Oklahoma v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
723 F.3d 1201
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Consolidated petitions challenge the EPA’s final Regional Haze rule under the Clean Air Act.
- EPA rejected Oklahoma’s SIP BART determinations for OG&E’s Muskogee and Sooner units and promulgated a FIP with tighter SO2 limits.
- Oklahoma’s SIP proposed 0.65 lb/mmBtu (30-day) and 0.55 lb/mmBtu (annual) limits; EPA-set FIP: 0.06 lb/mmBtu (30-day).
- EPA based determinations on BART guidelines and evaluated costs using the Control Cost Manual and EPA consultants; Oklahoma challenged cost methodologies.
- Petitions were filed February 24, 2012; a stay on SIP-related requirements was granted pending merits proceedings.
- Court applies Chevron and APA standards to review EPA actions and defers to agency technical judgments where reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA authority to review and replace SIP with FIP | Oklahoma argues EPA lacks authority to disapprove BART and substitute its own. | EPA may review SIPs and promulgate a FIP when a SIP is deficient. | EPA has statutory authority to review BART determinations and replace rejected SIP with a FIP. |
| Arbitrary/capricious use of cost estimates to justify SIP rejection | OG&E contends EPA relied on flawed 2008 and 2009 cost data. | EPA reasonably rejected noncompliant cost estimates per guidelines and used proper adjustments. | EPA's cost-estimate adjustments were not arbitrary or capricious under APA standards. |
| Baseline emissions and scrubber-size feasibility in FIP analysis | Petitioners argue EPA ignored historical baselines and used infeasible smaller scrubbers. | EPA adequately justified baseline and design assumptions; deferential to technical expertise. | EPA’s baseline and feasibility determinations were not arbitrary under the record and guidelines. |
| Procedural sufficiency of issuing FIP with SIP disapproval in same action | Petitioners claim procedural defect by combining SIP disapproval with FIP in one action. | Statute permits FIP after SIP findings of noncompliance; consolidation does not invalidate. | EPA did not violate procedural requirements by issuing FIP in the same action as SIP disapproval. |
| Dollar-per-ton vs dollar-per-deciview in visibility cost analysis | Oklahoma argues for dollar-per-deciview metric; EPA used dollar-per-ton. | Guidelines permit multiple cost-effectiveness metrics; dollar-per-ton was reasonable. | It was reasonable for EPA to use dollar-per-ton metric despite Oklahoma’s preference. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Magnesium, LLC v. EPA, 690 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2012) (discusses cooperative federalism and agency review under CAA/APA)
- American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (limits on EPA’s application of Regional Haze BART rules)
- Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253 (Supreme Court 1986) (agency deadlines and remedies; does not require loss of power to act)
- Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (high level of deference to agency rulemaking where central to public rights)
- Covad Communications Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (reasoned decisionmaking and responses to comments in rulemaking)