Earlier this week, EPA was ordered to take final action on a Clean Air Act § 126(b) petition filed by the State of Connecticut, asserting that emissions from the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station in Pennsylvania contribute to nonattainment in Connecticut. EPA did not dispute liability; it had clearly missed the original statutory deadline. The case was all about the remedy. EPA asked to be given until December 31, 2018 to respond. Plaintiffs said EPA could respond within 60 days.
Noting the “heavy burden” EPA bears in trying to demonstrate that it cannot comply with the congressionally mandated timeline, The Court ordered a response within 60 days, concluding that:
Defendants’ proposed schedule contravenes the congressional intent that EPA “act quickly on a Section 126(b) petition.”
I noted last spring that we are likely to see more of these cases and I think we’re also going to see increasing judicial impatience with agency delay. I also wonder if this case might be the first bit of evidence that Scott Pruitt’s order precluding the notorious – if mythical – practice of “sue and settle” may have come back to bite EPA.
EPA had to know it was going to lose this case. In bygone days – meaning 2016 – EPA would have negotiated for the best schedule it could have gotten. If EPA had told the plaintiffs it would respond to the petition within 90 or even 120 days, my guess is that the plaintiffs would have accepted such a proposal. Given the Pruitt memorandum, that was not possible. The outcome? The worst possible result for EPA.
Just wonderin’.
(Full disclosure. Foley Hoag has represented Talen Energy, owner of Brunner Island, on matters unrelated to Brunner Island. We take no position on the merits of the underlying § 126(b) petition.)
