Alabama Power Co. v. Costle
| Decision Date | 21 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1006,78-1006 |
| Citation | 204 U.S.App.D.C. 51,636 F.2d 323 |
| Parties | , 204 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,001 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, * v. Douglas M. COSTLE, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents,* Sierra Club, et al., Intervenors.* |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Petitions for Review of Orders of the Environmental Protection agency.
Henry V. Nickel, Washington, D. C., with whom George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va., Michael B. Barr, Andrea S. Bear, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Alabama Power Company, et al., in Nos. 78-1006, 78-1591, 78-1592, 78-1801, 78-1802 and 78-1832.
Michael K. Glenn, Washington, D. C., for American Paper Institute, et al., in Nos. 78-1815 and 78-1832.
James R. Bieke, Washington, D. C., with whom Francis M. Shea, Richard T. Conway, William R. Galeota and Joseph C. Zengerle, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Montana Power Company, et al., in Nos. 78-1610, 78-1807 and 78-1832.
Richard G. Wise, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom Louis P. Robbins, Acting Corp. Counsel, John C. Salyer, III, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for District of Columbia in No. 78-1752.
Jim Mathews, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Texas, Austin, Tex., with whom John L. Hill **, Atty. Gen., David M. Kendall, Jr. **, First Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Texas, Austin, Tex., were on brief, for State of Texas in No. 78-1825.
John J. Adams, Washington, D. C., and David F. Peters, Richmond, Va., were on brief, for American Petroleum Institute, et al., in Nos. 78-1008, 78-1595, 78-1596, 78-1801 and 78-1832.
J. Michael Hines, John D. Field, III and John R. Feore, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Hampton Roads Energy Company in Nos. 78-1590 and 78-1832.
Alan B. Mollohan and J. Roy Spradley, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Mining and Reclamation Council of America, Inc. in Nos. 78-1805 and 78-1832.
Jonathan B. Hill and Donald W. Markham, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for The Pittston Company in Nos. 78-1810 and 78-1832.
Roger M. Golden, Washington, D. C., was on brief, for American Iron and Steel Institute in Nos. 78-1811 and 78-1832.
George J. Miller, Denver, Colo. and William A. White, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Westmoreland Coal Company, et al., in Nos. 78-1823, 78-1824 and 78-1832.
James L. Lyons, Washington, D. C., was on brief, for Mitchell Energy Co., et al., in Nos. 78-1827, 78-1828, 78-1829, 78-1830 and 78-1832.
Carl W. Ulrich, William R. Duff and Henry E. Brown, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Colorado Interstate Gas Company, et al., in Nos. 78-1832 and 78-1834.
William S. Hemsley, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on brief, for GATX Terminals Corporation, et al. in Nos. 78-1832 and 78-1836.
Albert J. Beveridge, III and Charles A. Patrizia, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Reynolds Metals Company, Inc. in No. 78-1833.
Thomas C. Matthews, Jr., Charles C. Abeles and Donald T. Bucklin, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Occidental Oil Shale, Inc., et al., in Nos. 78-1832 and 78-1837.
Frank H. Morison, Donald Quander and James L. White, Denver, Colo., were on brief, for ASARCO Inc. in Nos. 78-1821 and 78-1832.
Robert C. Rauch, for Environmental Defense Fund in Nos. 78-1006, 78-1008, 78-1525, Part II and 78-1610, Part II.
Peter J. Herzberg, Washington, D. C., with whom H. Anthony Ruckel, Denver, Colo., James H. Cohen and Kristine L. Hall, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. in No. 78-1006, 78-1008, 78-1591, 78-1592, 78-1595, 78-1596, 78-1752, 78-1839, Part II, 78-1801, 78-1802, 78-1805, 78-1806, 78-1807, 78-
Erica L. Dolgin, Angus Macbeth and Elizabeth Stein, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Sanford Sagalkin, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., was on brief, for respondent Douglas M. Costle, et al.
Peter H. Wyckoff, Atty., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of New York pro hac vice by special leave of Court, Jeffrey C. Smith and Lydia N. Wegman, Attys., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., with whom Joan Z. Bernstein, General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., was on brief, for respondent Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Lawrence V. Robertson, Jr. and John H. Cheatham, III, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for intervenor, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America in No. 78-1834.
