Luminant Generation Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
714 F.3d 841
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- This case reviews the EPA's final rule partially approving and partially disapproving Texas SIP revisions addressing excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
- EPA approved the unplanned SSM affirmative defense and disapproved the planned SSM affirmative defense in the Texas SIP revision submitted in 2006.
- Texas had long provided for SSM sanctions and exemptions; prior EPA actions and Bennet/Herman memos shaped the policy landscape.
- The CAA mandates SIP review, potential partial approval/disapproval, and enforcement mechanisms, including penalties and citizen suits.
- The court applies Chevron, Mead, and Auer principles to assess the EPA's interpretation of the statute and regulations.
- The court denies both Environmental Petitioners' and Industry Petitioners' review petitions, sustaining the EPA's partial approval and disapproval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EPA had statutory authority to approve an affirmative defense for unplanned SSM | Environmental Petitioners contend the defense exceeds authority | EPA argues 7413 authorizes narrowly tailored defenses | Held: EPA interpretation entitled to deference; within statutory authority |
| Whether EPA's approval of unplanned SSM defense was arbitrary and capricious | Environmental Petitioners claim irrational rationale | EPA provided rational, policy-based justifications | Held: EPA's rationale passes rationality standard |
| Whether EPA altered the SIP's meaning by approving unplanned but not planned SSM defenses | Environmental Petitioners claim SIP meaning shifted, affecting citizen suits | EPA stated approvals do not preclude citizen suits and do not alter state policy | Held: No impermissible alteration of SIP meaning or expansion of rights |
| Whether EPA's disapproval of the planned SSM defense was proper under 7413 | Industry Petitioners argue for broader approval | EPA found planned defense not narrowly tailored and inconsistent with 7413 | Held: Disapproval upheld; planned SSM not narrowly tailored; severability not required |
Key Cases Cited
- BCCA Appeal Grp. v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003) (EPA must review SIPs for consistency with the Act; broad deference to EPA interpretations)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (S. Ct. 1984) (Two-step framework for agency interpretations of statutes)
- Mead Corp. v. United States EPA, 533 U.S. 218 (S. Ct. 2001) (Agency decision-making process; when Chevron applies)
- Tex. Oil & Gas Ass’n v. U.S. EPA, 161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998) (Agency interpretation must meet minimal rationality; deference applied)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Costle, 650 F.2d 579 (5th Cir. 1981) (EPA can approve SIP revisions that meet the Act; partial approvals authorized)