F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

W I L D E A R

T H G U A R D I A N S , P etitioner
,

v

.

U.S. E N V I R O N M E N T AL P R

O T E C T I O N A G E N C Y ; G I N A M C C A R

T H Y , in her official capacity

as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency , * Respondents
,

S I E R R A P A C I F I C P O W

E R C O M P A N Y ; N E V A D A P O W

E R C O M P A

N Y ; T H E S T A T E O F N E V

A D A , D I V I S I O N O F E N V I R O N M E N T A L P R

O T E C T I O N , R espondents-Intervenors

. N o. 12-71523

OPI NI ON

O n Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Ag ency

Arg ued and Submitted May 14, 2014—San F rancisco, California

* Gin a McCarth y is su

b stitu ted f o r h er p red ecesso r, L isa P. J ack s o n , as A d m in istrato r of t

h e U.S. En v iro n m en tal Pro tectio n A g en cy

. Fed

. R. A p p

. P . 4 3 (c)(2 ).W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 2

F iled J uly 17, 2014

B efore: M. Marg aret McKeown and Milan D. Smith, J r., Circuit J udg es, and J ames L . Robart, District J udg e. * *

O pinion by

J udg e Milan D. Smith, J r.

SUMMARY * * *

Environm ental Law

The panel dismissed in part and denied in p art a petition for review of the Environmental Prote c t i o n Ag e ncy ’s approval of the State of Nevada’s State I mplementation Plan for reg ional haz e under the Clean Air Act.

W ildEarth Guardians, a non-profit environmental

o r g aniz ation, alleg e d that Nevada’s State I mplementation Plan (SI P) was inadequate, and the EPA’s decision to approve it was arbitrary

and capricious.

The p anel held that W ildEarth Guardians lac k e d Article I I I s t a n ding to challeng e the EPA’s approval of the SI P’s for m u l ation of reasonable prog ress g oals for improving visi bility conditions in the J arbridg e Wilderness Area in northeastern Nevada. The p a nel also held that W ildEarth

** T h e Ho n o rab le J am e s L

. Ro b art, D istrict J u d g e f o r th e U.S. District Co urt f o r th e W estern

District o f

W ash in g t o n , sittin g b y

d esig n atio n

.

*** T h is su

m m ary co n stitu

tes n o p art o f

th e o p in io n

o f th e co urt. It h as b eenp rep ared b y

co urt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 3

Guardians h ad standi n g t o challeng e the EPA’s decision to approve Neva d a’s Sulfur Diox ide B est Available Retrofit Technolog y determination for the Reid Gardner Ge n erating Station in southern N evada, but concluded that the E P A ’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. The panel further concluded that the EPA’s a p p r o v al of Nevada’s SI P did not violate any

requirements imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 7410(1).

COUNSEL

S a r a h K

. M c M i l l an (arg

u ed), W ildEarth G uardians, Mis s o u l a , Montana; J ames J

. Tutchton, W il d E a rth Guardians, Centennial, Colorado; Meli ssa A. Hailey
, W

. Randolph B arnhart, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner.

David A. Carson (arg

ued), United States Department o f J ustice, Environme n t a nd Natural Resources D ivision, Denver, Colorado, for Respondents.

L i s a E. J ones ( arg ued), Samuel B

. B ox erman, and J ames R

. W e d e king
, Sidley Austin L L P, W ashing ton, D.C .; T h omas W o odworth, NV Energy
, I nc., L as Veg as, Nevada, for Respondents-I ntervenors Nevada Power Company a nd Sierra Pacific Power Company

.

B elinda A

. Suwe (arg

ued), Car s o n City
, Nevada, for Respondent-I ntervenor St ate of Nevada, Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d Na t u r al R e s o u r c e s , D i v i s i o n o f Environmental Protection.W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 4

OP INION

M. SMI TH, Circuit J udg e :

W ildEarth Gu a rdians (W ildEarth), a non-profit environmental org aniz ation, peti t ions for review of the Environmental Protection Ag e ncy ’s (EP A ) approval of the State of Nevada’s State I mplementation Plan ( SI P) for
reg ional haz e under the C l ea n Air Act, 42 U .S.C. §§ 7401–7671q ( CAA). According to W ildEarth, Nevada’s SI P is i n adequate, and the EPA’s d ecision to approve it was arbi t r a ry a

nd capricious. W ildEarth thus contends that the EPA should have instead developed its own F ederal I mplementation Plan (F I P) under the CAA.

