## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 4045 S I ERRA C LU B , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. F RANK LI N C O UN TY P OW EROF I LLINO IS, LLC , f or m er l y know n as E NV IRO P OW EROF I LLINO IS, L L C , E NV IRO P OW ER, LL C, a nd K HANJEE H OLDI NG (U S), I NC ., D ef endants-A ppell ants
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 05 C4095

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge

.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 29, 2007

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 27, 2008

Befo re B AUER, R IPPLE, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cui tJudg e . F ra nkl i n County Power of Illino is, L L C , w an ts to b u ild a c oa l p ow er p lan t in so uthe r n I l l i no i s. Be ca us e th e plant wi l le m i t a si g ni fi ca nt am ou n t o f air p ollu tio n, th e C o m p a n y m u st firstob ta in a “ P re ve n tio n of Sign ifica n t D et er i o r at ion ” (P SD ) p er m it from the Il linois E nv ironm en tal P rotection A gen cy (I E PA ),2 N o. 06

- 4045 th e ag en cytha t th e federal EPA ha s des i g na te d a s th e i s s u e r o f P S D p e r mi t s i n I l l i n o i s . Al th o u g h th e I EPA gr anted the Com pany a PSD perm i t i n 200 1, the I EPA has sinc e m ade a “ pr el i m i na r y de term inat i o n” tha t th e pe r mi th a s e xp i r e d. Si er ra Cl ub i s a non- profi t e nvi ro nm entalo rg ani zati on th ats o ug htt o e nj o i n the Co m pan y from bui l di ngthe pow erpl ant bybr i ngi ng thi s s uit aga i nst the Com pany, i ts parent com pany Envir oPower, LLC , a nd Kh anj ee H olding( US) , Inc . , unde r a c i ti ze n s ui t pr o vi si o n o fthe C lean A ir A ct. Si erra C lub alleged th a t the Com p an y’s 2001 PSD per m i t h ad expi re d because the Com pany had n eg lec te d to “c om m en c e con st ru c tio n ” of th e p lan t w ith in an 18-m ont h w ind ow requ ired u nd er the p erm it. Si erra Cl ub al so c l ai m ed th e per m i t was i nval i d unde r EPA re gul ati ons b ecause the Com pany had dis continued const ructi on o fthe p lan t for o ver18 m onths. The di str i ct cour t a gr eed with Si er ra Cl ub on both poi nts and gra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in i ts f avo r. The co urt al so perm ane nt l y e nj o i ne d the Co m pan y fr o m b ui l di ngthe pl an t unti li t o b ta i ned a new PSD perm i t, and the defe nd ants appeal ed to thi s co urt. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthatS i er ra C lu b has s t a nd i ngt o p ur s ue thi s l a ws ui ta nd tha ti t s cl ai m is r i pe and perm i ssibl e under the Cl ean Air A c t. W e a l so agr ee th atthe 2 00 1 PS D pe r m i t ha s ex pi r ed an d tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y g ra nted perm anent injun c ti ve r el i efi n f av o r o fS i er r a Cl ub. Theref o r e, we affi r m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of Si er ra Cl ub.N o. 06

- 4045 3 I . B AC KGR OUND A . S tatu tory an d reg u lato ry fram ew ork Sierra C lub brou gh t this su it un d er 42 U
. S. C

. § 7604(a)(3) , a ci ti zen s uitpro vi si on o fthe Clea n A i r A ct, wh i ch pro

vi des i n re l evantpart : [A ] n y p er so n m ay co m m en c e a civ il ac tio n on h is ow n be h alf . .

. ( 3) aga i nst a ny per son w ho pro poses to const ruct orco nstr ucts a ny n ew o r m o di fi ed m aj o r e m i tt i ngf ac i l i tywi th

o uta p e r mi tr e qu i r e d unde r [ 4 2 US CS §§ 747 0 ets eq . ] ( r el at i ngt o s i g ni fi ca nt det er i o r at i o n o fa i r qua l i ty )
. . . o r who is a lleg ed to h av e v iola te d (if th er e is evi dence thatthe al l ege d vi ol ati on has b e e n r e pe a t e d) o r t o b e i n v i o l a t i o n of any c ondit i on o fsuch per m i t. T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e th a tth e c o a lp o we r pl a ntth a tth e C o mpany se eks to bu ild is a “ m aj orem i tting f aci l i ty” that re quir es a PSD perm i t. S uch a per m i t co ntai ns an em i ssi on l i m i tat i on that i s s et by the I E P A and re prese nts th e “ b es t a va ilab le c on tr ol te c h n olo gy ” fo r p ollu tio n . S ee 42 U
. S. C

. § 7475(a). O n c e i s s u e d , a P S D p e r mi tc a n e xp i r e a n d b e c o me i nval i d i n thr ee differ ent ways: [ a] [ I ] fco nstr ucti on i s n ot c om m en ced w i thi n 18 m on th s a fte r re c eip t o f su c h ap p ro va l, [ b] i fco nstr ucti on i s di sco nti nued f ora peri od of 18 m onths orm or e, o r4 N o. 06

- 4045

Si er ra C l ub cl ai m s the pe rm i ton l y a uthor i ze d a 5 00 M W , no t 1 a 600 M W , f aci li ty. Because the def endan ts l oston sum m ary jud g m en t, w e con stru e all facts in the lig ht m os t f a v or ab le to t h em . S ee R aw oof

v. TexorPet ro l eum C o. , 52 1 F
. 3d 7 50 , 75 5 ( 7th C ir . 20 0 8 ). [ c] i fco nstr ucti on i s n ot com ple ted withi n a r easonab l e t i m e. 40 C.F

. R. § 52. 21( r)( 2)
. The I EPA A dm i ni str ato r “m ay ex te nd the 1 8- m o nth pe r i o d upo n a s at i sf ac to r y s ho wi ng that an exte nsi on i s j usti fi ed, ” i d. ; otherw ise, the P SD permi t t e r mi na t e s b y “ a ut o mat i c e xp i r a t i o n. ” 40 C.F

. R. § 124. 5( g)(2) (“PSD perm i ts m ay be t er m i nated o nl y b y rec issi o n un der§ 5 2. 21 ( w) o r b y a ut o m at i c ex p irati on u nd er § 52. 21(r)( 2). ”).

B . Fa c t ua l ba c kg r o und On Augu st1 5, 2 000, the Co m pan y a ppl i ed to the I EPA f ora P SD perm i t t o bui l d a 60 0 m ega w att co al

- fi re d 1 pow erpl ant in Benton, I l l i noi s, o n l and fo r w hi ch i t had a 9 9-y ea r lea se . T h e I E P A co n c lu d ed th e p roj ec t w ou ld b e a maj o r a i r pol l ut i o n s o ur c e s ubj e c tt o P S D r e v i e w. On J uly3, 20 01, the I EPA i ssued a PSD perm i t forthe pla nt. T he perm it states it w il l bec om e invalid if : c o ns t r uc t i o n o fCF B [ c i r c ul a t i ngfl ui di z e d b e d] boi l er s i s n ot com m enced w i thi n 18 m onths after thi s pe r mi t b e c o mes e ffe c t i v e , i f c o ns t r uc t i o n of these boi l er s i s di sco nti nued f ora peri od of18 m o n th s o r m o r e , o r ifc o n s t r u c t i o n o fth e s e b oile rs is not com ple ted withi n a r eas onabl e per i od of ti m e.N o. 06

- 4045 5 T h e p er m it d efin es “c om m e n c e ” an d “c on st ru c tio n ” in ter m s o f40 C. F. R . § 52
. 21(b) ( 9) and § 5 2. 21(b) ( 8) , r espectively, w hich are pro v is io ns w e w il l d iscus s in m ore d etail later. On D ecem ber2, 20 02, the Com pany e n te re d i nto an ag r ee m en t wi thBl ac k& Vea tc h ( B& V) , a n e ng i ne er i ng and constr ucti on co m pany, thatr equi re d t h e parti es to “w or k t og et h er o n an e xcl usi ve basi s . . . i n or der t o dr aft an d ne g o ti at e th e EPC [ Eng i ne er i ng, Pr ocu re m en t and C onst ructi on] Contr act. ” On abo ut De c em b er18 , 2002 , the Com pany contr acte d with A lber i ciConstr uctor s, I nc. , f oro n-site excava ti on a nd f oundati on work

. A lber i ci was t o di ga ho l e atthe si te down t o the b edr o cka nd po ur c o nc r e t e t o l a y p a r to fthe f o un da t i o n f o r the p l a nt
. On J an ua r y 3, 20 03 , f o urAlbe r i cie m pl o y ee s be g ande l i ve r i ng equi pm ent t o the s i te, and fi ve days l ate r, theybeg an excava ti ng. On Febr uary14, 20 03, A lber i cist oppe d t h e e xcavat i on aft er a d isp u t e a ro se reg ar d in g p ay m en t. A lbe ric i’s b ills afterthatdate i ncl ud e o n e day wh er e work er s s how ed up bu t d id n o w ork. A lloth e r d a y s o nly includ e a sup erv i s o r ’ s h o ur s s pe ntma i nt ai ni nga p r o t e c t i v e b a r r i c a de ar ound the si te. InJu ly 2 00 4, th e C om p an y’s lan d lord h ad th e h ole re fi l l ed, apparent l y b ecause the Com p an y di d not m ake a pay m en t o n i ts l ea se . In S ept embe r 2 00 4, the Co m pany si gned anot her contr act f orexcav ati on a nd co ncre te wo r k, wh i c h b e g a n a n e w o n S ept embe r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4
. An I EPA i nspectorvi si ted the pl ant s i te shor tl y there

a ft e r a nd de t e r mi ne d tha tc o ns t r uc t i o n ha d c o mm e nc e d.6 N o. 06

