New Source Review

Last updated

A New Source Review (NSR) is a permitting process created by the US Congress in 1977 as part of a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. The NSR process requires industry to undergo an Environmental Protection Agency pre-construction review for environmental controls if they propose either building new facilities or any modifications to existing facilities that would create a "significant increase" of a regulated pollutant. The legislation allowed "routine scheduled maintenance" to not be covered in the NSR process. [1] Since the terms "significant increase" and "routine scheduled maintenance" were never precisely defined in legislation, they have become a source of contention in many lawsuits filed by the EPA, public interest groups, and utilities.

Contents

Major New Source Review court cases

Wisconsin Energy Corporation lawsuit

In 1988 the Wisconsin Energy Corporation (WEPCo) submitted an NSR inquiry to the EPA for improvements at its Port Washington plant. The improvements included the replacement and repair of aging equipment including steam turbine generators, major boiler components and significant amounts of asbestos remediation. WEPCo initially believed that the plant, built in 1932, would not be subject to the NSR requirements and would instead fall under "routine maintenance, repair, and replacement". The EPA, however, ruled that the improvements would extend the life of the plant, and constitute a long term and significant increase in the facilities emissions, prompting WEPCo to sue the EPA in federal court. [2]

In 1991 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the EPA had improperly interpreted the NSR and ruled that work that "does not 'change or alter' the design or nature of the facility", would render the facility exempt from the NSR rules. Rather, it merely allows the facility to operate again as it had before the specific equipment deteriorated." The appeals court also ruled that WEPCo would not emit any more pollutants after the improvements, and agreed with WEPCo that its emissions would actually decrease and that the EPA had miscalculated its estimation of the plants emissions. However the court did agree with the EPA that the repairs and modifications to the plant did not constitute "routine maintenance" [3] After the WEPCo ruling, the EPA continued to take a case-by-case approach to NSR's at facilities built before 1977, viewing the court's ruling as applying to the power sector specifically and not to all similar NSR applications in general. [4]

Duke Energy

Between 1998 and 2000, Charlotte based Duke Energy made 29 modifications and upgrades to several of its coal-generated units. These modifications, like the ones at WEPCo, had no impact on unit emission and were designed to replace or upgrade older equipment. Duke did not apply for or obtain permits from the EPA for this work, and were sued. The EPA argued that the modifications and upgrades could significantly increase the dispatch capacity of the units, and allow them to operate at higher outputs for longer periods of time, placing Duke in excess of the EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), requiring an automatic NSR. [5]

Duke Energy initially prevailed in both the trial as well as the appeal in front of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, when they ruled that the EPA's rulings were inconsistent with prior decisions and that the EPA's previous interpretation of the NSR would also have to be applied to its application of its PSD rule. [6] The EPA, along with the North Carolina Sierra Club appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which in a unanimous decision, overturned the Fourth Circuit's decision. The Court ruled the term "modification" did not have the same meaning in the PSD and NSPS provisions. [7]

Bush administration

Environmental groups expressed strong anger toward the EPA's decision in August 2003 to significantly relax the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act, arguing that it will substantially harm the quality of the air, increase respiratory ailments, such as asthma, and cause thousands of premature deaths. Furthermore, a report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said that the EPA had relied not on scientific evidence but merely on anecdotal evidence from utilities to build a case for the new law. Because the changes to the New Source Review substantially weaken the Clean Air Act's ability to prevent pollution and cause many existing enforcement efforts to be dropped, twelve states (New York, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia sued the Bush Administration in October 2003 to block the changes to the New Source Review that are seen as a major rollback of the Clean Air Act and a hazard to public health. On December 24, 2003, a federal court ruled that the new NSR rules could not go into effect until the lawsuit had been fully adjudicated. When the new rules were being proposed, the EPA administrator claimed that the new rules would not stop any enforcement actions against utilities that had been started under the previous administration and were still ongoing, but shortly after the rules were adopted, the EPA decided to drop most of those lawsuits.

State involvement

In the 1990s, EPA began an initiative to enforce new source review requirements against coal-fired power plants. The EPA effort was often supplemented by separate enforcement actions filed by the states and non-governmental organizations filing or intervening as co-plaintiffs [8] under private causes of action in the Clean Air Act. [9] Defendant's opposed states serving as intervenors and co-plaintiffs arguing that plaintiffs were interpreting the law more stringently than it was designed. The results of the initiative varied.