W e conclude that W ildEarth lacks Article I I I standing to challeng e the EPA’s approval o f the SI P’s formulation o f reasonable p rog ress g oals for improving visibility conditions in the J a rbridg e W ilderness Area in nor t h e a s tern Nevada. W h ile W ildEarth has standing to chal l e n ge the E PA’s decisio n to approve Nevada’s Sulfur Diox ide (SO 2 ) B e st Available Retrofit T echnolog y (B ART) determination for the Reid Gardner Generating Station (Reid Gardner) in southern Nevada, we hold that the EPA’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. W e further conclude that the EPA’s approval of Nevada’s SI P d id not violate any requirements imposed b y 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l). According ly
, we d ismiss the petition for review in part and deny

the petition in part.

LEG AL, F ACTUAL, AND P ROCEDURAL

BACK G ROUND

This petition for r eview c o n c erns states’ duty under the CAA to develop plans aimed at i m p roving visibility inW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 5

“mandatory Class I F ederal areas,” such as n ational wilderness a

reas a nd certain n ational parks, 40 C.F .R. § 51.308, and the EPA’s c oncomitant d uty to ensure that such plans are leg ally

adequate.

I. Statutory and Regulatory F ram ew ork

I n 1977, Cong ress enac t ed Section 169A of the CAA, which establi s h e d “ as a national g oal the prevention of any future, and t he remedy

ing of any ex isting
, impairment o f visibility in mandatory [ C] lass I Fe d e r a l areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 42 U .S.C. § 7491(a)(1).

A. Im plem entation P lans

Under the CAA, the EPA must establish national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) for certain air pollutants. The EPA must a lso promulg ate regulations de s i g ned to prevent the impairment of visibility in “mandatory [ C ] lass I F ederal

a reas,” including national wilderness areas and cert a i n

na t i o n a l parks. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7 4 91(a)–(b), 7492(e). T o

ensure that these standards are met , t h e CAA requires e ach
state to submit a SI P to the EPA, w h i c h m ust “contain such emission limits, schedules o f compliance, and other measures

as may be necessary to carry out” the EPA’ s applicable
reg ulations. Id. § 7492(e)(2).

Once a st a t e has submitted its SI P to the E PA, the EPA reviews it for c ompliance with the CAA. Id. § 7410(k)(3). I f

a state fails to submit a SI P, or if the EPA concludes that a SI P is inade quate, then the EPA must promulg ate a F I P within two y ears. Id. § 7410(c).W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 6

B. Regional Haze P rovisions

As noted above, Cong ress amended the CAA in 1977 a nd “d ec l a r e [d] a s a national g oal the p r evention of any future, and the r emedy

ing of any ex isting
, impairment of visibility in mandatory [ C] lass I F ederal areas which impairment r e s u lts from manmade air pollution.” Id. § 7 491(a)(1). To this end, Cong r ess required the EPA to issue reg ulat i o n s a ssuring “reasonable prog ress toward meeting the national g oal.” Id. § 7491(a)(4).

Acting under this statutory authority
, the E P A promulg a ted the Reg ional Haz e Rule in 1 999. Reg ional Haz e Reg ulations, 64 F e d

. Reg

. 35714 (J uly 1, 199 9 )

. This rule required states to submit reg ional haz e SI P s t o t h e EPA b y December 1 7, 2007. I t also require s s tates to submit SI P revisions to the EPA by J uly 31, 2018, an d e v e ry ten y ears thereafter. 40 C.F

. R. § 51.308(f).