- 4045 I n th e m ean tim e, co-d efen d a n t K ha njee H olding (U S), Inc. had obtained an opti on to buy the Com pany an d all i ts ass ets
. In J une 200 3, Kh anj ee affirm ed i ts obl i gat i on t o ad he re to the C om p an y’s cont ract w ith B & V
. In Jan ua ry 2004, the Com pany se cured a m andate l ett erfro m i ts l ea d financ i ala r r an g eri ndi ca tingtha t fi na nc i ngf o r the proj ect w as avai l abl e. On Nov embe r 1 9, 2 00 4, the I EPA no ti fi ed th e Company th at it had “m ad e a prelim inary fi nd ing” th at i t s PSD perm i t had expi re d. The Com pany chal l en ge d thi s pre l i m i narydeter m i nation and as f aras we know, that ma t t e r r e ma i n s p e n d i n gb e f o r e th e I E P A. On M ay 20, 20 05, S i er ra Cl ub fi l ed thi s sui t, al l eging tha t th e 20 01 PS D pe r m i t ha d e xpi r ed a nd was i nv al i d. The defe nd ants m ove d to dism i ss, cl ai m i ng that the ci ti zen sui t pr ovi si on o fthe Clea n A i r A ct di d not p rovi de a basi s forthi s s uit
. They a l so m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent, cl ai m i ng tha t S i er ra Cl ub l acke d standi ng and that th e p er m i t was va l i d. Si er ra Cl ub counter ed w i th i ts own m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n s a nd f ound the per m i t t o be inval i d. I t e nt er ed sum m ar y j ud gm en t i n Si er r a Cl ub’ s f av o r and per m an en tly e nj o i ne d the defe nd ants fro m bui l ding the pl ant unti ltheyo btained a v alid p er m it. T h e d efe n d an ts th en filed th is a p p ea l.N o. 06

- 4045 7 II. A N A L Y S IS A . Sierr a Cl ub had st and i ng. A n or gani zati on has s tandi ng to sue i f( 1) atl eas t o ne o f i ts mem be r s woul d o th er wi se ha ve s ta ndi ng ; ( 2) the i nt er es ts a t st ak e i n the l i ti g at i o n a r e g erm an e to the or gani zati on’ s purpose ; and ( 3) nei therthe cl ai m as ser ted nor th e reli e f r e q ue sted requ ires an ind ivi d ua l m em ber’s partic ip at ion in the l aw sui t. See Fr i e nds of theEar t h, Inc . v. Laidlaw En v’l Servs. ( T O C ), In c. , 52 8 U.S

. 16 7, 18 1 ( 2000 ) (c iting H unt v. Washington StateApp leAdv er . Co m m ’n , 4 32 U .S. 33 3, 34 3 (1 9 7 7 ) ) . Th e d efe n d an ts d o n otse riou sly con test th at Sierra C lub sat isfies pron gs (2) an d ( 3). Si erra Club i s a nonp ro fi t o rg ani zati on f or m ed and opera ted to “ pr es er ve , pr o te ct, a nd e nha nc e th e na tu r ale nv i ronme n t, ” wh i c h i s a l s o i t s s t a t e d g o a li n b r i n g i n gthi s l a wsu i t. The de fen dan ts a l so do no t su g g es t th i s pr o ce eding re quir es an i nd i vi du alS i er ra Club m em ber to parti ci pate; ra ther, theycl ai m thatS i er ra Cl ub ha s n ot p re sente d an ind ivi d ua l m em ber w ith stan d ing. So the d ispu te he re tu rns on pron g (1)
. To have st anding , a n i nd i vi du alm ust s ati sfy three r eq u ire m en ts . First, sh e m u st h av e s u ffer ed an “inj u ry in f act” thati s bo th ( a) co ncre te an d p ar ti cul ar i zed and ( b) ac tu al or im m in en t, n otco njec tu ra l or h yp ot h et ica l. Se c on d , th e inj u ry m u st be fairly tra c e a b le t o th e c h all enged acti on. T hi rd, it m ust be l i kel y, notj ust s pecula ti ve, th at a fav or ab le d ec isio n w ill red re s s t h e inj u ry . Lujan v. D ef enders of Wil dlif

e, 50 4 U.S

. 55 5, 56 0- 61 ( 1992 ). Because th es e el ement s “are no t m er e pl ea di ngr equi r ement s but r athe r a n indi spe ns ab l e par t o fthe

. . . c as e, e ac h e l ement8 N o. 06

- 4045

m ust be supporte d .

. . w i th the m anner and degre e o f ev id en c e r equi re d at the succe ssi ve sta ges o fthe l i ti gati on. ” Id. at56 1. To sur vi ve a defendant’s m oti on for sum m ar y j ud gm en t (or to w in on a cross-m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t), a pl ai nti ffcannotr el y o n m er e a l l ega ti ons b u t m ust supp or t e ach el em ent b y s peci fi c f acts vi a a ffi davi ts or othe r evi d en c e. See i d. W e r evi ew de nov o the di str i ct c ou r t ’ s d et er m in at ion th at Sier ra C lu b h as st an d in g. See D is abil ity R ights Wis
. Inc. v. Walw orth C ounty B d. of Supervisors , 522 F.3d 796 , 800 (7th C ir. 2008).

1. S ierr a C lu b m em b er Barbara M cK ass on w il l suff eri njury i n f act
. Sierra C lub r eli es on one of its m em bers, B a r bara M cKas so n, t o e st ab l i shs ta ndi ng . “ [ E] nv i r o nm en ta lpl ainti ff s a dequ ate l y a l l ege i nj ury i n f act w hen theyave r that th eyus e th e a ffec te d a r ea a nd a r e per so ns f o r who m the ae st h eti c and r ecr eat i onalvalues o fthe ar ea w i l lbe l ess ened by the c hal l enged ac ti vi ty. ” Lai dl aw , 52 8 U .S

. at18 3 (in te rn al q u o ta tio n m ar ks om itt ed ). M c K as so n st at es in an affid av it th a t s h e w ill ex p er ien c e d im in ish ed ae st h et ic an d rec r ea ti o na lv alue i fthe Co m pan y c o ns truct s an d o per at es the po wer p lant unde r the 2 00 1 PS D pe r m i t. S he ex pl ains tha t ev ery o th ery ea r s i nc e 1987, M cKas so n a nd her f am i l y hav e take n tr i ps to fi sh, ka yak, cam p, and enj oy the naturalbea uty a nd cl ean e n vir onm ent o fRend Lake, l o ca te d t hree m i l es fr o m the pr o po se d pl an t si te
. S he cl ai m s i fthe Com pany bui l ds th e p lan t un der the 20 01 pe r mi t, s he wi l lc e a s e h e r b i e nn i a lrecr e a t i o na lt r i psN o. 06

- 4045 9 b ec au se th e p ollu ta n ts em itt e d b a s e d on th e p er m it w ill h a r m h e r a n d d i mi n i s h h e r a e s th e t i c e nj o y me n to fRe nd Lake. The defe nd ants cl ai m thatM cK ass on’ s inj ury i s insubstanti al, but the “inj u ry -in -fac t n ec es sa ry for s ta n d in g ‘need not be l ar ge, an i denti fi abl e t ri fl e wil lsuffi ce. ’ ” Laf l e urv. Whi t m an , 30 0 F
. 3d 2 56 , 2 70 ( 2d Cir

. 20 02) ( quoti ng Sierra C lub v. C edar P oi n t O il C o . , Inc. , 73 F. 3d 546, 557 (5th Cir. 19 96 )); see also D o e v. C o un ty of M o n tg o m e ry, 41 F. 3d 1156 , 1159 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( “[ A ] n i denti fiabl e t ri fl e i s e nough f or st an di ng to fi g ht o ut a que st i o n o f pr i nc i pl e . . . . ” ( quo ting U nite d State s v. Students C h a ll enging Regulatory Agency Pro c e d u r e s ( S CR AP ) , 4 12 U
. S. 66 9, 6 89 n. 14 ( 19 73 ) ) )
. I fthe propos ed pla nt i s bui l t, M cK ass on wil lbe exposed to em i ssi ons fro m the pla nt i fshe continues herl ongsta nd i ng tr adit i on o fvi si ti ng Rend Lake with herf am i l y. This “l i kel y e xposure” to pol l utants i s “ cer tainl y s om eth i ngmor e tha n an ‘ i den ti fi ab l e tr i fl e, ’ e ve n i fthe a m bi en t l eve lo fai r quali ty does not exceed [ cer tain nati onal l i m i ts]
. ” Laf

l e ur, 3 00 F.3d at27 0-7 1; s e eal s o Be ns m an v. U ni t e d S t at e s Fo r e s tSe r v. , 408 F .3 d 9 4 5, 962-63 (7th Cir. 2005 ) ( i nd i vi du alhad sta nd i ng to chal l enge a prop os ed proj ect i n a nat i onalf or est w hen he had vi si ted the proj ect a r ea six tim es over 20 years an d plan ne d to return soon). M o r eo ver, if M cKas so n fo r eg o es he r r egul arv i si ts t o the l ak e be ca us e o fthe se pol lutant s, tha t woul d a l so c o nst i t u t e a n inju ry -in -fac t. Se eLa i dl aw , 528 U .S. at 1 83 (ind ivi du al’s a ffi davi t s tat i ng tha t he f or ego es usi ng a ri ver f o r r ec r ea ti o na lpur po se s becaus e o fpo l l ut i o n c o nc erns w as suffi ci ent t o show inj ury- i n-f act); see also Buono v
. N or t on , 37 1 F
. 3d 543, 547 ( 9th Cir

. 2004 ) ( “W e hav e r epeat-10 N o. 06

- 4045 edly he l d tha t i nabi l i tyt o unr es er ved l y us e publ i c l an d suffi ces as i nj ury -i n-f act. ”)
. M cK ass on’ s inj uri es ar e a l so ones thatar e “c oncrete and part i cul ar i zed” be cause they affect her i n a “ perso naland i nd ivid u al way. ” See Lujan , 50 4 U .S. at 5 60 & n .1; Coali t i on f ortheEnv’ tv. Vol pe, 50 4 F. 2d 156, 16 7 ( 8th Cir

