Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA | |
---|---|
Argued October 8, 2003 Decided January 21, 2004 | |
Full case name | Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. |
Citations | 540 U.S. 461 (more) 124 S. Ct. 983; 157 L. Ed. 2d 967 |
Case history | |
Prior | Petition denied, 298 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2001); case suspended, 244 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2001); cert. granted, 537 U.S. 1186 (2003). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Breyer |
Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
Laws applied | |
Clean Air Act |
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004), is a US Supreme Court case clarifying the scope of state environmental regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court found the EPA has authority to overrule state agency decisions under the Clean Air Act that a company is using the "best available controlling technology" to prevent pollution.[1]
Background
The Clean Air Act requires state agencies to determine optimal methods of preventing air quality degradation in areas that meet national clean air standards.[2] The Act regulates air quality and establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards in every state to prevent public health issues.[3] The Act prohibits construction of major air polluting facilities that are not equipped with "the best available control technology" (BACT).[4]
In 1998, Teck Cominco Alaska, requested a permit to build an additional generator and to modify an existing generator at its mines in order to expand zinc extraction. In May 1999, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) issued the permit, and a technical report concluded that "Low NOx" technology was BACT and identified "selective catalytic reduction" (SCR) as the best control technology. The EPA opposed the permit and objected that the ADEC had identified SCR as the best available control technology but failed to require it as BACT.
The ADEC issued a second report reinforcing the original findings but conceded the lack of cost data from Teck Cominco made it impossible to evaluate the impact of SCR on the mine's profitability. The EPA issued orders to ADEC under §§113(a)(5) and 167 of the Act that prohibited the ADEC from issuing permits to Teck Cominco without documenting why SCR was not BACT.
The ADEC appealed the EPA's orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and argued that the EPA did not have the right to interfere with the state agency's decision. The Ninth Circuit sided with EPA, and ADEC appealed.
Issues
Under the Clean Air Act, can the EPA block construction of a new major pollutant emitting facility permitted by a state environmental regulator when the EPA finds the state environmental regulator's determination to be unreasonable? What standard of review applies to such actions?
Majority opinion
The Supreme Court held in its majority opinion that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to bar the construction of the polluting facility in Alaska. The EPA correctly interpreted that the Clean Air Act gave the authority to review state authorities' BACT determinations.[5]
Since the Act does not specify a standard for judicial review, the Supreme Court applied "the familiar default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act,[6]" of whether the EPA's action was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." It found that although EPA's orders were explained with "less than ideal clarity,"[7] the EPA's comments and orders were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Dissenting opinion
Justice Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, and found that Alaska's procedures were in full compliance with the Clean Air Act and the EPA's accompanying regulations that it promulgated. The EPA's action to overturn ADEC's decision was based on nothing more than its substantive disagreement with Alaska's discretionary judgment and exceeded its powers by setting aside Alaska's BACT determination.
See also
- Clean Air Act
- Environmental Protection Agency
References
- ^ Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004).
- ^ 42 U.S.C. § 7470(1).
- ^ EPA, OA, OP, ORPM, RMD, US (February 22, 2013). "Summary of the Clean Air Act". www.epa.gov. Retrieved February 15, 2017.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4).
- ^ The court found such authority in 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(5) and § 7477.
- ^ 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a).
- ^ Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974).
External links
- Text of Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- v
- t
- e
decisions
- Missouri v. Holland (1920)
- Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
- Vermont Yankee v. NRDC (1978)
- Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1990)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000)
- BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (2021)
federal legislation,
treaties,
and lower court
decisions
- Yellowstone National Park Protection Act (1872)
- Forest Service Organic Administration Act (1897)
- Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)
- Lacey Act (1900)
- Weeks Act (1911)
- North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911 (1911)
- Weeks–McLean Act (1913)
- Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)
- Clarke–McNary Act (1924)
- Oil Pollution Act (1924)
- McSweeney-McNary Act (1928)
- Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934)
- Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (1954)
- Air Pollution Control Act (1955)
- Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)
- Oil Pollution Act (1961)
- Clean Air Act (1963, 1970, 1977, 1990)
- Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission (2nd Cir. Court of Appeals, 1965)
- Solid Waste Disposal Act (1965)
- Endangered Species Act (1969)
- Environmental Quality Improvement Act (1970)
- National Environmental Policy Act (1970)
- Clean Water Act (1972, 1977, 1987, 2014)
- Coastal Zone Management Act (1972)
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1972)
- Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (1972)
- Noise Control Act (1972)
- Endangered Species Act (1973)
- Oil Pollution Act (1973)
- Safe Drinking Water Act (1974, 1986, 1996)
- Water Resources Development Act (1974, 1976, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2014, 2016, 2022)
- Federal Noxious Weed Act (1975)
- Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (1975)
- Magnuson–Stevens Act (1976)
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976)
- Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)
- Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977)
- Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (1978)
- CERCLA (Superfund) (1980)
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986)
- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)
- Global Change Research Act (1990)
- National Environmental Education Act (1990)
- Oil Pollution Act (1990)
- Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992
- Food Quality Protection Act (1996)
- Energy Policy Act (2005)
- Energy Independence and Security Act (2007)
- Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. Court of Appeals, 2012)
- Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (2016)
- America's Water Infrastructure Act (2018)
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)
- Louisiana v. Biden (5th Cir. Court of Appeals, 2022)
- CHIPS and Science Act (2022)
- Inflation Reduction Act (2022)
and concepts
- Best available technology
- Citizen suit
- Clean Power Plan
- Corporate average fuel economy
- Discharge Monitoring Report
- Effluent guidelines
- Environmental crime
- Environmental impact statement
- Environmental justice
- Executive Order 13432 (2007)
- Executive Order 13990 (2022)
- LDV Rule (2010)
- Maximum contaminant level
- National Ambient Air Quality Standards
- National Climate Assessment
- National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
- National Priorities List
- New Source Performance Standards
- New Source Review
- Not-To-Exceed (NTE)
- PACE financing
- Presidential Climate Action Plan
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Right to know
- Section 608 Certification
- Significant New Alternatives Policy
- State of the Climate
- Tailoring Rule (2010)
- Total maximum daily load
- Toxicity category rating
- Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action