1. Reasonable P rogress G oals

The Reg ional Haz e Rule directs s t a t es to establish

rea s o nable prog ress g oals aimed at achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I Fe d e r a l areas. 40 C.F .R. § 51.308(d)(1). T h ese g oals must provide fo r an impro v em ent in visibility for the day s in which visibility is
most impaired over the period e nding on J uly 31, 2018 (worst day s), and must also ensure no worsening of visibility during
t h e l e ast impaired day s over the course of that period (b e s t day s). Id.W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 7

2. BART

I n addition to requiring states to e stablish reasonable
p r o g ress g oals f

or improving visibility in Class I F e d e ra l
areas, the Reg ional Haz e R u le requires SI Ps to “contain[ ] emission limitations representing B ART

. . . for each B A RTelig ible source that may reasonably b e anticipated to cause o r contribute to an y impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I F ederal area.” 40 C.F .R. § 5 1.308(e). As defined in the reg u lations, B ART is “an emission limitation based on the deg ree of reduction achievable throug h the application of the best sy stem of continuous emission reduction fo r e ach pollutant w hich is emitted by an ex isting stationary facility

. ” Id. § 51.301.

Under the regulations, a pollution s o u r c e is “B A RTelig ible” only if it “has the potential to emit 250 tons per y e ar

or more of any air p ollutant.” Id. Sta t e s m u s t formulate emission limitations f

or such sources on a case-by -case basis,

w e i ghing the following five factors: (1) “the c osts of compliance”; (2) “ t h e energ y and non[ -] air quality

en v i ronmental impacts o f compliance”; (3) “any ex isting pollution control technology i n u s e at the source”; (4) “the remaining useful life o f t h e s o urce”; and (5) “the deg ree o f improvem ent in visibility w hich may reasonably be anticipated to result fr o m the use of such technolog y

. ” 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g )( 2 ) ; R e g ional Haz e Reg u lations a nd Guidelines for B ART Determinations, 7 0 F ed. Reg

. 39104, 39106–07 ( J uly 6, 2005) (codified at 40 C.F .R. pt. 51, App. Y).

To assist states in evaluating which pollution sources a re subject to B ART, and what emission limitation to set for such
sources, the EPA issued the BA R T Guidelines (Guidelines)W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 8

in 2 005. 7 0 F ed. Reg

. at 39156–72. The Guidelines provide states with a five-step p rocess for making their case-by -case B ART determinatio n s

. T hese five steps subsume the five statutory factors listed above. Id. a t 3 9 1 27. F irst, states identify all available retrofit control technolog ies. Second,
states eliminate technically i n f easible options. T hird, states evaluate the effectiveness of the remaining control technologi es. F o urth, states evaluate the impacts, including the cost of compliance, the energ y impacts, any n on-air quality impacts, and the remaining useful life of the facility

. F inally
, states evaluate the visibil i t y impacts. Id. at 39164, 39166.

States must use the Guidelines wh e n making B ART determinations for fossil fuel-fired power plants with a total
g enerating capacity g reater t h an 750 meg awatts, but the Guidelines a

re merely advisory for smaller plants. 42 U .S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(B ); 4 0 C.F .R. § 5 1.308(e)(1 ) ( ii)(B ). The BA R T-elig ible power plant at issue h ere—Reid Gardner— has a g enerating capacity below 750 meg awatts, and so is not subject to the ma n d atory Guidelines. Approval a nd Promulg ation of Air Quality I mplementation Plans, 76 F ed. Reg

. 36 4 50, 3 6463 (J une 22, 2011). Nonetheless, Nevada relied o n t h e Guidelines in making its SO 2 B ART determination for Reid Gardner.

II. F actual and P rocedural Background

Nevada submitted i t s reg ional haz e SI P to the EPA in October 2 0 0 9
, nearly two y ears after the deadline for doing

so. I n its SI P, Nevada p rovides w hat it considers to be reasonable prog ress g oals for attaining natural visibility conditions at the J arbridg e W ilderness Area in remote northeastern N evada, the state’s only Class I F ederal ar e a

.W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 9

The SI P further requires limitations o n e m issions of sulfur d i o x ide, nitrog en ox ides (NO

x ), and particulate matter f o r

s e v eral pollution sources, including Reid Gardner, a co al

fired power plant in southern Nevada.