. 197 4) (h ol ding that a pro posed d ev elo p m en t t h at w ou ld inc re as e p ollu tio n an d tra ffic and l i m i t pl ai nti ff s’ vi ew s was a cogni zabl e inj ury that d ep rived p lai nt iffs ofaesth etic and ps ych ologi cal ben efi t). T h e d efe n d an ts als o a rg u e t h at be c au se th e p lan t w ill tak e y ear s t o bui l d, M cK ass on’ s injur y is not “actual o r i m m inen t” a nd do es no t m ee t th e se co nd r equi r ement f ori nj ury i n f act. But the defe n dants f or getthat thre ate ned i nj ury can sa tisfy A rt i cl e I I Ist anding re quir em en ts
. See Babb i t tv. U ni t e d F ar m Worke rs Nat ’ l U nion, 44 2 U .S. 28 9, 29 8 (1 97 9) (“ [O ]n e d oe s n o t h av e t o a w ait th e co ns um m at i o n o fthr ea te ne d i nj ur y t o o bt ain pr ev en tiv e re lief. I ft h e inj u ry is ce rt ain ly im p en d in g t h at is e n o u gh .”); see also M a s s a c h u s e t t s v . EPA , 1 2 7S

. Ct

. 1 438, 1455 ( 2007 ) ( EPA ’ s r efusalto r egul ate greenhouse g as em iss ion s p re se n te d an im m in en t ris k of h ar m ); M a instreet O rg. of Realt ors v. C alum etCity, 505 F.3d 742 , 744 (7th C ir. 2007 ) ( “[ S]tanding i n the A rt i cl e I I Ise nse doe s no t re quir e a cer tainty o r eve n a v er y hi gh p robabi l i ty that the pl ai nti ffi s com pla i ni ng about a r eali nj ury, suffer ed or th re at en ed .”). T h e C om p an y c laim s t h at th e P SD p er m it that i t r ecei ved i s s ti l lval i d, and i t ( str enuousl y) ar gues th at i t has actual l y b egun co nstructi on o fthe pla nt. A s a p ra c tic al m a t t e r, it m ak es se n se for Sie rra C lu b to ch all e ng e the v a l i di t y o f the Co mpa ny ’ s pe r mi t no w, r ather th an w ait in g u n til th e p lan t is op er at ion al. See Laf l e ur, 30 0N o. 06

- 4045 11 F. 3d at 270 ( l i kel y e xposure to em i ssi ons fro m a pro posed bu t not yet bu il t facil ity w as “certa inly an i njury-i n-fact” ). M o r eo ve r, w hi l e thi s s ui t ha s be enpendi ng, the Co m pan y h a s a g a i n p u b l i c l y a n n o u n c e d i t s c o mmi t me n tt o c o mple ti ngthe p l a nt
. S o “ [ t ] hi s i s n o ta c a s e o fs o me ab s t ra ct p sy c h i c h ar m or a on e-d ay -I’ll-be -h u rtalleg at ion
. . . .” M a instreet, 50 5 F
. 3d at 745. Inj ury to M cK ass on has bee n fre sh ly th re at en ed an d is n otm er ely h yp ot h et ica l.

2. Th e i njury i s t r acea ble t o the pr oposed const ructi on un d er th e 2001 pe rm it . Sierra C lub m us t also dem ons trate th at M c K a sson ’s i nj ury i s “ f ai rly trace abl e” to the Com pany’s co nstr ucti on of th e p lan t u n d er t h e 2 00 1 P SD p er m it. See Texa s Indep. Pro d u c e rs & Ro y a l tyOwn e rs A s s ’ n v . EPA , 410 F. 3d 964, 97 2 (7th C ir. 2005). I f th e “ind ep en d en t action of som e third party not bef or e the c ourt ” ca uses M cK ass on’ s inj ury, then th e c om p lain t fa i l s t h e t ra c ea b ility te st
. Id. ( quo ting Lujan , 504 U
. S. a t 5 60) (intern al q uo tation m arks om itted ). T h e d efe n d an ts c on c ed e th at u n d er th e 2 00 1 P SD p er m it th e pr o po se d pl an t wi l le m i t ai rbo r ne po l l ut an ts , i nc l udi ng m er cury a nd pa r ti cul at e m at ter, thr ee mil es fr o m Re nd Lak e. M cKas so n c l ai m s th es e po l l ut an ts a nd the re s ul t i ngde c r e a s e i n v i s ib i l i t y wi l ln e g a t i v e l y i mpa c th er enj oym en t of th e lake. W e agree that “[w ]here a plaintiff has p oi nted to a pol l uti ng so urce as the s eed o fhi s inj ury, an d the o wnero fthe po l l ut i ngs o ur ce h as su ppl i ed no al ternati ve cul pri t, the ‘ f ai rl y t ra ceabl e’ requ i re m ent c an b e sai d to be f ai rl y m et. ” F r i e n d s o f t h e Ea r t h v . Gas t on12 N o. 06

- 4045 Coppe rRe cy cl i ng Corp
. , 204 F.3d 149 , 162 (4th C ir. 200 0). He r e , the de fe nd a nt s p o i ntt o n o o the r p o l l ut i ngso urce that coul d be the ca use o fM cK ass on’ s inj ury. N on et h ele ss , th e d efe n d an ts cla im Sier ra C lu b st ill cannot show causat ion be cause the Com pany has desi gned i ts pl ant t o produce em i ssi ons bel ow p er m i tte d l eve ls, s o u n ti lthe pla nt i s bui l t, ther e r em ai ns a f actual q u es tio n w h et h er M c K as so n w ill ac tu ally be inju re d . Th is ar gum ent i s in ess ence j ust a var i at ion o n the defe nd ants’ cl ai m ( rej ecte d above ) thatM cK ass on has n ot ye t s uffer ed an“ ac tu al ” o r “ i m m i ne nt” i nj ur y . W e ag r ee tha t no one know s the ultim ate m agn itud e of M cK asson ’s inj ury

— f ore x am ple , we don’t know i fthe parti cul ate m att erfro m the pla nt wil lbl ot out the sky orm er el y c re ate a th i n ha ze th at ’ s no t vi sibl e to th e na k ed ey e, o r i fthe ai rbo rne m er cury w i l lactual l y s pread 45 m i l es to poi son fi sh thatM cK ass on cur re ntl y c onsum es fro m a pond near h er h om e (w h ich is an ot h er h ar m sh e c laim s s h e w ill suffer )
. W e d o kn ow , however, thatthe pla nt wil lr el eas e s om e pol l utants and that M cK ass on be l ieves these po l l ut an ts wi l lr ui n h er abi l i tyt o e nj o y Re nd La k e an d tai nt th e su r r o undi ng ar ea . And h er be l i ef i s no t so irra tio n al th at it can sim p ly b e d i s c r ed ite d

. Se eLa i dl aw , 52 8 U .S. at18 2- 83 ( fi nd i ng tha t a l oca lci ti zens gr oup m em ber suffer ed i nj ury i n f act because she bel i eve d that di schar ged pol l utants had l owered herhom e’s val ue)
. Because Mc K a s s o n ’ s i nj u r y s t e ms fr o m the e mi s s i o n s o fth e C o mpany’s pro posed p lan t, we fi nd thatherthr eat ened i nj ury i s f ai rl y t ra ceabl e t o the pl ant.N o. 06

- 4045 13 3. Enjoi nin g t he Com pan y f r om b uil ding based on it s 2001 pe rm itw ou ld likely redress M cK ass on ’s i njury. Fi nal l y, a pla i nti ffm us t show that a f avo rabl e deci si on w ill l ik e l y , n otj u st sp ec u lat ive ly, relie ve h er inju ry . Id. at 181. The de fendants co ntend that the I EPA m i ght no t s et l ower e m i ssi ons l eve l s fora new PSD per m i t a nd that M cKas so n’ s co nc erns mightr emai n even i fthe pl an t pol l uted at l ower e m i ssi on l eve l s. The de fen dan ts ’ a r g um en t, o fc o ur se , pr es um es tha t th e Com pany w i l lactual l y s eek out and r ecei ve a new perm i t. Despit e publ i cl y a nnouncing that i t w ou ld seek a new per m i t afte r i t l o sti n the dist r i ctc o ur t, the Co m pan y r epr es en te d a t o r ala rgum en t th ati t ha d no t y etb egun th i s pr o ce ss . And e ve n if th e Companya ppl i ed f o r a nd r ec ei ve d a ne w per m i t, the r e woul d b e so m e del ay( th e I EPA to ok al m osta y ea r bef or e g ra nti ng the 20 01 perm i t) bef or e the Com pany coul d begin const ructi on. A deci si on i n f avo r ofS i er ra Cl ub, ther ef or e, would a t lea st re dress M cK ass on’ s inj ury du ring tha t t i m e. M or eov er, asSier ra C lu b n ot es , po llu tio n co n tr ol te c h n ologyte nd s t o i m prove o ver tim e, so i t m ake s s ense that a ne w per m i t woul d ha ve mor e st r i ng en t emi ss i o n s ta nd ar d s t h an th e 2 00 1 p er m it. See 42 U
. S. C. § 7475( a) ( 4) (m ajor-e m itt in g fa c ilitie s m u st u se t h e be st av aila b le c on tr ol te c h n olo gy to re c e i v e P SD p er m its ); In reW. Suburb an R ecycli ng and E nergy C tr ., L.P
. , 8 E.A. D. 192 ( EPA A pp . Bd

. 1999 )
. I nd eed, the re cor d ind i cates t hat the I EPA i ssued PSD per m i ts i n 200 3 a nd 20 05 f orsi m i l ar coa l

- fi re d pow erpl ants with e m i ssi on s tandards that14 N o. 06

- 4045

Sierr a Club has an othe r “s t andi ng pl ai nt i ff ” butl i ke the 2 d i s t r i c tc o u r t, w e f i n d i tu n n e c e s s a r y t o a d d r e s s h e r c l a i ms because M cK ass on has s tanding to s ue. we r e s i g n i fi c a n t l y mo r e s t r i n g e n tt ha n th o s e i nth e C o mp an y’s 2001 per m i t. I t i s there f or e r eas onabl e t o bel i eve that a nyn e w pe r mi tthe Co mpa nyo b t a i ns wi l lh a ve t o u g h e r e mi s s i o n s t a n d a r d s th a n t h e 2 0 0 1 P S D p e r mi t
. We need not det er m i ne exac tl y ho w m uch toughe r thos e sta nd ar ds w i l lbe because M cK ass on need not show that a fav or ab le d ec isio n w ill reliev e h er e ve ry inju ry . M as s ac huse tts , 127 S