James W. Moorman and Earl Salo, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for respondent, Douglas M. Costle, et al. in Nos. 78-1006 and 78-1008.
Tom Watson, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for intervenor Sierra Pacific Power Company in No. 78-1832.
Bruce J. Terris and Philip G. Sunderland, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor, Environmental Defense Fund, et al. in No. 78-1610, Part II.
Theodore L. Garrett, Washington, D.C., for Ashland-Warren, Inc., in No. 78-1817, and Manufacturing Chemists Assn., et al., in No. 79-1818; Patricia A. Barald, Washington, D.C., on brief, for Manufacturing Chemists Assn., in No. 78-1818.
Before LEVENTHAL, *** ROBINSON and WILKEY, Circuit Judges.
Opinions for the Court filed by Circuit Judges LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON and WILKEY.
Because of the great number of complex issues, the court's opinion appears in three parts, each written for the court by a member of the panel. Today's opinions supersede the per curiam opinion in this case, issued June 18, 1979. We have entertained narrowly focused petitions for reconsideration, all of which are disposed of by our holdings here.
A table of contents for the three opinions appears at the start of Judge Leventhal's opinion.
This is one of three opinions issued today considering challenges to the validity of final regulations 1 promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 19, 1978 generally embracing the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in the nation's "clean air areas." 2 These "PSD" regulations interpreted and began the implementation of various provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. 3 Pertinent provisions are gathered in title I, part C of the Clean Air Act as
amended (hereafter sometimes referred to as the "PSD part" or the "PSD provisions").
Before us are consolidated petitions for review filed in this court, as provided by statute, within 60 days of the date of promulgation. 4 A special procedure was employed by the Chief Staff Counsel of the Circuit to coordinate the efforts of counsel and facilitate the presentation of this extraordinarily complex case. 5 Significant preliminary issues raised by these petitions were argued on October 10, 1978, and our ruling on those questions issued March 27, 1979. 6 The remaining issues raised by the petitions, involving primarily interpretative questions of comprehensive importance, 7 came to be argued on April 19 and 20, 1979.
The judicial review provisions as well as other features of the Clean Air Act Amendments set a tone for expedition of the administrative process that effectuates the congressional purpose to protect and enhance an invaluable national resource, our clean air. Motivated by such concerns, after careful and complete consideration of the case, we issued on June 18, 1979, a per curiam opinion 8 summarizing our rulings on the questions presented. The expedited judgment and per curiam opinion served two additional purposes: (1) it enabled the EPA to commence rulemaking or other proceedings necessary to promulgate those revisions in the PSD regulations required by our rulings, and to take other prudent action to effectuate congressional policies; 9 and (2) it allowed the court to entertain, prior to the issuance of this opinion, narrowly focused petitions for reconsideration directed to the panel by the parties. 10
The three opinions issued today are in part an incorporation, with some enlargement of analysis, of the rulings in our per curiam opinion of June 18, 1979, together with modifications that the court has deemed appropriate in light of the petitions for reconsideration that have been filed. In view of the large number of questions raised, the members of the panel divided responsibility for preparation of discrete parts.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Opinion for the Court by Judge Leventhal Page
I. BACKGROUND OF PSD PROGRAM AND
REGULATIONS UNDER REVIEW ......... 346
II. POTENTIAL TO EMIT ................ 352
III. EXEMPTION OF 50 TPA CONTROLLED
SOURCES .......................... 355
IV. PROTECTION OF THE INCREMENTS ..... 361
V. APPLICATION OF PSD PERMITS TO
SOURCES IN NONATTAINMENT
AREAS ............................ 364
VI. FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES
RULEMAKING, AND EXEMPTION
AUTHORITY ........................ 368
VII. MONITORING ....................... 371
Opinion for the Court by Judge Robinson
I. BASELINE DATE .................... 374
II. BASELINE AND VOLUNTARY FUEL
SWITCHES ......................... 376
III. MODELING ......................... 381
IV. STACK HEIGHT ..................... 388
Opinion for the Court by Judge Wilkey
I. SOURCE DEFINITION ................ 394
II. MAJOR MODIFICATION/BUBBLE ........ 399
III. POLLUTANTS SUBJECT TO PSD
REGULATION AND THE "MAJOR
EMITTING FACILITY" THRESHOLD ..... 403
IV. DEFINITION OF BACT TO INCLUDE A
VISIBLE EMMISSION
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cape Cod Hosp. v. Sebelius
...is based within the agency's duties under the APA to provide a statement of the basis and purpose of rule itself. Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 384 (D.C.Cir.1979) ("The duty to respond to significant comments finds a statutory basis in required notice and comment procedures, fo......