I n J une 2011, the EPA proposed to approve N e v ada’s
reg ional haz e SI P. 76 F ed. Reg

. at 36450–51. W ildEarth then submitted public comments to the E PA, asserting
, inter alia, that ( 1) Nevada’s SO 2 B ART determination for Reid Gardner is inadequate; ( 2) Nevada ig nored certain mandatory factors in setting reasonable p rog ress g oals for improving visibility at the J arb r i d g e W ilderness Area; and (3) the EPA f a i l ed to ensure that approving the SI P would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

Notwithstanding W ildEarth’s c o ncerns, the EPA approved the majority o f Nevada’s reg ional haz e SI P on March 26, 2012. 1 Approval a nd Promulg ation of Air Quality I mplementation Plans, 77 F ed. Reg

. 173 3 4 (Mar. 26, 2012). W ildEarth then timely filed this petition for review, challeng ing the EPA’s approval of N evada’s SI P a nd the
ag ency ’s failure to develop a F I P. Nevada Power C o m p any and Sierra Pacific Power Company (tog ether, Nevada Power) and the Nevada Division of Environmen tal Protection (NDEP) subsequently

intervened.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

W e have jurisdiction under 42 U .S.C. § 7 6 0 7(b)(1). “[ W ] e may set aside the challeng ed ag e n cy action o nly if it is

1 T h e EP A ap p ro v ed th e en tirety o f th e SIP ex cep t f o r Nev ad a ’ s N O

x B A RT d eterm in atio n f

or R e i d G a r d n er. T h at asp ect o f Nev ad a’ s SIP is

n o t at issu e h ere.W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 10

‘arbitrary
, capricious, an abuse of d iscretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” NRDC v

. E P A
, 638 F .3d 1183, 1190 (9th Cir. 2011) ( q u o t i n g 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). “An
age n c y a ction is arbitrary and c apricious if the ag ency has: relied on factors which Con gr es s h a s not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect o f the problem, offered a

n ex p lanation for its decision that r uns counter to the evidence before th e a ge n c y , or is so implausible that it could not be ascr i b e d t o a difference in view o r the product of ag ency ex pertise.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
, 698 F .3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012) ( q u o t i n g Pac. Coast F e d’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.
, 265 F .3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001)).

D ISCUSSION

I. Standing

Althoug h the EPA does not contest W ildEarth’s standing
to bring this petition for r eview, N evada Power and the NDEP assert, respectively
, that W i l d E a rth lacks standing to pursue some or all of its c l a ims. I n any event, “standing is not subject to waiver,” United States v. H ays , 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995), and we have “an independent oblig ation to assure that standing ex ists, reg ardless of whether it is challeng ed b y any of the parties,” S

ummers v. Earth Island Inst. , 555 U.S. 488, 499 (2 0 0 9) ( citing Bender v. W illiamsport Area Sch. Dist. , 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)).

As discussed in g reater detail below, W ildEarth h ing e s its standing to c halleng e the EPA’s approval of Nevada’s SI P on

a d eclaration submitted by V eronica E g an, a member o f t h e org aniz ation who lives in Colorado. Even thoug h Eg an livesW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 11

o ut of state, she regularly visits Nevada, and she avers t h at (1) seeing pollution from power plants such as Reid Gardner distresses her; (2) she worries about the health e ffects of such pollution; and (3) she v isits nationa l p ar ks where visibility

c o n ditions are adversely affected by pollution from R e i d Gardner.

A. Legal F ram ew ork

W ildEarth has th e burden to demonstrate standing for each claim that it asserts. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v

. Cuno
, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). To establish Article I I I standing
, a c laimant “must show (1) it has suffered a n ‘injury in f a c t ’ that is (a) concrete and p articulariz ed and (b) actual

or imminent, not conjectural or h y pothetical; ( 2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challeng e d action o f the defendant; a nd ( 3 ) it is likely
, as opposed to merely speculative, that t h e injury will be redressed by a favorable d e cision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. ( TOC)

, Inc.
, 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000) ( citing Lujan v. De f e n ders of W

ildlife
, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).