. Ct. at14 58 ( ci ti ng Larson v. Valente, 456 U
. S. 22 8, 244 n. 15 (1 98 2))
. I t i s e nough thatherco ncer ns wil lbe a d d r e s s e d i fmo r e s t r i n g e n te mi s s i o n s t a n d a r d s a r e i mposed than those r equi re d und erthe 2001 per m i t, ev en th o ug h the pl an t wi l lst i l le m i t so m e po l l ut an ts i fthe C om p an y ob ta i n s a n ew P SD p er m it. Seeid

. at14 58 n. 23 ( “[ E]ve n a sm al lp robabi l i ty ofinj ury i s s uffi ci ent t o cre ate a ca se orco ntro ver sy . . . provi ded o fco urse thatthe re l i ef so ug htwoul d, i f g r an te d, r edu ce the pr o babi l i ty
. ” ( quo ting Vil l

. of ElkGro ve Vi l l

. v. Evans , 997 F.2d 328 , 329 (7th C ir. 1993 )) ). So i t is li kely that a f avorab le decision h ere w i l lr edres s M cK ass on’ s, and hence S i er ra Cl ub’s , i nj ury. Therefor e, we concl ud e that S i er ra Cl ub h as or gani zat i o n a ls t a n d i n gt o p u r s u e th i s s u i tb e c a us e i th a s s h o wn that the Com pany’s co nstr ucti on under t h e e xpir ed 200 1 PSD p er m it w ou l d cause a t l eas t o ne o fi ts m em ber s to 2 su ffer inj ur y i n f ac t th ati s tr ac eabl e to the Co m pan y a nd i s r edres sabl e i fS i er ra Cl ub preva i l s her e.N o. 06

- 4045 15 B. Sierr a Cl ub ’ s cl ai m i s r i pe and per m i ssi ble un der 42 U . S . C . § 7604(a)(3) . The defe n d an ts re l y o n two dis tr i ct c ourtdeci si ons to ar gu e t h at Sier ra C lu b ’s c laim is n otrip e. See U nited Sta tes v. Il l

. PowerCo. , 245 F. Sup p . 2d 951, 956-57 (S. D
. I ll

. 2003); Ne w York v. N i a ga ra M ohawk PowerCorp. , 26 3 F
. S up p. 2d 650, 6 61 (W
. D.N.Y. 20 03)
. The defendants co ntend that S i e r r a C l u b mu s twa i tu n t i lth e C o mpa n y a c t u a l l y b e g i ns const ructing the pl ant be f or e S i er ra Cl ub can a ll ege that the Com pany has vi ol ate d i ts preco nstr ucti on PS D perm i t. T he de fend an ts m isread thes e cases , w hich sp ecify w hen the l i m i tat i ons peri od beg i ns f orcla im s that a co m pan y ha s vi o l at ed a p re co ns truct i o n pe r m i tt i ng r e qu i r e men t
. In tha tc o nt ext, i tma k e s s e ns e t o c o nc l ud e that the l astposs ibl e m om ent a t which a pre c on structi on v i o l a t i o n o c c u r s i s “ wh e n th e a c t ua lc o n s t r u c t i o n i s c o mm enced, and no t at som e l ate r poi nt i n ti m e. ” Il l

. PowerCo. , 245 F. S up p. 2d at95 7; see N i agara M ohawk PowerCorp. , 263 F. S up p. 2d at6 61 -62 . But i t doe s no t l ogi cal l y fol l ow ( nor do these case s sugge st) that a p re const ructi on perm i t v i ol ati on ca nnot occur unti lactual co nstr ucti on begins. T he defendants al so ar gue that the ci ti zen s uitpro visio n t h a t Sie rra C lu b relie s u p on , sec tio n 76 04 (a)( 3), on ly al l ows sui ts aga i nst enti ti es that ar e “ w i thout a per m i t, ” s o S i er r a C lub c anno t br i ngthi s su i t be ca us e th e Company received a perm it (albeit one th at m ay no l ong er be vali d ). The de fen dan ts c i te no di r ec t su ppo r t fo r thi s po si ti o n, i nstea d cl ai m i ng the m att eri s no t rip e a nd cannotbe16 N o. 06

- 4045 adj ud i cate d untilthe I EPA i ssues a fi naldeci si on wh ether the Co mpa ny ’ s 2 0 0 1 p e r mi th a s e xp i r e d. The defe nd ants’ argum ent i gnor es the e xpli ci t l anguage o fs ec ti o n 7 60 4( a) ( 3)
. Tha t provisi o n s ta te s th at“ an y p er so n m ay co m m en c e a civ il ac tio n on h is ow n b eh alf .

. . aga i nst a ny per son . . . wh o i s a l l ege d .

. . to be i n vi ol ati on of anyc o ndi ti o n o f[ a PS D] pe r m i t. ” The Co m pan y c er tainly i s a pers on alleged to be i n violation of a PSD p er m it

— Si er ra Club al l ege s that the Com pany vi ol ate d the t e r ms o fi t s p e r mi tb y n o tc o mm e nc i ngc o ns t ructi on o fi ts f ac i l i tyin a ti m ely f as hi o n, w hi chi n tur n c au se d the p er m it t o e x p ire
. See 40 C. F
. R. § 12 4. 5( g ) ( 2)
. And the I EPA m ade the s am e al l eg at i o n whe n i t pr el i m i na r i l y f o und that the Com pany’s per m i t had expi re d. M or eov er, ev en i fha vinga n e xpi r ed per m i t wer e ak i n to ha vingno perm i t a t a l l, S i er ra Cl ub w oul d sti l lbe abl e to s u e under sect i on 7 604( a) ( 3) , wh i ch enabl es ci ti zens to sue e nti ti es l i ke the Com pany that“pro pose[ ] to c on st ruct
. . . new or mod i f i ed maj o r e mi t t i ngf a c i l i t [ i e s ] wi tho uta [ PS D] p erm it. ” 42 U
. S. C

. § 7604(a)(3) ( em p ha sis add ed ). I t i s i r r el ev an t th at th e I EPA h as y et to fi ni sh de cid i ng w he th er the C om p an y’s perm it i s invalid bec au se th at’s n otw h at se c tio n 76 0 4(a )(3) req u ire s. Ina c irc u it c as e re fer en c ed by b o th p ar tie s, Gran d Cany on Tru s tv. Tucs on Ele c. PowerCo. , 39 1 F
. 3d 97 9, 98 6 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 4) , the N i nth Cir cu it hel d that a di str i ct c ourthad j uri sdic ti on ov er a ci ti zen s uitthatchal l enged the va l i dity o fa perm it ev entho ug h the EPA ha d no t y eta ct ed to r evo k e th e pe r mi t
. T h e d e fe n d a n t s c l a i m Gran d Cany on a na l y z e d a differ ent c i ti zen s uitpro visio n than the o ne ati ssue here

.N o. 06

- 4045 17 T h at se em s d ou b tfu l. See i d. a t 985 ( “Una utho r i ze d c o nstr ucti on of a pow er pla nt vi ol ate s the Clea n A ir A ct an d prov ides gr ou nd s for a citizen su it und er the A ct’s c itiz en su it p ro vis ion
. See 42 U
. S. C

. § 7604 (a)( 3) . . . ”). R eg ar d les s, Gran d Cany on d oe s not s ugges t there i s a ca te g o r i ca lr ule requi r i nga pl aint i fft o wai t unt i lthe re lev an t a ge n c y fin ish es d ec id in g w h et h er a p er m it is val i d (a t l eas t when, as here , a sui t i s n ot a skingus t o r ev i ew a n a g en cya ct i o n)
. S o i n a cc o r dan ce w ith the p lai n lang ua g e o f sect ion 7604(a)(3), w e find that Si erra Cl ub ha s pr o per l y b r o ug htthi s su i t unde r tha t pr o vi si o n.
C. Th e Com pan y d i d not “co m m ence co nstructi on” of the plan t. As n o t e d ab o v e , a P S D p e r mi tc a n e x p i r e a n d b e c o me i nval i d i n one ofthr ee w ays : ( 1) i fco nstr ucti on i s not “com m ence d” wi th i n 1 8 m o nths a fte r r ec ei pt o fthe perm i t, ( 2) i fco nstr ucti on i s di sco nti nued f ora peri od of 18 m onths orm or e a fterco nstr ucti on has begun, or (3) if c on s t r u c t ion is n otco m p let ed w ith ina re as on ab le tim e. See 40 C

. F.R. § 52.21(r) (2). Si m il arly, the C om p an y’s PSD perm it stated i t w ou ld bec om e invalid if : c o ns t r uc t i o n o fCF B [ c i r c ul a t i ngfl ui di z e d b e d] boi l er s i s no t c om m enced w i thi n 18 m onths after thi s per m i t be com es effecti ve , i fco nstr ucti on o f these boi l er s i s disc onti nued f or a peri od of 18 m ont hs or m ore, or if con stru ction of these boil ers i s no t co m ple te d w ithi n a r eas onabl e per i od of ti m e.18 N o. 06

- 4045

The defen dant s ar gue d bef or e the di s tri c tc our tthatthe 3 C om p an y w as en titled to v ario u s exten sion s and gra ce p erio d s, the re by del ayi ng the dea dl i ne t o Fe brua ry 10, 2 003. W hi l e the dist ri ctcourt did not deci de w hetherthi s w as co rr ect, i t not ed thatthe defen dant s l os te venunde r the Fe brua ry 10 dat e. The defen dant s do n otr e- ar gue the se e xt en s i ons onappe al, s o the J anuary 3, 2003, dead li ne i s the operati ve one. The perm i t i ssued o n J uly3, 20 01, s o i ts drop- dead date wa s J a n u a r y 3 , 2 0 0 3
. T h e qu e s t i o n i s w h e th e r th e C o m- 3 pany “co m m enced” co nstr ucti on o fi ts p l ant bythat deadli ne. 42 U
. S. C. § 7479( 2) ( A ) st ate s there ar e tw o w ays i n w hi ch const ructi on ca n “co m m ence”: ( i ) [ the ow ner oroperat orh as] begun, orcause d to begin, a continuous progr am o fphysi cal on- si te const ructi on o fthe f aci l i ty or ( i i ) [ the o wne r o r o pe r a t o r ha s ] e nt e r e d int o b i nd

i ng ag re em ents orco n tr actualo bl i gat i ons, whi chc anno t be c an ce l ed o r modi fi ed wi th o ut s ub s t a nt i a l l o s s t o the o wne r o r o pe r a t o r, to unde r ta k e a pr o g r am o fc o ns tru ct i o n o fthe fac ility to be co m p let ed w ith ina re as on ab le ti m e. See a lso 40 C. F. R. § 52. 21(b)(9) ( defini ng “[ c] om m ence as ap p lie d to cons tru ction” sim il arly)

. Th e d istri ct cou rt conc l ud ed the Com pany had nei therco m m enced a prog r am o fa ctua lc o ns truct i o n n o r e nt er ed i nt o a b i ndi ng agreem en t to un d ertake su ch a program . Th e d istri ct cou rt al so f o und tha t ev eni fthe Co m pan y ha d begun c o n-N o. 06

- 4045 19 str ucti ng the pl ant, i t ha d la psed i n i ts const ructi on ac ti vi tyf o r mor e th an1 8 m o nths , the r eb y i nv ali d at i ng the PS D perm i t. On a ppea l, the de fen dan ts a ss er t th er e ar e g enui ne f actualdi sputes that s houl d have pre vente d the di str i ct cour t fro m gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o Sierr a Cl ub. W e r e v i e w the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r a nto fs ummar y j ud gm ent de novo and construe al lf acts i n the l i ght m ost fav or ab le t o th e d efe n d an ts
. See Ra w oof v. Te xorPe t r ol e um Co. , 521 F.3d 750 , 755 (7th C ir. 2008).

