United States v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148801
| D.N.D. | 2011Background
- The case concerns a consent decree over NOx BACT at Minnkota Power’s Milton R. Young Station (North Dakota lignite cyclone boilers).
- North Dakota performed a four-year BACT analysis; SCR was challenged by the EPA as not demonstrated, available, or applicable.
- North Dakota concluded SNCR plus ASOFA as BACT due to technical infeasibility of SCR in this facility.
- The NSR top-down process and the Consent Decree guide the review; EPA bears the burden to show unreasonableness.
- The United States sought dispute resolution and a stay; the court denied both motions.
- Final ruling: North Dakota’s BACT determination stands; SCR was not commercially available or applicable; SNCR+ASOFA is approved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA proved North Dakota’s SCR not demonstrated. | EPA contends SCR is demonstrated and available. | North Dakota found SCR not demonstrated for this site. | EPA failed to prove SCR not demonstrated. |
| Whether SCR is an available technology for this source. | SCR is commercially available industry-wide. | North Dakota found SCR unavailable due to site-specific factors. | SCR not available for Milton R. Young Station. |
| Whether SCR is an applicable technology for this source. | SCR is applicable to similar boilers. | SCR not applicable to this unique cyclone-fired, North Dakota lignite unit. | SCR not applicable; not deployable on this source. |
| Whether the court should stay dispute resolution proceedings. | Stay would conserve resources pending related Colorado case. | Stay would prejudice North Dakota and Minnkota Power. | Motion to stay denied. |
| Whether North Dakota acted reasonably in not setting a higher BACT emission limit. | SCR would yield higher reductions; should set higher limits. | BACT must be site-specific and reasonable; not mandated to set higher limits. | North Dakota reasonably did not set a higher emission limit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court 1936) (stays and docket management power; balancing hardship)
- Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (Supreme Court 2004) (burden of proof and reasonableness standard in review of agency action)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (Supreme Court 1974) (agency must articulate a rational connection between facts and decision)
- Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (Supreme Court 1989) (arbitrary and capricious vs. reasonableness standards; agency deference)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1983) (agency must consider relevant factors and provide rational explanation)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 2009) (upholding reasonable path in less-than-ideal clarity)
- Jones v. Clinton, 72 F.3d 1354 (8th Cir. 1996) (stay and docket management discussion reference)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court 1976) (agency discretion on technical expertise and review)