As an org a

niz ation, W ildEarth “may as s e rt standing on behalf of [ its] members as long as the ‘member s would otherwise have standing to sue in their own rig ht, the interests
at stake are g ermane t o t he org aniz ation’s purpose, a nd neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.’” W ash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon
, 732 F

. 3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2 013) (quoting Friends of the Earth
, 528 U.S. at 181).

I n this petition f

or review, W ildEarth plainly seeks to promote its org aniz ationa l purpose b y r equiring the EPA to reject Nevada’s reg ional haz e SI P and issue a F I P in its place.W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 12

F urther, such a claim for relief does not “require[ ] i n d ividualiz e d proof,” and is “thus properly resolved in a g roup contex t.” Hunt v. W ash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n
, 432 U.S. 333, 344 (1977). According ly , whether W ildEarth has standing to assert its c laims turns on whether its member, Veronica E g an, has standing to sue in her own rig ht. See Friends of the Earth
, 528 U.S. at 181.

B. Reasonable P rogress G oals f or t h e Jarbridge Wilderness Area

W ildEarth lacks standing to contest the EPA’s approv al of Nevada’s worst day s reasonable prog ress g oals for the J arbridg e W ildern e s s A rea. Under the CAA and its implementing regulations, N evada must develop reasonable
prog r ess g oals to improve v i s i b ility at the J arbridg e W ilderness Area. I n teresting ly
, Eg an, upon whose declaration W ildEarth places ex clusive r e l iance, has never visited the J arbridg e W ilderness Area, nor does she have any plans to travel there in the future. M o r e s i gnificantly
, W ildEarth fails to demonstrate that the EPA’s approval o f Nevada’s worst day s reasonable prog ress g oals has any causal connection to Eg an’s claimed injuri es. According ly
, Eg an, and therefore W ildEarth, lacks standing to challeng e t h e EPA’s approval of this aspect of Nevada’s SI P.

I n h er declaration, Eg an claims that she regularly “observe[ s] air pollution” f rom the North Valmy Generating Station (North Valmy

), a coal

- f

i r ed power plant located in north-central Ne v ad a. She asserts that the EPA approved Nevada’s SI P even thoug h Nevada failed “to assess whether air pollution

. . . should be reduced from the North Valmy coal-fired p ower p l a n t i n order to further reduce haz e in the
reg ion, including in the J a rbridg e W ilderness Area.” A nd sheW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 13

complains that, as a consequence of the EPA’s approval o f Nevada’s SI P, she “will continue to observe offensive
amounts of a ir pollution from the smokestacks of this power plant.” She also states that she is “worried that the air pollution will neg a tively affect [ her] health” as she visits the area near the plant.

Even ass u m ing
, without deciding
, that Eg an’s concerns about emissions f

rom North V almy establish an injury in fact, W ildEarth fails to s a t i sfy the traceability and redressability requirements of A rticle I I I

. Eg an c ontends that viewing emissions f

rom North Valmy is aesthetically displeasing
, a nd that it leads her to worry about future health consequences. B ut Eg an fails to show that either her a esthetic displeasure o r her health concerns are causally linked to the EPA’s approval of Nevada’s worst day s reasona b le prog ress g oals for visibility a t the J arbridg e W ilderness Ar e a

. W ash. Envtl. Council
, 732 F .3d at 1 141. Similarly
, W ildEarth fails to

s h o w that it is likely
, as o pposed to merely speculative, that

a favorable decision w ill redress Eg an’s injuries. Se e i d

. at 1146.

Nothing in the record sug g e sts that a reduction i n emissions fr o m North Valmy would ameliorate Eg an’s claimed aesthetic injury

. M oreover, Eg an does not claim—and the record does not otherwise r eveal—that a reduction in North V almy ’s emissions would improve her health. I n short, Eg an d oes not sufficiently link her claimed injury n ear North V almy with the EPA’ s a pproval o f Nevada’s g oals f

or the J arbr i d ge W ilderness Area, nor does she have an y cr edible connection with J arbridg e

. According ly
, W ildEarth fails to establish standing to

c h a l l e ng e the EPA’s approval of Nevada’s worst day s reasonable p rog ress g oals for visibility at the J arbridg eW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 14