1 . No r e a s o na bl e f a c t f i nde r c o ul d f i nd t ha tt he Com pan y had st art ed a t i m el y pr ogr am ofactual const ructi on or engage d i n c onst ructi on act i vi t i es w i t hout an i m permissi ble l apse. The defe nd ants cl ai m th at the Com pany prev ented i ts 20 01 PS D pe r m i t fr o m expi r i ngby beg i nni ng“ a co nt i nuo us pr o g r am o fa ctua lc o ns truct i o n” tha t i nc l ude d “ c o n duct i ng engi neer i ng studie s [ and] e xcavat i on work

. ” W e di sag re e. The EPA defi nes “ begin actual co nstr ucti on” as: [ I ] n gener al, ini ti ati on ofp hysi calo n-s i te const ruction activities on an em issi ons un it w hich a r e o f a p erm an en t nat ure . Such activiti es includ e, bu t are no t l i m i te d t o , in s ta l l at i o n o fb ui l di ngs uppo r ts a nd f o unda ti o ns, l ay i ngunde r g r o und pi pewo r ka nd const ructi on o fper m anent s t o r a g e s tr uctures
. W i th re sp ec t t o a ch an ge in m et h od of op er at i o n s, th is ter m r efer s t o thos e o n-s i te acti viti es othe r than20 N o. 06

- 4045 prepar ato ry acti vi ti es w hi ch m ar k the i ni ti ati on o f the c hange. 40 C .F.R . § 52 .21 (b )(11 ) (em p h as es ad d ed ); see also 4 0 C. F
. R. § 5 2. 21(b) ( 8) ( defini ng “c onst ructi on” as “any physi cal c h a n g e o r c h a n g e i n th e me th o d o fo p e r a t i o n ( i n c l u d i ng f abr i cati on, er ecti on, i nstal l ati on, dem ol i ti on, o r m odi fi cati on o fan e m i ssi ons u n it) th at w oul d res ulti n a c hange i n em i ssi on s”). W e a cknowle dge ( as the defendants str enuousl y a rgue) thatbeg i nning actualco nstr ucti on m i g htb e so m ethi ngs l i g ht l y di ffer en t than b eg i nni ng a co nt i nuo us pr o gr am o fphy si ca lo n- si te c o ns truct i o n, a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r 4 2 U
. S

. C

. § 74 7 9 ( 2 ) ( A) ( i )
. B u tth e C o mpany d id n ot engag e in any ki nd o fper m anent c onst ructi on a cti vi ty at al l

. A s o fthe PSD perm i t’ s e xpir ati on date ofJ anuary3, 20 03, the Com pany had l ai d no f ou n d at ion an d c o ns tructed no b ui l di ngs uppo r ts , unde r g r o und pipework, o r perm anent s tor age st ructur es. I m port antl y, the Com pany had not begun co nstr ucti ng the C FB boi l er s, w h ich w as so m et h in g t h a t t h e P SD p er m it h ad ex p licit ly r e qu i r e d tha tthe Co mpa nydo b e f o r e J a nu a r y 3
. Ind e e d, th e o nly con stru cti o n a ct i vi type r f o r m ed bythe C om p an y w as th at it had directe d A lbe riciCon stru ctors to d i g a hol e, wh i ch A lber i cibeg an to do o n J anuary8. A lberici ’s m inim al w o r k h a rd ly he ralded the sta rt of a “co nti nuous prog ra m ” of actual const ructi on, as A lber i ci stop p ed d ig g in g the hole on Febru ary 14, 2003 , after a paym ent dispute. A nd dig gi ng the hol e w as not const ruction activity “of a p erm an en t nat ure , ” as th e C om p an y’s l a nd l o r d l a t e r h a d the h o l e r e fi l l e d. Ou r concl usi on her e i s furtherbutt re ss ed bya J uly1, 1978 , m em or andu m se n t b y Edw ar d E. Rei ch, Dir ecto r ofN o. 06

- 4045 21

W hil e the EP A did not prom ulgate the R ei ch M em orand um as 4 par tofi t s r ul em aki ng a uthor i t y, an “a ge nc y’ s i nt er pre t at i on [ of its ow n re g u lation s] m u st be giv en c o n t ro lling w eig ht u nless i t i s p la in ly er ro n eo u s o r in co n sis te n t w ith th e r eg u la tio n .” Th o m a s Je

ffer so n U n iv . v . S h a la la , 512 U
. S. 504, 512 ( 1994) ( int ernal quo t at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. I ndee d, “i tc an s t i l l be appa re nt f rom the agency’ s general ly c onfe rred autho ri ty an d other s t atut or y c i rc um s t anc es thatCong re s s woul d exp ec tthe a ge nc y t o be a bl e t o s peak wi th the f or c e o fl a w whe n i ta ddress es am biguity i n the st atute or fil ls a s pace i n the enact ed l aw , ev en o ne a bo utwhi c h ‘ Co ng r e s s di d n ota c t ua l l y ha ve an int ent’ as to a parti cular res ult. ” U ni t ed Sta t es v . M ea d C orp. , 53 3 U. S. 21 8, 22 9 ( 20 01 ) ( quo ting Ch e v r o n , US A, In c . v . NR DC, Inc. , 46 7U .S. 8 3 7, 84 5 (19 8 4 )). St ati onar y S ourc e Enfo rcem ent a t the EPA , and enti tl ed

“ ‘ Com m ence Constr ucti on’ U n d er PSD” ( the “ Rei ch M em or andu m ”)
. In add re ssing w hat const i tutes physi cal 4 on -sit e c on st ru c tio n, th e R eic h M e m or an d u m sp ec ifica lly note s that “[ a] cti vi ti es such as si te cl ear i ng an d excav ati o n wo r kwi l lg en er al ly n ot s at i sfy the c o m m en ce c o nstr ucti on r equi re m ents. ” Rei ch M em or andu m ( “A s s tat ed i n the pream bl e to the draft re gul ati ons, ‘ i t w i l l not suffi ce m er el y t o have b eg u n er ecti on o fauxi l i ar y b uil dings o r const ructi on s heds unle ss ther e is cle arev i dence ( thro ugh con tr ac ts o r o th er wi se ) tha t co ns truct i o n o fthe e nt i re f ac i l i t y wi l ld e fi n i t e l y g o f o r wa r d i n a c o n t i n u o u s ma nn e r ’
. ” )
. T h e d e fe n d a n t s h a v e p r o v i d e d n o r e a s o n wh y we sh ou ld ign or e t h e E P A ’s g u id an c e on th is iss u e o r w h y t h is case i s a speci alo ne that m er i ts i gnor i ng thi s g ener alr ule

. F i n a l l y, w e n o t e th a te v e n i fth e C o mp a n y h a d “ c o mm enced const ructi on” of the pla nt, i t l apsed i n construc-22 N o. 06

- 4045 tion for over 18 m ont hs , t he reby inva li d ating its PSD perm i t. A fterA lber i cist opped d i gging o n Feb ru ar y 14, 2003 , i t perfor m ed no m or e e xcavat i on workatthe si te. I nd eed, the si te appears to have lain d or m ant foro ver 1 9 mo n th s unt i l S e p t e mb e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e n a n o th e r c o mp an y b eg an d igg in g a s e c o n d h ole for th e C om p an y. T h is 1 9

- mo n th l a p s e i n c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y k i l l e d th e C o mp an y’s P SD p er m it. See 40 C

. F.R. §§ 52.21(r)( 2), 124.5(g) (2).

