Narrative Opinion Summary
This case examines the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the Regional Haze Rule under the Clean Air Act, specifically targeting visibility impairment in Class I Federal areas. The rule mandates the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to significant pollution sources operational between 1962 and 1977. Both industry and environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing either excessive or insufficient application of BART. The court upheld the Haze Rule as a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act. The decision supports the EPA's authority to require BART and to permit states to adopt alternative measures that potentially offer greater visibility improvements. The court also affirmed the validity of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as a BART alternative, which mandates sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides reductions in 28 eastern states. The CAIR's effectiveness was evaluated in terms of overall progress rather than site-specific improvements, aligning with the EPA's interpretation of 'reasonable progress' under the Act. The court ultimately denied the petitions against the EPA's regulatory framework, supporting the agency's discretion in implementing visibility improvement measures.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms that the EPA's requirement for states to apply BART to large stationary sources is a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act, focusing on visibility impairment in Class I areas.
Reasoning: The court affirms the Haze Rule, asserting it is a reasonable interpretation of the CAA, which aims to prevent and remedy visibility impairment in Class I areas.
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as a BART Alternativesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The CAIR is upheld as a valid BART alternative, provided it achieves greater reasonable progress in emission reductions across affected areas, though it is not required to surpass BART at every individual site.
Reasoning: The EPA presented analyses indicating that CAIR would yield greater overall emissions reductions and visibility improvements than BART.
Collective Contribution Approach in Visibility Impairmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The collective contribution approach permits states to adopt a method that considers the total effect of multiple sources on visibility impairment, although it was contested for bypassing individual source assessments.
Reasoning: The collective attribution approach requires sources to demonstrate that they do not impair visibility, thus shifting the burden to them.
EPA's Authority Under the Clean Air Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upholds the EPA's discretion in setting guidelines for BART and BART alternatives, emphasizing that states have broad authority over implementing these measures.
Reasoning: The Corn Growers ruling emphasized that these factors should be evaluated collectively by states, although the EPA cannot mandate a collective evaluation of the improvement factor while requiring separate evaluations for the other factors.
Reasonable Progress Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The EPA's interpretation of 'reasonable progress' under the Clean Air Act, which allows for aggregate improvements in visibility, is deemed reasonable even if individual sites do not achieve greater improvements than BART.
Reasoning: The Act does not impose a mandatory requirement that the EPA read into its provisions, and the EPA's interpretation is deemed reasonable.