W ilderness Area, and we dismiss this portion of the petition for review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

C. Reid G ardner SO 2 BART Determ ination

B y contrast, as neither the EPA nor Nevada Power contests, W ildEarth has standing to challeng e Nevada’s SO 2 B ART determination for Reid G a r d n er. I n her declaration, Eg an states t h a t she r eg ularly visits Class I F ederal areas where visibi lity is affected by pollution orig inating in Nevada. I

n particular, she visits Z ion National Park in Utah
at leas t o n c e every other y ear, she visits Grand Cany on National Park in A r i z o n a at least once a y ear, and she plans
to c o ntinue visiting both national parks regularly

. A ccording
to Eg a n, these parks “have g otten h a zier” over the y ears, which has impaired h er ability “to view and enjoy the scenic vistas within these [ p] arks.” Eg an observes that “[ a] ccording
to Nevada, the Reid Gardner coal-fire d p ower plant causes haz e pollution in 24 Class I [ F e deral] are a s o utside of the state, including Grand Cany o n and Z ion National Parks.” A s such, E g a n c laims that “[ u] nless a

n d until [ the] EPA requires Nevada to better reduce h az e-causing pollution, this haz e

. . . will continue to neg atively im p ac t [ her] enjoy ment of these areas if it persists.”

Eg an’s declaration suffices to estab l i s h W ildEarth’s standing with r espect to Nevada’s SO 2 B ART determination for Reid Gardner. B ecause Eg an attests to “specific aesthetic and recreati o n a l injuries” r esulting from emissions a t Reid Gardner, she adequately demonstrates an “injury i n fact.” W ash. Envtl. Council
, 732 F .3d at 1140. Her injury is fairly
t r aceable to the EPA’s approval of Nevada’s SO 2 B A R T determination for Reid Gardner b ecause SO 2 pollution from Reid Gardner contributes to v i s ibility impairment at theW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 15

national parks she visits. See id. at 1 141 (ex plaining that, to show traceability
, a plaintiff must demonstrate that h er injury is causally linke d t o the ag ency ’s alleg e d misconduct). F inally
, if w e ordered the EPA to reject Nevada’s SI P on the
g round that the SO 2 B A RT de t e r mination for Reid Gardner

was inadequate, it follows that the E PA’s F I P would l i kely impose stricter emission controls on the plant. B ecause there is no dispute that a reduction in Reid Gardner ’s SO 2 emissions would improve visibility at the national parks that Eg an frequen t s , it is likely that Eg an’s injury would be redressed by

a favorable decision. See Friends of the Earth
, 528 U.S. at 180–81.

B e cause ( 1 ) E g an would have standing to challeng e the EPA’s approval of N e v a da’s SO 2 B ART determination for Reid Gardner in her own rig ht; ( 2) the challeng e is ge rmane to WildEarth’s purpose; and (3) the relief requested does not require individualiz ed proof, WildEar t h has standing to chal l e n g e the EPA’s a

pproval o f Nevada’s SO 2 B ART determination for Reid Gardner. 2

II. Merits of the Reid G ardner SO 2 BART Determ ination

B e cause W ildEarth h as standing to challeng e the E PA’s approval of N evada’s SO 2 B ART determination, we proceed
to a d dress the merits of W ildEarth’s c laim. 3 F irst, W ildEarth

2 Fo r si m i l a r r e aso n s, W ild Earth h as stan d in g to ch allen g e th e EP A ’ s alleg ed f ailure to en su

re th at Nev ad a’ s SIP d oes n o t in terf ere w ith th e attain m en t o r m ain ten an ce o f th e NA A QS u n d er 4 2 U.S.C. § 7 4 1 0 (l).

3 In its Statem en t o f Issu es, Wild Ea r t h a l s o s u g g ests th at t h e EP A ’ s ap p ro v al of Nev ad a’ s reg i o n al h aze SIP w as arb itrary an d cap ricio u s b ecau se Nev ad a su

b m itted it af

ter th e d ead lin e fo r d o in g so

. Bu t W ild Earth f

ails to d ev elo p th is arg u m en t i n i t s o p en in g b rief
, an d h asW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 16

arg ues that the EPA e rred in approving Nevada’s SI P because Nevada f ailed to d o cument adequately its consideration of the applicable factors. Second, W i l d E a r t h asserts that the EPA erred in approving the SI P b e ca u s e the SI P’s SO 2 limitation for Reid G ardner purportedly authoriz es an increase i n the SO 2 emission rate at the plant. We address these arguments in turn.