2 . No r e a s o na bl e f a c t f i nde rc o ul d f i nd t hat t he Com pan y had t i m el y e nter ed a bi nd i ng cont r act t o un de r t a ke a pr o g r a m o fa c t ua l c o ns t ruc t i o n. The de fen dan ts a l te r na ti ve l y c l ai m tha t th e Company ha d “ co m m en ce d c o ns truct i o n” wi th in 1 8 m o nths o fthe per m i t’ s i ss ua nc e by si g ni nga “ co ns truct i o n mem o r an du m ” with B& V i n l ate 20 02, ther eby re quir i ng tho se parti es to “w or k tog ethero n an e xcl usi ve basi s . . . i n or der to dr aft a nd neg o ti at e the EPC [ Eng i ne er i ng, Pr o cur ement and C onst ructi on] Contr act. ” To count a s a con tr ac t that co m m en ce d c o ns truct i o n, the co ns truct i o n mem o r an dum w ou l d have t o be o ne “which [ coul d not] be cancel ed or m od ified w ithou t sub stan tial loss to th e o w ne r or op erator, to und er tak e a pro gr am o fco nstr ucti on o fthe f aci l i ty t o b e c o mpl e t e d wi thin a r e a s o nab l e t i me. ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 7479 (2)( A )( ii ). Even i fe nt er i ngthe c o ns truct i o n mem o r an dum counted as “com m en ci ng co nstr ucti on” ofthe pow er pla nt, the Com pany’s per m i t e xpir ed because o fthe 19- m onth l apse b etween Fe bruar y 2 003 and Sep te m b er 20 04 i n whi chthe Com p any di d no c o ns truct i o n wo r ko n theN o. 06

- 4045 23 fac ility

. See sup ra I I ( C)(1 ). The Com pany w oul d have to a r g ue ( whi chi t do es n’ t) tha t th e co ns truct i o n mem o r an du m s om ehow prevente d thi s 1 9- m onth l apse fro m killin g t h e p er m it. B u t s u c h an int er p re ta tio n w ou ld in effect al l ow a P SD p er m i tte e to tr um p the 18- m onth l apse p rovisi on an d i nd efi nite ly d e lay the con stru ction of a f aci l i ty so l ong as the perm itte e has ente re d a co ntra ct that “co m m ences const ructi on. ” W e see no ba si s for r e ad in g t h e E P A reg u lat ion s in th is m an n er . See 4 0 C

. F
. R. § 5 2. 21( r) ( 2) ( noti ng tha t a PSD per m i t e xpir es “i fco nstr ucti on i s di sco nti nued f ora peri od of18 m onths orm or e” or “if c on st ru c tio n i s n otco m p let ed w ith ina re as on ab le tim e” ); see also 4 0 C. F
. R. § 52
. 21 ( b) ( 8) ; Re i chM emor an dum ( “In o r dert o a ssu re tha t co ns truct i o n pr o ce eds in a c o nt i n u ou s m an n er an d is co m p let ed w ith ina re as on ab le ti m e, the re gul ati ons re quir e that a br eaki n const ructi on o fg r ea te r tha n 1 8 m o nths or fai l ur e to c o m m en ce c o nst ru c tio n w i t h i n 18 m on th s o f P SD p er m it iss u an c e w ill gen erall y i nv ali d ate a sou rce’s PSD perm it. ”). A t any rate (as w e d iscus s below ), the C om p an y’s s i g n i n g o ft h e c o n s t r u c t i o n me mo r a n d u m d i d n o t“ c o mm en ce con stru ction” of th e po w er plan t. B efore w e interpr etthe mem o r an d um , ho wev er, we no te tha t th e p ar tie s d isa gr ee on w h ic h ju ris d ict ion ’s la w w e s h ou ld apply. S i er ra Cl ub cl ai m s we shoul d fo l l ow a c hoi ce o f l aw pro vi si on in the const ructi on m em or andu m , wh i ch sp ecifi es th at th e a greem en t is to be interp reted “in accordance w i th the substa nti ve l aw of the St ate of N ew Yor k, except fori ts c h oi ce o fl aw s pro vi si ons. ” See A m . Fuel C orp. v. U tah E nergy D ev. Co
. , Inc. , 122 F.3d 130 , 134 (2d Cir. 1997 ) ( “ [ W ] he r e the p a r t i e s h a v e a g r e e d t o the a pp l i c a-24 N o. 06

- 4045

T he d efend an ts sug g est tha t a “ third altern ativ e” w ou ld b e to 5 app ly federal com m on law in interpret ing the contr act, but they don’ te xpl ai n why thatal t er nat i ve s houl d appl y he re . The t wo pri m ar y c as es the y c i t e i nvol ved c ont ra c t s i n whi c h the fed er a l g o v er n m en t w a s a p a rt y . S ee Un ited S tat es v. Secking er, 397 U.S. 203, 209- 10 ( 1970) ( “[ F]e deral l aw contr ols the i nter pretatio n o f [a] con tract
. . . ente red into p u rsu an t to au tho rity c onfer re d by fede ra l s t atut e and, ul t i m ately , by the Cons t i t utio n .”); F u n eral F i n . S ys. v. U n i te d S tat es , 23 4 F .3d 101 5, 101 8 (7th Cir. 2000) ( “Int erpret ing the m eaning of a prov is ion in a federal g o v er n m en t c o n tr a ct is a m a tt er o f fed er a l co m m o n la w . . . . ” ). Th a t ’ s a m a t e r i a l l y di ffe r e nts i t ua t i onfr om w hat we h a ve here. The d efendan ts al so not e that federal com m on law can be app li ed w hen “neces sar y to protec t uniquel y f ederal int eres ts , ” but they don’ t e xp la in w hy such federal int eres ts are pre s en the re , or why we sho ul d dis re gar d both the c ontr act ing parti es ’ choi ce ofl aw ( N ew Y ork law) and the preferen ce ind icated b y the Illino is st atu te (Ill ino is law ), p articu larly w hen both po intto the sam e outcom e. ti on o fthe f or um l aw , thei r conse nt co ncl u d es the c hoi ce of law in q u i ry .”). T h e d efe n d an ts co u n te r th at an Il lin ois st at u te re nd er s the m em or andu m ’ s cho i ce o fl aw p ro vis ion vo id an d p oin ts u s to Illin o i s la w : See 81 5 Ill. Com p . Sta t. A nn. 66 5/ 10 ( 2008 ) ( “A pro vi si on co ntai ned i n o r e xe cut ed i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha b ui l di nga nd c o nst r uct i o n c o nt r ac t to b e pe r f o r m ed i n I l l i no i s tha t m ak es the contr act subj ect to the l aw s of an other sta te
. . . i s a gainst pu bl i c pol i cy. S uch a pro vi si on is v oid and unenfo rce able.”)

. W e ne ed not d ecid e w ho i s right bec au se both N ew York and I l l i nois law would char acte ri ze the c onst ructi on 5 m em or andu m as a prel i m i naryag re em ent that requi re dN o. 06

- 4045 25 the par ti es to conduct furthernego ti ati ons, nota const ructi on co ntra ct to bui l d a p ower p l ant. N ew Yor k l aw r eco gni zes thatpa rt ies can enteri nto preci sel y thi s k i nd o f prel i m i naryag re em ent: The parti es agr ee on ce rt ai n m aj orte rm s, but l eave ot h er te rm s op en for fu rt h er n eg ot iat ion
. . . . [Th is type ofag re em ent] ‘ does not com m i t the par ti es to th eirul ti m ate co ntra ctualo bj ecti ve but r atherto the obl i gat i on t o nego ti ate the open i ssues i n go od fait h in a n at te m p t t o re ac h th e . . . ob j ec tiv e w ith in th e ag r ee d fr am ew ork. ’ A par tyt o s ucha b i ndi ng pr el i m i na r y c o m m i tmentha s no r i g htt o de m an d per f o r m an ce o fthe t r an sa ct i o n. A dju strite S ys. v. G A B B us. Serv s. , 145 F.3d 543 , 548 (2d Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i ng Teac he rs Ins . & Annu i ty As s oc . of Am
. v. Tr i b u ne Co. , 670 F. Su p p . 491 , 498 (S.D .N .Y . 198 7)). Sim il ar l y, “I l l i noi s l aw r eco gni zes the prer oga ti ve to ag re e t o furthernego ti ati ons, ev en afterm oste ss enti alco ntra ct te r m s ha ve b ee n s et tled, w hi l e r emai ni ngfr ee t o b ac ko ut of a p en d in g d ea l u n til th e o c c u rre n c e o f so m e la te r ev en t.” Ven t ureAs s oc . Corp. v. Ze ni t h Data System s Corp. , 98 7 F
. 2d 429, 432 (7th C ir. 1993). H er e, the const ructi on m em or andu m was m er el y a prel i m i naryst ep to w ar d the par ti es’ ulti m ate go al

— agr eeing on an EPC co ntra ct forbui l ding the power pla nt. Con tr ar y t o the defen dan ts ’ c l ai m tha t th e m emor an dum re quir ed the parti es to “und er tak e a prog ra m o fco nstr ucti o n o fthe f ac i l i ty, ” th e m emor an dum o nly requi r ed th e par ties t o wor kt o g ethe r t o war d r ea ch i nga n a ctua lc o nstr ucti on a gr eem ent. The m em or andu m speci fi ed that26 N o. 06

- 4045 the par ti es w oul d “agr ee to w or k with eac h othe r i n go od f ai th

. . . t o c om p lete th e dr aftinga nd ne g o ti at i o n o fthe EPC CONTRA CT, wi ththe g o alof a gre einga nd s i g ni ng such EPC CON TRA CT byS eptem ber1, 2005
. ” The m em ora n d u m w as cl earthati t di d not e nabl e the Com pany to demand th at B& V per f o r m co ns truct i o n work: “The PAR TI ES a g r e e th a tupo n Te r mi na t i o n o fthe CO NS TR UCTI ON M EM ORAN DU M , CONTRA CTOR s ha l lha ve no l i ab i l i t y t o p e r f o r m t he EP C Wo r kS c ope fo r the F CP [Fr an klin C ou n ty P ow er ] P R O JE C T for th e O W N E R .” M or eov er, the m em oran d um was hardl y a fi nalag re em ent forbui l ding the pl ant a s i t no ted thatB& V w as “c o nt i nu i ngt o de ve l o p a fi r m pr i ce a nd Dr aft EPC Co ntr act” f orthe proj ect. The c o ns truct i o n mem o r an dum also l i st ed va r i o us eve nts that c ou ld term i nate the a gr eem ent, but none o f thes e e v e nt s wa s a ny thingl i k e “ c o mpl e t i ngc o ns t r uc t i on o fth e p lan t” or “ fin ish in g t h e c on st ru c tio n p roj ec t,” w hi ch w oul d have sugges ted that the co nstr ucti on m em or a n d um w as th e con tract for building th e plan t. R ath er, th e term inating ev en ts includ ed “ [t ]h e da te of signat ure o fthe EPC CONTRA C T for the F CP PR OJ ECT” an d the “[ f ] a i l u r e o f th e P AR T I E S t o r e a c h a g r e e me n t o n a n EPC Contrac t byS eptem ber 1 , 2 00 5 o r such l ate r date a s m ay b e agr eed i n w ri ti ng bythe PA RTIES, ” which aga in i nd i cate thatthe const ructi on m em or andu m was j ust a prel i m i naryag re em ent e n ro ute t o an EPC co ntra ct. Eve n i f th e l an g ua g e o f th e co ns truct ion m emor an dum w as uncle ar, extr i nsi c evi dence ( w hi ch the defe nd ants en co ur ag e us t o ut i li ze) w o ul d s uppo r t th e sa m e co nc l u-N o. 06

