Natural Resources Defense Council v. Poet Biorefining-North Manchester, LLC Poet Biorefining-Cloverdale, LLC Central Indiana Ethanol, Inc.
987 N.E.2d 531
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- IDEM issued 2010 permits for fuel-grade ethanol facilities without classifying them as chemical process plants under PSD.
- Facilities classified outside chemical process plants may emit up to 250 tons per year; inside that category, 100 tons per year applies.
- NRDC challenged IDEM’s classification; OEA determined they should be chemical process plants and subject to 100 tpy limits.
- Indiana SIP and PSD incorporation were not amended or approved by EPA to reflect EPA’s 2007 exclusion of ethanol plants.
- Indiana law and IDEM rules later echoed excluding certain ethanol plants from chemical process plant status, but SIP modification never received EPA approval.
- Trial court reversed OEA, holding ethanol plants could be excluded from the chemical process plant category; the Indiana courts relied on legislative intent and EPA rule as clarifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA SIP modification approval was required to reclassify ethanol plants. | NRDC: SIP modification needed; EPA rule change governs but not self-executed by state. | IDEM: EPA rule change could be interpreted to alter state program without SIP amendment. | SIP modification required; EPA approval was not obtained. |
| Whether IDEM’s pre-2007 treatment of ethanol plants as chemical process plants bound the state to that interpretation. | NRDC: prior consistent treatment cannot be overturned without formal rulemaking. | IDEM: EPA rule change and Indiana legislation reflect intent to exclude ethanol plants. | Past interpretations do not avoid EPA SIP amendment; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Air for Everyone v. U.S. E.P.A., 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007) (SIP modifications require EPA approval)
- Sierra Club v. Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp., 716 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir. 1983) (SIP modifications effective only with EPA approval)
- Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (APA notice-and-comment rulemaking required for regulatory changes)
- Alaska Professional Hunters Ass’n, Inc. v. F.A.A., 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency interpretations require notice and comment when revising rules)
- Huffman v. Office of Envtl. Adjudication, 811 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2004) (AOPA standards govern review of agency action)