A. Explanation of

the BART Determ ination

W ildEarth’s first argu ment focuses on the level of detail in Nevada’s SI P. I n describing its B ART deter m i n at i on for R eid Gardner, the SI P provides that “[ e ] mission limitations for B A RT were establishe d on a case-by -case basis taking into consideration the technolog y a v a ilable, the costs o f compliance, the energ y and non

- air q uality environmental impacts of compliance, a ny pollution c o ntrol equipment in

use or in ex istence at the source or unit, the remaining useful life of the unit and the d eg ree of improvement i n v i s i b ility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use o f control technolog y

. ” As W ildEarth acknowledg es, this description accurately recites the f actors that Nevada was oblig ated to consider. See 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g )(2).

Nonetheless, W ildEarth argues that N evada’s SI P f ails to document ho w each of these factors was evaluated when establishing the SO 2 emission l i m itation for Reid Gardner. As such, WildEarth c ontends that N evada’s SI P contravenes the requirement that the state “must

. . . include documentation for all required analy ses.” 4 0 C.F .R. § 51.3 0 8 ( e ) ( 1). Rely ing on our case law, W ildEarth f urther

th eref o re w aiv ed it. S

ee Un ited S ta t es v. Kimb le
, 1 0 7 F.3 d 71 2
, 7 1 5 n .2 (9 th Cir. 1 99 7 ).W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 17

observes that “‘[ s] t a t i n g that a f actor was considered

. . . is
not a substitute for considering it.’” Beno v. Shalala
, 30 F .3d 1057, 1 075 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Getty v. Fe d

. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
, 805 F .2d 1050, 1055 (D.C. Cir. 1986)).

W ildEarth’s challeng e to the S I P o n this b asis is unavailing

. B efore Nevada submitted its reg ional haz e SI P to the EPA, Nevada Power (doing busi n ess as NV Energ y ) retained the firm CH2M HI L L to p repare a B ART analy sis for Reid G ardner. The firm a p p lied the EPA’s Guidelines,

ex p lained its reasoni n g in considerable detail, a nd recommended a B ART SO 2 limitation of 0

. 4 0 p o unds per milli o n B ritish thermal units (lb/MMbtu). Nevada then independently reviewed CH2M HI L L ’s recommendation a nd concluded that a lower emission limitation, 0

. 15 lb/MMbtu,

was warranted. The SI P dir ects readers to a detailed documentation of Nevada’s analy sis.

This is not a situation where N evada simply stated that the required factors w ere considered, but failed to consider them. Cf. Beno
, 30 F .3d at 1 075. To the c ontr a r y , t h e thoroug h discussion in CH2M HI L L ’ s report, and Nevada’s subsequent evaluation of CH2M HI L L ’ s conclusions, shows that Nevada conducted the required SO 2 B ART analy sis for Reid Gardner. Cf. U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC
, 359 F .3d 554, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[ A] f

e d eral ag e ncy may turn to an o u tside entity for advice and policy recommendations, provided the a g ency makes the f

inal decisions itself.”); A ssiniboine & Sioux Tribes

v. Bd. of Oil & Gas Conservation
, 792 F

. 2d 782, 795 ( 9th Cir. 1986) (collecting cases for the proposition that ag encies may rely o n advice from outside entities so long a s ag encies do not merely “rubber stamp” outside decisions). According ly
, the EPA’s approval of thi s a s p ect o f Nevada’s SI P was not arbitrary and capricious.W I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 18