- 4045 27 si o n. As o fJ an ua r y 20 06 , a fte r the c o ns truct i o n mem o r an d u m h a d e x p i r e d , th e p a r t i e s s t i l lh a d n o ta g r ee d on a p rice term

— w hi l e the t er m shee t co ntem pla tes a pri ce o f$ 61 5 m i l l i o n fo r the EPC c o nt r ac t, B& V a dvi se d the C om p an y o n J anuary10 , 20 06, thatthe proj ect w oul d be i n the “ $7 10 m pl us r an g e. ” B& V a l so t o l d the Co m pan y that the pr oj ect w oul d requi re 45 m on ths o r m or e t o co m pl et i o n, n ot the Co m pan y ’ s ta r g eto f3 2 m o nths , a nd adv i se d the l at te r, “ I fy o u c an find so m eo ne c o m pet en t w ho wil ldo th e proj ect f or$6 15m and 32 m onths you m ust go ahead and w or k with them

. ” These f acts i nd i cate that the c onst ruc tio n m em or andu m was not a co ntra ct to bui l d the ac tualpl ant. The defe nd ants al so cl ai m thatthe const ructi on m em ora nd um ’ s $ 72 m illion ter m i nati on fee ( w hi ch theyr eprese n te d ator al a rg u m en t t h at th ey w ou ld h av e t o p ay if they l ostthi s s uit ) in d ica te s that thi s was a contr act to c on str uct the power pl ant. Thi s fee appears to be l ess than 10 % o fthe tot alproj ect cos t, w h ich was est i m ate d by the defendants ato ra lar gum ent t o be b etween $7 50 m i l l ion an d $1 billion

. See Rei ch M em or andu m ( “A Contractua lo bl i g at i o n fo r pur po se s o fc o m m en cing const ructi on m ust al so be one w hi ch cann ot be cancel l ed or m od i fi e d wi tho ut s ub s t a nt i a l l o s s . . . . W he the r a l o s s o f les s t h an or eq u al t o 1 0% of th e t ot al p roj ec t c os t w ill be c onsid er ed subst anti alwil lbe deter m i ned on a case by cas e basis.”)

. At a ny r at e, the e xi st en ce o fthi s fee do es n’ t affec t o ur con clusion that the m em oran d um i s j us t a prel im inary agr eem ent r equ iring the parti es to conduct furthernego -28 N o. 06

- 4045 tia tio n s. C

f. i d. ( “ [ C]o nt r a c t s f o r n o n s i t e s pe c i fi c e qu i pm ent, such as boi l er s, w i l l typi cal l y not suffi ce, r ega rdl ess o fa nyp e na l t y c l a us e s c o nt a i ne d in the c o nt r a c t s . ” )
. In d e e d, w e hav e pr evi ousl y no ted thatpart i es often incl ud e these ki nd s o fte rm i nati on fees i n prel i m i naryag re em ents: The proce ss of nego ti ating m ult i m i l l i on d ol l ar t r a n s a c t i o n s . . . o ft e n i s c o s t l y a n d t i me - c o n s u min g. T h e p ar tie s m ay w an t a ss u ra n c e t h at th eir i nvest m ents i n ti m e and m oney and eff or t wil lnot be wiped out by the o therparty’ s foo tdrag gi ng o r c h an ge of h ea rtor ta kin g a d va n ta ge of a v u ln er ab le posi ti on cr eat ed by th e neg oti ati on. . . . [ T]hey m i g htpr efert o cr ea te [ a co nt r ac tu alre m edy ] i n the for m of a d ep os it or d ro p fee (w h at in p u b lish in g is cal l ed a “ ki l lfee” ) , ratherthan re l y o n a v ague du ty to ba rg ain in g oo d fait h

. . . . Dam age s forbr each o fan agr eem ent t o nego ti ate ma y b e , a l th o u g h th e y a r e u n l i k e l y t o b e , th e s a me as the dam age s for bre ach of the fi nalco ntra ct that th e p ar tie s w ou ld h av e s ign ed

. . . . Ven t ureAs s oc s . Corp. v. Zenith D at a S ys t e m s Corp. , 96 F. 3d 275, 2 78 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( i nterna l ci ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. S o the prese nce o fthi s fe e d oes noti m plythatthe const ructi on m em or andu m was a c ontr act to bui l d the power pl ant. F i na l l y, the de fen d an ts c o nt en d tha t th e us e o fthe w or d “prog ra m ” in “pro gr am of c onstructi on” sugge sts that w e s houl d i nter pret m or e br oadl y w hi ch co nstr ucti on contr acts co unt as “co m m encing co nstr ucti on” and not li m it ourselves to con tracts f or actu al con s t ruc tion of aN o. 06

- 4045 29 f a c ility . W e a re n otso su re . C f. S i e r r a Pa c . Po we r Co
. v. EPA , 64 7 F
. 2d 60, 67( 9th Ci r. 19 81) ( ci ti ng U nited St at e s v. C ity of Pa ine svil le, 43 1 F .Su p p . 496 , 500 n .5 (N .D . Oh io 19 77 ), aff’d, 6 44 F
. 2d 11 86 ( 6th Ci r . 1 98 1) ) ( appr o vingthe EPA ’ s deci si on notto r ead the w or d “pro gr am ” broa dlyto i ncl ud e pl anni ng a n d d esi gn o fa unit )
. But at any r ate , the c onst ruc tio n m em or andu m was not a co ntra ct for a “ prog ra m ” of const ructi on a cti vi ty. A s the Rei ch M em or an dum no te s, “ I n o r der to s at i sfy the c o m m en ce c o nstr ucti on r equi re m ents, a con tr actual obl i gat i on m ust be f ora sit e sp eci fi c co m m i tm ent. The ty pes o fact i vi ti es w hich w il l be con side red site spec ific for pu rp oses of a c o n t r a c ta r e i d e n t i fi e d i n qu e s t i o n # 1 [ ’ p l a c e me n t, a s s e mbl y, o r i nstal l ati on o fm ate ri al s, equip m en t, orf aci l i ti es whi chwi l lmake up par t o fthe ul ti m at e st r uctur e o fthe sour ce’ ]
. ” Here, the const ructi on m em or and u m d i d not re quire B & V to do a ny si te- speci fi c co nstr ucti on ( orev en any nonsi te- speci fi c constr ucti on)
. I t was, to r ei ter ate , j ust a co ntra ct that r equi re d the par ties to work toward an EPC ag re em ent. A nd the Rei ch M em or andu m i nd i cate s that enter i ng thi s ki nd of contr act i s si m ply n ot en ou gh to “c om m en c e c on st ru c tio n .” Thi s co nc l us ionmake s se ns e. Ti m e l i m i ts pr ev en t co m pan i es fr o m s i tt i ngo n P SD per m i ts f o r a n un r ea so nabl y l ong peri od ofti m e. Pre sum abl y these re quire m ents he l p e ns ur e tha tmaj o r e mi t t i ngf a c i l i t i e s c o mpl y wi th up to- date e m i ssi ons re gul ati ons and do not const ruct to day ’ s f ac i l i ti es wi thy es te r day ’ s te ch no l o g y . Re adingthe phr as e “pr o g r am o fc o ns truct i o n” s o b road l y a s to e nc om p as s t h e c on st ru c tio n m em or an d u m w ou ld gre at ly extend the ti m e that co m panies coul d dela y the actual30 N o. 06

- 4045 const ructi on pro cess . W e decl i ne to adopt that inter preta
ti on her e.

D . Th e di st r i ct cour t did not erri n gr anti ng i njuncti ve r e l i e fi n f a v o ro fSi e r r a C l ub. The de fen dan ts a l so c ha l l en g e o n two g r o unds the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o gr ant inj unctive r eli efi n f avo r of S ierra C lub. Fi rst, th e d efend an ts claim the d istri ct cou rt l a c k e d j ur i s di c t i o n t o g r a nta n i nj un c t i o n b e c a us e , a c c o r di ngt o the m , a c i vi l pen al tyi s th e so l e r emedy f o r the citizen su i t he r e. The de fen dan ts r ely o n l an g ua g e atthe en d of 42 U
. S. C

. § 7604(a) ( em p ha ses ad d ed ): The di st r i ctc o ur ts sh al l ha ve j ur i sdi ct i o n, wi th o ut r eg ar d t o the a m o unti n c o nt r o ve r syo r the c i ti ze nshi p ofthe parti es, to enf or ce s uch an em i ssi on sta nd ar d orli m i tat i on, or such an o rder, o r to or der the Ad m i ni str ato r to p er f or m such a ct o r du ty, as th e c as e m ay be , an d to ap p ly a n y a p p ro p ria te civ il p en alties ( ex cep t for actions un d er pa ragrap h (2)). The defe nd ants cl ai m the firs t tw o re m edi es em phasi zed ab o ve c o r r el at e wi ths ectio ns 4 2 U. S

. C. § § 76 04 ( a) ( 1) a nd ( a) ( 2) , r espect i vel y, and the thi rd r em edy ( i.e. , “c ivil penal ti es” ) appli es to 42 U
. S. C. § 7 604( a) ( 3) , the provi si on at i ssue i n thi s ci ti zen s uit
. S peci fi cal l y, the defe nd ants c on te n d th at th e d ist ric t c o u rtco u ld on ly a w ar d civ il p en alties and not an i njun ction as a rem ed y for Sierra Club’ s s ecti on 7 604( a) ( 3) sui t her e. The defe nd ants’ ar gum ent l acks m er i t. The st atute does no t st at e th atthe thr ee r emedi es l i st ed ab o ve a r e ex cl u-N o. 06

- 4045 31 siv ely av aila b le for su its th a t a re br ou gh t u n d er th eir “co rr espondi ng” s tatutor y s ubsect i ons. In f act, the s tatute su ggests j us tt h e o p p osite w he n it states th at th e third re m ed y (“ an y ap p ro p ria te c ivil p en alt ies ”) is n otav aila b le for “a c tio n s u n d er p ar ag ra p h (2) [se c tio n76 04 (a)( 2)],” whi chi m pl i es th at th i s r emedy i s av ai l ab l e f o r a ct i o ns un d er sections 7604(a)(1) an d 7604(a)(3). M or eov er, the defe nd ants have not ci ted (and w e hav e not f ound) a ny ca se l aw that h as i nter prete d the pr ovi si on i n the manne r tha t th eypr o po se . S i er ra Cl ub, o n the ot h er h an d , ca n p oin t t o a t le a s t o n e c as e t h at d ire c tly c on tr ad ict s t h e d efe n d an ts ’ p os itio n . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Am
. Ele c. PowerSe r v. Corp. , 1 3 7F
. S up p. 2 d 1 0 6 0 , 1 0 6 7( S

