Luminant Generation Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
675 F.3d 917
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- EPA disapproved Texas SIP revisions, including PCP Standard Permit 116.617, more than three years after deadline.
- Texas submitted amendments to 116.610(a), 116.610(b), and 116.617 to SIP for minor NSR PCPs.
- EPA’s final disapproval did not identify CAA provisions violated, instead relied on state-law SIP requirements.
- Texas’s PCP Standard Permit allows Director discretion with health/NAAQS safeguards; registration timing depends on project type.
- Court vacates EPA disapproval of 116.610(a) and 116.610(b) and remands to reconsider under minimal CAA minor NSR requirements.
- The proceeding emphasizes EPA’s statutory role under the CAA and limits the scope of SIP review to federal requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA relied on state law in disapproving Texas SIP. | Luminant argues EPA overstepped authority. | EPA contends it must ensure SIP meets CAA requirements. | Yes; EPA acted beyond statutory authority and must be vacated. |
| Whether EPA’s ‘similar source’ requirement is authorized by the CAA. | EPA cannot impose a similar-source limit for minor NSR. | EPA relied on the concept to restrict standard permits. | Unfounded; not authorized by the CAA. |
| Whether EPA’s replication requirement governs minor NSR SIPs. | No replicability standard exists in the Act for minor NSR. | EPA treated replicability as a standard. | No statutory basis for replicability; disapproval improper. |
| Whether EPA properly relied on its own analysis of Texas law without explaining CAA violations. | EPA failed to tie its disapproval to specific CAA provisions. | EPA cited SIP-program deficiencies. | EPA’s rationale insufficient; must remand for correct CAA-based review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (EPA’s role in implementing but not shaping SIPs)
- BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003) (States have primary responsibility; EPA’s role is ministerial under SIPs)
- Train v. Natural Resources Def. Council, 421 U.S. 60 (1975) (states may tailor emissions; EPA reviews SIPs for compliance)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Costle, 650 F.2d 579 (5th Cir. 1981) (illustrates EPA’s narrow role in SIP implementation)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) (limits on post hoc rationalizations; Cheneryprinciple)
- Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (Skidmore deference for non-Chevron agency interpretations)
- Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (states’ discretion in SIP formulation)
- City of Seabrook, Tex. v. EPA, 659 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1981) (state enforcement and implementation context under CAA)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (statutory interpretation in light of omissions)