B. P urported Increase in SO 2 Em issions

W ildEarth nex t argues that the Reid Gardner SO 2 B ART determination is deficient because it a llows for incre a s e d emissions. N evada’s reg ional haz e SI P fix es an SO 2 emission limitation o f 0.15 lb/MMB tu at Reid Gardner. According to W ildEarth, this limitation ex c eeds recent emission rates at the plant, which in 2009 rang ed from 0.054 to 0.058 lb/MMbtu. B ecause this d ata apparently shows that Reid Ga r d n e r is capable o f m a i n t a i ning lower SO 2 emissions than the 0.15 lb/MMB tu level th a t N evada claims represents B ART, W ildEarth asserts that Nevad a’s emission limitation f or SO 2 at Reid Gard ner cannot constitute B A RT. W ildEarth also
asserts more b roadly that a SI P au t h o r iz ing increased SO 2 emissions a t Reid Gardner would violate Cong ress’s intent in enactingthe 1977 amendments to the CAA.

W ildEarth’s objection to Nevada’s SO 2 B ART determination r ests on a m isinterpretation of the relevant data. Specifically
, W ildEarth’s contention that t he SI P a uthoriz e s increased emissions at Reid Gardner d epends on its analy sis of a n n u a l emission rates at the plant. B ut, as the EPA observes, annual emission rates are not comparable to the 24- hour averag e e mission limit at i on reflected in N evada’s SI P. 77 F ed. Reg

. a t 1 7338. A review of 24-hour averag e SO 2 emis s i o n s at Reid Gardner r eveals that the plant has not consistently a chieved a 24-hour averag e limit below 0.15 l b /MMbtu. Moreover, even if Reid Gardner on l y occasionally ex ceeds 0 .15 lb/MMB TU on a 24-hour basis, emission limitations u nder the CAA are continuous in nature, and B A RT must be a limitation that can be achie v e d on a continuous b a sis. See 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k); 40 C.F .R. § 51.301. F urther, the E P A ’ s r eview of the data r efutes W ildEarth’s claim that, under the SI P, there will be an annualW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 19

increase in SO 2 emissions from Reid Gardner. 77 F ed. Reg

. a t 17338. Thus, W ildEarth fails to show that the SI P w i l l

ex a c erbate pollution from Reid Gardner.

The EPA’s decision to approve this aspect of Nevada’s SI P is entitled to consid e rable judicial deference, a s it represents “an ag ency ’s determination in an area involving a ‘hig h level of technical ex pertise.’” Lan d s Council v

. McNair
, 537 F .3d 981, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren
, 336 F

. 3 d 944, 954 (9 th Cir. 2003)), abrogated in part on other grounds by W inter v

. NRDC
, 55 5 U .S. 7
, 22 (2008); see also Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA
, 423 F .3d 989, 997 (9th Cir. 2 005) (ex plaining that determinations that are “scientific in nature”

are “entitled to the most deference o n review”). Particularly when reviewed u n der this d efer e ntial standard, the E PA’s decision to approve Nevada’s SO 2 B ART determination for Reid Gardner was not arbitrary and capricious.

III. I n terf

erence w ith Attainm ent or Maintenance o f the NAAQS

F in a l ly
, W ildEarth argues that the EPA’s approval o f Nevada’s SI P was arbitrary and capricious because the EPA did not make an ex press f inding that the SI P does not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the N AAQS. According to W ildEarth, the E PA was oblig ated to make such

a determination u n der 42 U .S.C. § 7 410(l), whic h p r o v ides
t h a t t h e E PA “shall n ot approve a revision o f a [SI P] if t h e revision would i n t e rfere w ith any applicable r equirement concerning attainment and reasonable further prog ress.”

Ev e n assuming
, w ithout deciding
, that § 7410(l) applies here, W ildEarth’s argument is unavailing

. W ildearthW I L D E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USEPA 20

i d e ntifies n othing in Nevada’s SI P that w eakens o r remove s any po l l u t ion controls. And even if the SI P merely maintai n e d the status quo, that w ould not interfere with the attainment or maintenance o f the NAAQS. A c cording ly
, W ildEarth fails to show that the E PA’s a pproval of Nevada’s SI P contravened § 7410(l).

CONCLUSION

F or the f oreg oing reasons, w e dismiss t h e p e tition for review in part and deny

the petition in part.

P ETITION DISMISSED IN P ART AND DENIED IN P A RT.