. D. Ohi o 20 01 )
. Altho ug h th i s di st r i ct co ur t ca se i s no t bindi ng on us, we agr ee that “a plain re adingo fthe sta tute” i m pli es “thatthe [ i nj uncti ve re m edi es provi si on] appli es to acti ons und er[ sect i on 7 604] ( a) ( 3)
. ” Id. The defe nd ants al so cl ai m the dist ri ct c ourter re d by no t pe r f o r mi ngthe s t a nd a r d fo ur - pa r ta na l y s i s tha tp r e c e des an aw ar d of inj u n c tiv e relief. T h at an aly sis g e n er ally re quir es a cou rt to co nsi der ( 1) wh etherthe pla i nti ffhas suffer ed orwil lsufferi rr eparabl e injur y, ( 2) wh ether th er e ar e i na dequa te r emedi es a va i l ab l e atl aw t o c o m pen sa te f o r the i nj ur y, ( 3) the b al an ce o fha r dsh i ps, and ( 4) the pu bl i c i nter est
. e Bay In c . v. M e r c Exc ha n ge, L. L
. C. , 12 6 S. C t. 18 37, 1 83 9 (2 00 6); e360 Ins ight v. The Spam haus P roje ct, 500 F. 3d 594, 60 4 ( 7th Ci r. 200 7). W e r evi ew the dist ri ct cour t’ s e ntryo fsuch a n i nj uncti on f oran abuse o fdi sc re tio n . e360, 50 0 F
. 3d at 603. Cir c u i t co urts have upheld o rder s g ra nti ng i nj uncti ve re l i efwh er e a di str i ct c ourtdi d n ot p er f or m a com ple te32 N o. 06

- 4045 f o ur - par t an aly si s when a pl aint i ffpr ev ai l ed o n the m er its of h i s c l a im , se e Fogie v. TH O R NAm er icas, Inc. , 95 F.3d 645 , 654 (8th C ir. 1 996), or w he n, i n an action for a st atut o r y i nj unc ti o n, a v i o l at i o n was demons tr at ed an d th er e was a re aso nabl e l i kel i hood o ffuture vi ol ati ons, see U ni t e d Stat e s v. Kaun , 827 F.2d 114 4, 1148 ( 7th Cir. 1987). M or eov er, “[ i ] t i s a n acce p te d equi tabl e pr i nci ple thata cour t doe s no t hav e t o bal ance t h e equi ti es i n a c ase w here the defe nd ant’ s con d u c t has bee n w i l l ful. ” EP A v. Envt l

. Was t eCont r ol , 917 F.2d 327, 332 (7th C ir. 1990). Si er ra Cl ub l atches o n to thi s l ast excepti on, cl ai m i ng tha t the Com pany has engag ed i n w i l l ful m isc onduct by per si st i ngi n i ts “pr o po sa l to co ns tructthi s Pr oj ec t wi th o ut a va l i d perm i t. ” But S i er ra Cl ub cit es no a uthor i ty to expla i n how the Com pany’s per si ste nce con sti tutes wi l l fulmis co nduc t. The C o m pan y ne ed no t r o l lo ve r a nd c on c ed e t h at its p er m it is in va lid

— i nd eed, t h at’s w hat thi s l i ti gat i on i s a l labo ut. U nl ike cas es i n w hi ch defen dan ts fl au nt ed en vi r o nm en ta ll aws b y, f o r e xampl e, no t i m pl ement i ng co nt r o l sy st ems f o r hazar do us w as te s, s e e U ni t e d St at e s v. Be t hl e he m St e e l Corp. , 38 F. 3d 862, 86 5, 86 7-6 8 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ), th e C om p an y h er e is s im p ly defen di ng the v al i di tyo fi ts pe r m i t i n c o ur t. And the Company ’ s ar g um en ts a r e no t so fr i vo l o us a s to make us be l i ev e th ati ts de fen se is aki n t o s o m e k i nd o fmal i ci o us i ntra nsi gence . Stil l, w e nee d not rem an d this case for t h e d istri ct cou rt to exp li citly an alyze the i njun ctive reli ef f acto rs. T he cou rt fou n d th at th e C om p an y d id n oth av e a va lid P SD p er m it w hen i t gr anted Si er ra Club’ s m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud g-N o. 06

- 4045 33

m en t. Be ca us e EPA r egul at i o ns r equir e t he Co m pan y to obtain such a perm i t be f or e i t ca n bui l d the f aci l i ty, 42 U. S

. C. § 74 75 ( a) ( 1) , the c o ur t’ s dec i si o n l ea ve s th e Com pany no o pti on but to obt ai n thi s per m i t be f or e i t ca n c o mm e nc e c o ns t r uc t i o n. S o the c o ur t ’ s i nj un c t i o n, wh i ch pr o hibi ts the Co m pan y fro m “ ac tu alc o ns tructi o n o fthe Pl an t unt i l[ i t ha s] ob ta i ne d a v al i d PS D pe r m i t, ” i s es se ntia lly th e s am e a s t h e c ou rt ’s fin d i n g o n t h e m er its
. See Fogie, 9 5 F.3d a t 65 4 ( ho l di ngtha t bypr ev ai l i ngo n the m er its o fi ts cl ai m , “the pl ai nti ffcl ass has dem onst ra ted that the four f acto rs o fthi s t esto ver w hel m i ngl y m i l i tat e in favor ofan inj un ction” ). M or eov er, thi s i s no t a cas e where a pl ai nti ffsued an al r ea dy- o per at i o na lf ac i l i tya nd c l ai m ed i t was po l l ut i ng inex c es s o f p er m is s i b l e l im its . In su c h a sit u at ion, a d istri ct cou rt w ou ld li kely ne ed to balan ce equ iti es before it gr an te d inju n c tiv e re lief an d sh u t d o w n th e fa c ility

. See Har r i s on v. Indian a Aut o S hre dde rs Co. , 52 8 F
. 2d 1107, 11 23 ( 7t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 )
. He r e , th e o n l y c o s t t o th e C o mpa n y o ft he inj un ction is that i t m us t now obtain a n ew p e r m it before it can bu il d , w hich w as alre a d y im p li cit i n th e cou rt’s deci si on g ra nti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent. Ad di ti o na l l y, th e r ec o r d he r e demons tr at es tha t th e four inj un ctive reli ef f acto rs favor Si erra C lub. Fi rst, Sierra Cl ub wi l ll i k e l y s u ffe r i r r e p a r ab l e i nj u r y i fth e C o mpa ny bui l ds und eri ts ex pir ed PSD perm i t r atherthan a new perm i t be cause the for m erl i kely in cl ud es m or e r el axed em iss ion st an d ar d s. See sup ra se c tio n II (A )(3) ; Am oc o Pr od

. C o. v. Vill. of Gam be ll, 4 80 U. S

. 5 31 , 5 45 ( 19 87 ) ( en vi r o nm en tali nj uri es ar e “ often p er m an ent o r at l eas t o fl ong du ra -34 N o. 06

- 4045 tio n, i.e. , i r r e pa r ab l e ” )
. S e c o nd , l e g a l r e med i e s wi l lnot a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s S i e r r a C l u b ’ s i nj u r y . T h e r e c o r d s h o ws th at at least one S ie r r a C lub m em ber w il l li kely suffer a dec r ea se i n r ec r ea ti o na la nd a estheti c enj o y m en t o fRe nd L a k e i fth e p l a n ti s b u i l ta c c o r d i n gt o th e 2 0 0 1 p e r mi t
. An eco nom i c award w oul d not s uffi ci entl y c om pensa te f or th is inj u ry . See A m oco , 480 U
. S. at 54 5 (“ En vi ro nm ental i nj ury, byi ts nature , can sel dom be adequatel y r em edi ed b y m on ey d am ag es . . . .”); En v t l

. Was t eC o n t r ol , 9 17 F. 2d at 332. Thi r d, the b al an ce ofhar m s f av o r s i ss ui nga n inj unc ti o n. A n inju n c tio n p ro te c t s Sier ra C lu b from irre p ar ab le i nj ury w hi l e s i m plyr equi ring the C om pany to defer const ructi on unti li t obtains a perm i t that co m pli es w i th th e Cl ea n Ai r Act
. F i na l l y, the r ec o r d c ont ains no ev id en c e t h at t h e inj u n c tio n h ar m s t h e p u b lic in te re st . In fa ct, b as ed o n the r ec o r d b efo r e us , we ag r ee wi thS i erra C lub th at req uiring th e C om p an y to obtain a valid PSD per m i t woul d l i kel y r es ul t i n de cr ea se d e m i ss i o ns a nd i m prove d pu bl i c hea l th, wh i ch w oul d fur ther a sta ted go al of th e C lea n A ir A c t. See 42 U
. S. C. § 7401(b) ( 1) ( “to pro tect an d enhance the qual i ty ofthe N ati on’ s a i r re sour ces so as t o pr o m o te th e pub l i c he al tha nd wel f ar e an d the p rod uc tive cap acity of its pop ulation” ). A l thou gh i n m osti nstance s we w oul d rem and a cas e w h en a d ist ric t c ou rtd id n o t c l e ar ly ex p lain w h y it gr an te d inju n c tiv e re lief, s ee e360, 5 0 0 F
. 3 d a t6 0 4 , we ne ed no t r emand he r e be ca us e th e co ur t’ s deci sio n o n the m er i ts ess enti al l y e m b ra ced the re m edy and the i nj unctiv e re lief fa c to rs fav or Sier r a C l u b . A rem an d on th is i ssue w oul d m er el y pr ol ong the c as e, resul t in additi onalN o. 06

- 4045 35

c os ts , an d n otch an ge th e o u tc o m e. C f. B o o ks v. C ha ter, 91 F. 3 d 97 2, 97 8 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); D i Le o v. Er ns t& Young, 901 F.2d 624, 626 (7th Cir. 1990).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

10- 27- 08