-
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. Epa, No. 02-658.
...addressed potential air quality deterioration in areas where pollutant levels were lower than the NAAQS. Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 346-347 (CADC 1979). Responding to litigation initiated by an environmental group,2 however, EPA issued regulations in 1974 requiring that SIPs......
-
Chevron Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc American Iron and Steel Institute v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc Ruckelshaus v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc
...their endeavors to serve the legislators' will." 222 U.S.App.D.C., at 276, n. 39, 685 F.2d, at 726, n. 39. 6 Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 204 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 636 F.2d 323 (1979); ASARCO Inc. v. EPA, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 578 F.2d 319 7 Respondents argued below that EPA's plantwide definitio......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus
...v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 164, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944); 2 K. DAVIS, supra, at Sec. 7:8, 7:13.6 Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 365 (D.C.Cir.1979).7 Batterton, 432 U.S. at 424, 97 S.Ct. at 2404.8 General Elec. Co., 429 U.S. at 142, 97 S.Ct. at 411 (quoting Skidm......
-
EPA's Missed Opportunity To Ground Its GHG Tailoring Rule In The Statute: What The Situs Argument Would Mean For The Future Of The PSD Program
...American Chemistry Council v. EPA, No. 10-1167 (D.C. Cir.). 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671q, ELR Stat. CAA §§101-618. Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979), a 90-page opinion, defined the contours of EPA's PSD program, and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.......
-
The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejects U.S. EPA's Functional Interrelatedness Test For Air Aggregation
..."source" as "any structure, building, facility,equipment, installation, or operation (or combination thereof). 606 F.2d 1068 (1979). 636 F. 2d 323, 395 In September of 1979, EPA proposed to define "building, structure, facility and installation" for PSD purposes as "any grouping of pollutan......
-
'Utility Regulatory Group v. EPA': U.S. Supreme Court Stops EPA's Rewrite Of The Clean Air Act
...turn a blind eye to congressional judgments and legislative compromise in setting greenhouse gas rules. See Alabama Power Co. v. Castle, 636 F.2d 323, 350, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (noting the PSD and Title V programs were structured by Congress to avoid economic Most immediately, ......
-
(If) Things Fall Apart: Searching for Optimal Regulatory Solutions to Combating Climate Change Under Title I of the Existing CAA if Congressional Action Fails
...always have suicient allowances to cover their emissions. 191 184. The Road Ahead, supra note 8, at 86 (citing Ala. Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). 185. EPA does not go into the details of this argument in the ANPR and instead offers a rather circular para......
-
Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
...between rejecting EPA’s interpretation. See ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 8 ELR 20164 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 17. hen-Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion in Natural Res. Def. Council Inc. v. Gorsuch , 685 F.2d ......
-
Interstate Air Pollution Control Using Economic-Based Air Pollution Controls
...42 U.S.C. §§7470-7515, CAA §§160-193. 11. 578 F.2d 319, 8 ELR 20277 (D.C. Cir. 1978). 12. 606 F.2d 1068, 9 ELR 20400 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 13. 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 14. 685 F.2d 718, 12 ELR 20942 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 15. 467 U.S. 837, 14 ELR 20507 (1984). 16. 47 Fed. Reg. 15......
-
United States v. DTE Energy Co.: A Flawed Decision With Implications for the Future Enforceability of New Source Review
...ability to bring an enforcement action). 13. See 42 U.S.C. §7470. 14. See 42 U.S.C. §7475. 15. Id. 16. See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 400, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 17. U.S. EPA, Air Enforcement , supra note 9. 18. U.S. EPA, Coal-Fired Power Plant Enforcement , Enforcem......