New York v. Environmental Protection Agency
373 F.3d 1251 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has broad discretion to define ambiguous statutory terms, such as what constitutes an emissions "increase" for New Source Review purposes. However, the agency exceeds its authority when its rules contradict the statute's plain language, which requires measuring actual emissions, or when it creates exemptions not authorized by Congress.
Facts:
- In 1970 and 1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) to require major stationary sources of air pollution to obtain a preconstruction permit under the New Source Review (NSR) program if they underwent a "modification."
- The CAA defines a "modification" as any physical or operational change that "increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted" by the source.
- The EPA promulgated regulations in 1980 establishing an "actual-to-potential" test to determine if an emissions increase occurred, comparing past actual emissions to future potential emissions.
- In 1992, following the WEPCo decision, the EPA created an "actual-to-projected-actual" test specifically for electric utilities, which also included a "demand growth exclusion" for increases unrelated to the physical change.
- In 2002, the EPA issued a final rule making several significant changes to the NSR program, which were challenged by industry, environmental, and government petitioners.
- The 2002 rule extended the "actual-to-projected-actual" test to all sources, established a 10-year "lookback" period for sources to select a 2-year baseline of past actual emissions, and created new programs like Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs).
- The 2002 rule also created a "Clean Unit" provision, exempting certain units from NSR for 10 years, and a "Pollution Control Project" (PCP) exemption for projects that reduced one pollutant while causing a collateral increase in another.
- Finally, the rule only required sources to keep records of a change if they determined there was a "reasonable possibility" of a significant emissions increase.
Procedural Posture:
- Numerous petitioners, including industry groups, environmental organizations, and various state and local governments, filed petitions for review of the EPA's 2002 final rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- Some of these petitions also revived previously stayed challenges to the EPA's 1980 and 1992 NSR rules.
- The D.C. Circuit consolidated all petitions for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceed its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act or act arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating its 2002 rule that redefined key components of the New Source Review (NSR) program, including the methods for calculating baseline and projected emissions?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, in part, and no, in part. The EPA exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously with respect to some provisions of the 2002 rule, but acted permissibly with respect to others. The court upheld several key components of the rule, finding them to be reasonable interpretations of ambiguous provisions in the Clean Air Act and entitled to deference under Chevron Step 2. These upheld provisions include: the use of an actual-to-projected-actual emissions test, the 10-year lookback period for establishing baseline emissions, the exclusion of emissions increases from unrelated demand growth, and the Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PAL) program. The court found that the CAA is silent on the specific methodology for calculating an emissions "increase," and EPA reasonably balanced economic, environmental, and administrative concerns in crafting these flexible approaches. However, the court found three provisions of the rule unlawful. The Clean Unit provision was vacated because it violated the plain language of the CAA. The statute requires measuring increases in pollutants "emitted," which the court interpreted to mean actual emissions, not simply complying with an "emission limitation" as the Clean Unit test allowed. The Pollution Control Project (PCP) exemption was also vacated because the CAA provides no statutory authority for the EPA to create such a broad exemption for projects that are physical changes and result in collateral emissions increases. Finally, the court found the recordkeeping provision, which allows sources to self-determine whether to keep records based on a "reasonable possibility" of an increase, to be arbitrary and capricious. The EPA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how it could enforce NSR compliance without access to the data on which sources base their no-NSR determinations.
Concurring - Williams, S.C.J.
Yes. Judge Williams joined the majority opinion in full but wrote separately to clarify the scope of the remand and offer broader commentary. He explained that on remand, the EPA's task is to analyze the trade-off between the burdens of data collection and the benefits of improved compliance, and to articulate a reasoned judgment for its choice, not to achieve perfect compliance. He also commented on the inherent difficulties of the CAA's "command-and-control" regulatory structure, which creates incentives for owners to prolong the life of older, dirtier plants to avoid the high cost of retrofitting triggered by a "modification." He suggested that market-based approaches, like emissions charges or marketable permits, would be more efficient.
Analysis:
This case is a significant application of the Chevron doctrine to complex environmental rulemaking. The court's split decision affirms the EPA's substantial discretion to interpret ambiguous statutory terms, granting the agency flexibility in balancing economic and environmental goals, as seen in the upholding of the lookback period and PALs. However, the decision also establishes clear limits on that discretion, reinforcing that an agency cannot contravene the plain language of a statute (as with the Clean Unit and PCP provisions) or fail to provide a rational basis for its rules (as with the recordkeeping provision). The ruling provided victories for both industry (which gained operational flexibility) and environmental advocates (who defeated what they saw as major loopholes), setting the stage for future legal battles over the enforcement and interpretation of the NSR program.
