Supreme Court Rebukes EPA's Broad Interpretation Of Its Power To Regulate GHGs And Sends Message For EPA To Carefully Proceed With Its Ongoing GHG Programs

by Jackson Walker
Contact

Environmental Header

On June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision,1 affirmed in part and reversed in part the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") greenhouse gas ("GHG") permitting regulations.

This ruling strikes down the EPA's "Timing Rule" and "Tailoring Rule" and has direct implications on state and federal GHG permitting programs. While the Court allows EPA to continue to require GHG reviews for large projects otherwise required to obtain or modify a Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") permit, the language of the opinion sends a strong message that EPA will need to limit GHG reviews in certain key ways if they hope to survive judicial scrutiny in the future.

Rejection of Timing Rule

The Court concluded that the Timing Rule was a misapplication of previous court rulings, as its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA was "not a command to regulate, but a description of the universe of substances EPA may consider regulating under the Act's operative provisions." The Court's analysis began by rejecting the EPA's contention that by implementing motor–vehicle greenhouse–gas standards, it would then be compelled to regulate sources of GHGs under the PSD program. In its 2010 Timing Rule, the EPA determined that once GHGs were actually being controlled under any part of the Clean Air Act, GHGs would also become subject to regulation under the PSD program.

However, as noted in the Court's opinion, the EPA has a history of assigning the term "any air pollutant" a "context-appropriate meaning." Under various programs, the EPA has interpreted the definition of "any air pollutant" as something other than "all airborne compounds of whatever stripe." As the Court noted,

  It is plain as day that the [Clean Air] Act does not envision an elaborate, burdensome permitting process for major emitters of steam, oxygen, or other harmless airborne substances...Massachusetts does not foreclose the Agency's use of statutory context to infer that certain of the Act's provisions use 'air pollutant' to denote not every conceivable airborne substance, but only those that may sensibly be encompassed within the particular regulatory program.  


As such, the Court held that there is no requirement that the EPA regulate GHGs under the PSD and Title V permitting programs merely because GHGs are air pollutants.

Rejection of Tailoring Rule

As to the Tailoring Rule, the Court was even more emphatic in its rejection, stating, "An agency has no power to 'tailor' legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms...[T]hey must always 'give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.'" In recent years, the Supreme Court has been hesitant to overturn EPA's interpretation of environmental statutes under the Chevron deference rule, but in this case, the Court felt the EPA has clearly gone too far.2

Under the Clean Air Act, an emissions source is subject to PSD and Title V permitting requirements if it exceeds 250 tons per year of any air pollutant (or 100 tons per year for some types of sources). If these thresholds were applied to GHGs, churches, schools, restaurants, and offices would be required to obtain PSD permits for GHG emissions. In other words, the Clean Air Act was not intended to treat GHGs as a pollutant subject to PSD permitting requirements. In an effort to avoid these "absurd results," the EPA finalized the "Tailoring Rule" in which it established a new threshold of 100,000 tons per year for GHGs.

In rejecting the Tailoring Rule, the Court noted, "it is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous than the precise numerical thresholds at which the Act requires PSD and Title V permitting. When the EPA replaced these numbers with others of its own choosing, it went well beyond the 'bounds of its statutory authority.'"

Applicability of BACT

The Court also determined that "anyway sources" – emissions sources that are required to obtain PSD permits regardless of its GHG emissions – can still be required to use the best available control technology ("BACT") to control greenhouse gases. However, in so doing, the court clearly articulated limits on how the EPA can apply BACT. Specifically, the Court articulated three important limitations that EPA will need to abide by:3

1) BACT must be based on an applicant's proposed facility, and cannot be used to order a fundamental redesign of the facility;

2) BACT can only be applied to pollutants that the source itself emits and cannot be used to require "reductions in a facility's demand for energy from the electric grid" and

3) GHG BACT applies only if the source emits more than a de minimis amount of greenhouse gases.

Path Forward

While the Court concluded that "anyway sources" may be required to meet BACT for GHGs as part of PSD permit reviews for other pollutants, the Court struck down EPA's ability to require PSD or Title V permits for GHGs in all other circumstances. Therefore, EPA will have to undertake new rulemaking proceedings to adopt regulations to address the Court's ruling to distinguish and deal with "anyway sources" and the rest of the regulated community and define a "de minimis" level below which BACT review will not be required of "anyway sources." At this point, it is unclear how states who have implemented GHG permitting programs will respond to the Supreme Court ruling. In Texas, immediate changes will need to be implemented to comply with state law, which limits the TCEQ's authority to require GHG permits in the absence of a federal mandate to do so.4

1 Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, but only sections I and II were joined by a majority, Chief Justice Roberts and justice Kennedy joined the opinion in full, while Justices Thomas and Alito joined as to Parts I, II-A, and II-B-1. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan also joined as to Part II-B-2. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Finally, Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Thomas joined.

2 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837.

3 It should also be noted that Section II-B-2 was joined by seven Justices.

4 See Tex. Health & Safety Code §382.05102(e).


 

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.

© Jackson Walker | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Jackson Walker
Contact
more
less

Jackson Walker 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.
Custom Email Digest
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.