalachian Power Co., 249 F.3d at 1037 (upholding the EPA's authority to directly regulate emissions in "upwind states" w......
-
Controlling Global Climate Change
...Emissions Trading Scheme fell to nearly zero, and is expected to remain depressed until 2010. 547 542. State of North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,929-930 (D.C.Cir. 2008). 543. State of North Carolina v. EPA, No. 05-1244 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). 544. CAA §§401-406, 42 U.S.C. §§7651-7651e......
-
IL Register Vol.33 issue 26. Issue 26 June 26, 2009 Pages 8808-9207
...through September 30) and thereafter. x x But, due to a federal court ruling concerning the federal CAIR rules in North Carolina v. USEPA, 531 F.3d 896 (C.A.D.C. Cir. 2008), USEPA must take additional action concerning its rules. To solve the problem, in 40 CFR 51.123(bb)(1)(i), USEPA has p......