83% of a Loaf Is Better Than None: The Supreme Court Affirms EPA’s Authority to Regulate “Anyway Sources”, But Rejects Regulation of Otherwise Exempt Sources

by Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law
Contact

The Supreme Court affirmed EPA’s authority to subject 83% of greenhouse gas emissions to its PSD and Title V Operating Permit programs. However, EPA’s rationale for the rule did not fare so well, and EPA does not have authority to regulate GHG emissions from facilities not otherwise subject to PSD review or the Title V program.

To EPA and the court below, the main issue – EPA’s authority – was not difficult. PSD applies to “any regulated air pollutant.” Once EPA issued the tailpipe rule, GHGs became a regulated pollutant. Thus, EPA had not just discretion to regulate GHGs, it had a statutory duty.

The Supreme Court was not persuaded. The Court noted that there are numerous places in the Clean Air Act where EPA has limited the scope of a reference to “any pollutant.” It thus concluded that the definition of “any pollutant” must be context-dependent. Since the context persuaded the Court that the intent of the PSD program was to capture approximately 800 major sources, rather than 80,000 sources (many of them quite small), the Court concluded that the context revealed that EPA was not compelled to regulate GHG under the PSD program.

Turning to EPA’s discretionary authority, the Court concluded that EPA’s rule was not “within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.” Why not? Here, it was the Court which took the literal and simple, if not simplistic, interpretive approach. EPA’s rule just could not be squared with the volume thresholds in the CAA, and that problem could not be solved by the Tailoring Rule, because, the Court concluded, EPA had no authority to make up new exemption thresholds out of whole cloth.

So how did EPA end up with 83% of a loaf? Because sources representing 83% of carbon emissions in the U.S. are major sources for traditional criteria pollutants and thus subject to PSD anyway. Those facilities, when undergoing modifications, must attain BACT “for each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter.” While the majority was not willing to read “any pollutant” to mean “every pollutant”, it was willing to read “each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter” to mean “every pollutant.”

Whereas the dubious breadth of “any air pollutant” in the permitting triggers suggests a role for agency judgment in identifying the subset of pollutants covered by the particular regulatory program at issue, the more specific phrasing of the BACT provision suggests that the necessary judgment has already been made by Congress.

Justice Breyer dissented from the first part of the opinion, arguing that the majority itself amended the statute be creating “an atextual greenhouse gas exception to the phrase ‘any air pollutant.’” To Justice Breyer, EPA’s approach, creating an exception for sources based on their size, is truer to the statutory intent than the majority’s exception based on what is an “air pollutant.” There is a certain logic to Justice Breyer’s approach, but it is not surprising that five justices found those clear numerical thresholds in the statute difficult to avoid or ignore.

Which brings us to the real question for the day: what, if anything, does this portend for judicial review of EPA’s NSPS rule for existing sources. EPA and environmental NGOs are pointing to footnote 5, in which Justice Scalia made clear that this decision is not about EPA’s NSPS authority. Opponents of EPA’s NSPS rule emphasize sections of the majority opinion which seem to show great reluctance authorize EPA to regulate energy use or to regulate “outside the fence” of a source’s emissions.

I wouldn’t read too much into this opinion. It is clear that the four justices in the minority will be inclined to support an EPA existing source rule similar to EPA’s draft. It is not clear to me that Scalia, Kennedy, or Roberts would necessarily oppose EPA’s authority. While there is text in the decision seeming to limit EPA to regulating “inside the fence”, it is also clear that EPA’s NSPS rule, which only affects electric utility generating units, does not pose the same kind of interpretive difficulty as the PSD program’s numerical emissions thresholds. I’m still not betting on whether the NSPS rule will survive judicial review, but however you’re handicapping it, I don’t think that UARG v. EPA changes the odds.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.