See also

Related Research Articles

A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a United States state plan for complying with the federal Clean Air Act, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The SIP, developed by a state agency and approved by EPA, consists of narrative, rules, technical documentation, and agreements that an individual state will use to control and clean up polluted areas.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute", so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which twelve states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.

The Acid Rain Program is a market-based initiative taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to reduce overall atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain. The program is an implementation of emissions trading that primarily targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits according to individual needs and costs. In 2011, the trading program that existed since 1995 was supplemented by four separate trading programs under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 21, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its Opinion and Order in the appeal of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for two independent legal reasons. The stay on CSAPR was lifted in October 2014, allowing implementation of the law and its trading programs to begin.

United States vehicle emission standards are set through a combination of legislative mandates enacted by Congress through Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments from 1970 onwards, and executive regulations managed nationally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and more recently along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These standard cover common motor vehicle air pollution, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions, and newer versions have incorporated fuel economy standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental policy of the United States</span> Governmental action to protect the environment

The environmental policy of the United States is a federal governmental action to regulate activities that have an environmental impact in the United States. The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. As his first official act bringing in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon signed the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on New Years Day, 1970. Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation." NEPA established a comprehensive US national environmental policy and created the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.” Author and consultant Charles H. Eccleston has called NEPA, the world's “environmental Magna Carta”.

<i>Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.</i>

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 4:08-cv-01138, is a lawsuit filed on February 26, 2008, in a United States district court. The suit, based on the common law theory of nuisance, claims monetary damages from the energy industry for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska by flooding caused by climate change. The damage estimates made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Government Accountability Office are placed between $95 million and $400 million. This lawsuit is an example of greenhouse gas emission liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Air Act (United States)</span> United States federal law to control air pollution

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. Initially enacted in 1963 and amended many times since, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws.

The Tulane Environmental Law Clinic (TELC) is a legal clinic that Tulane Law School has operated since 1989 to offer law students the practical experience of representing real clients in actual legal proceedings under state and federal environmental laws.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

The, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are currently controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. The basis for regulations was upheld in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2012.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context. In a unanimous decision, the court held in favor of the plaintiff's argument.

Arnstein & Lehr was a national law firm founded in Chicago in 1893, with offices in Chicago, and Springfield, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa, and West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm represented business enterprises in significant legal victories in the United States and Puerto Rico. Its representation of Sears, Roebuck and Co. since 1895 is one of the country's longest continuous attorney-client relationships. On September 1, 2017, Arnstein & Lehr, LLP combined with Saul Ewing to form Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP with 14 offices and over 400 attorneys.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Power Plan</span> United States energy plan from President Obama

The Clean Power Plan was an Obama administration policy aimed at combating anthropogenic climate change that was first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2014. The final version of the plan was unveiled by President Obama on August 3, 2015. Each state was assigned an individual goal for reducing carbon emissions, which could be accomplished how they saw fit, but with the possibility of the EPA stepping in if the state refused to submit a plan. If every state met its target, the plan was projected to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation 32% by 2030, relative to 2005 levels, as well as achieving various health benefits due to reduced air pollution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration</span> Environmental policy as enforced by the Donald Trump administration

The environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration represented a shift from the policy priorities and goals of the preceding Barack Obama administration. Where President Obama's environmental agenda prioritized the reduction of carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy with the goal of conserving the environment for future generations, the Trump administration policy was for the US to attain energy independence based on fossil fuel use and to rescind many environmental regulations. By the end of Trump's term, his administration had rolled back 98 environmental rules and regulations, leaving an additional 14 rollbacks still in progress. As of early 2021, the Biden administration was making a public accounting of regulatory decisions under the Trump administration that had been influenced by politics rather than science.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a U.S. Supreme Court case related to the Clean Air Act and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

References

  1. ↑ EPA Factsheet on New Source Review
  2. ↑ New Source Review for Stationary Sources of Air Pollution. National Research Council. 2006
  3. ↑ Wisconsin Electric Power vs. Reilly. 1991
  4. ↑ Air Quality Management in the United States. National Academies Press. 2004. pg 183-187
  5. ↑ Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp, Duke University Law School
  6. ↑ Duke Energy Press Release
  7. ↑ Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp, Supreme Court Ruling
  8. ↑ See, For example, United States v. Cinergy Corp., 458 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2006), United States v. American Electric Power Service Corp., 137 F.Supp. 2d 1060 (S.D. Ohio 2001), TVA v. Whitman, 336 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2003), Sierra Club v. TVA, 430 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005).
  9. ↑ 42 U.S.C. 7604
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.