EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Environmental Protection Agency
417 App. D.C. 381
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set NAAQS and states to adopt SIPs; the "good neighbor" provision bars upwind emissions that "contribute significantly to nonattainment" or "interfere with maintenance" in downwind States.
- EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule) in 2011 using a two-step method: (1) identify upwind-to-downwind "linkages" (≥1% contribution) and (2) impose uniform cost-based emissions controls ($/ton thresholds) on linked upwind States to meet downwind NAAQS.
- Petitioners challenged the Rule as facially and "as-applied," arguing EPA s uniform second-step method causes "over-control" (requiring reductions beyond what is necessary for downwind attainment).
- The D.C. Circuit initially vacated the Rule; the Supreme Court reversed that broad relief but held that successful particularized as-applied over-control challenges are permissible. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
- On remand, petitioners brought as-applied challenges to specific 2014 emissions budgets (SO2 and ozone-season NOx) for multiple States; EPA defended its uniform thresholds and modeling choices.
- The D.C. Circuit held several 2014 budgets invalid for over-control (remanding without vacatur) but rejected petitioners other facial and methodological claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA s uniform cost-threshold approach over-controls specific upwind States (as-applied) | Uniform $/ton thresholds forced some States to reduce emissions beyond what was needed for every downwind linkage (impermissible over-control) | Uniform thresholds and incidental over-attainment are justified to prevent free-riding and promote uniformity | As-applied: Court invalidated certain 2014 budgets (SO2 for TX, AL, GA, SC; ozone-season NOx for FL, MD, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TX, VA, WV) because EPA required reductions beyond what was necessary for linked downwind attainment; remanded without vacatur. |
| Proper scope of EPA s correction of prior SIP approvals (use of 7410(k)(6)) | EPA could not rescind previously approved CAIR-based SIP approvals absent an "error"; remand without vacatur of CAIR means approvals weren t "in error" | North Carolina v. EPA rendered CAIR approvals legally erroneous; EPA permissibly revised approvals via rulemaking under 7410(k)(6) using the APA "good cause" exception | Court upheld EPA s use of 7410(k)(6) here, finding prior CAIR approvals were "in error" and EPA s correction via rulemaking was permissible. |
| Validity of EPA s modeling choices (base-year data and generation/emissions projections) | Models used insufficient/post-2007 data and had prediction discrepancies, rendering modeling arbitrary and capricious | Models reasonably used pre-2008 data to avoid CAIR-driven distortion and discrepancies were small/random, within permissible agency discretion | Court upheld EPA s modeling as not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether Transport Rule failed to give independent effect to the "interfere with maintenance" prong | Transport Rule repeated CAIR s error by not treating maintenance prong independently and risked duplicative control | Transport Rule separately identified maintenance receptors and evaluated contributions to maintenance independently | Court held Transport Rule gave independent significance to the maintenance prong; petitioners generalized maintenance-prong challenges were rejected (but allowed as-applied claims). |
Key Cases Cited
- EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014) (Supreme Court: upheld Transport Rule facially but allowed particularized as-applied over-control challenges)
- North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (invalidated CAIR and required EPA to rebuild its approach)
- North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remand without vacatur of CAIR to preserve environmental values while replacement was developed)
- Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (precedent on EPA s regulatory authority under the CAA)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (deferential review of EPA modeling choices)
- Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (models simplify reality; imperfections do not alone render agency action arbitrary)