Opinion ID: 2586438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Issue 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Text: [¶ 53] The Dry Fork Station is predicted to emit 3.7 million tons per year of carbon dioxide, along with lesser amounts of other gases that the PRBRC characterizes as greenhouse gases. [7] The PRBRC asserts that the DEQ was required to impose BACT requirements forcing Dry Fork to control its emissions of carbon dioxide. Indeed, the PRBRC claims that the DEQ's failure to do so is indefensible. [¶ 54] Under Wyoming's regulations, BACT is an emission limit ... based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under these Standards and Regulations or regulation under the Federal Clean Air Act. 6 WAQSR § 4(a). The PRBRC does not maintain that carbon dioxide is subject to regulation under the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. Rather, it contends that carbon dioxide is subject to BACT analysis and control because it is subject to regulation under the federal Clean Air Act. Accordingly, we consider this issue solely under federal law. [¶ 55] Federal regulations define which pollutants are considered subject to regulation under the federal Clean Air Act: (i) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated...; (ii) Any pollutant that is subject to any [new source review] standard promulgated under section 111 of the [Clean Air] Act; (iii) Any Class I or II substance subject to [an ozone protection] standard promulgated under or established by title VI of the Act; or (iv) Any pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under the Act. 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.166(b)(49), 52.21(b)(50). While conceding that carbon dioxide does not fall within the first three categories, the PRBRC contends that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under the Act. It bases this contention on the fact that, in 1993, the federal EPA promulgated regulations requiring specified sources to monitor and report emissions of carbon dioxide. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 75.10, 17.13, 75.64(a)(10). [¶ 56] The DEQ and Basin Electric point out that there are no limits, standards, or control requirements for carbon dioxide. The EPA requires only monitoring and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions. The DEQ and Basin Electric contend that monitoring and reporting requirements alone do not make carbon dioxide subject to regulation. [¶ 57] The position taken by the DEQ and Basin Electric is fully consistent with the EPA's longstanding position. The definition quoted above of what pollutants are subject to regulation was promulgated in 2002. 67 Fed.Reg. 80,186 (Dec. 31, 2002). In the preamble to this regulation, the EPA also provided a list of all pollutants it considered subject to regulation. Id. at 80,240. Carbon dioxide was not on that list, even though the EPA had imposed carbon dioxide monitoring and reporting requirements in 1993. The EPA did not consider monitoring and reporting requirements, by themselves, sufficient to make carbon dioxide emissions subject to regulation under the federal Clean Air Act. [¶ 58] According to the PRBRC, the EPA was forced to change this interpretation by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007). In that case, the Court said that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants as defined in the Clean Air Act. It ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles, but it did not hold that the EPA is required to do so. In fact, the case was remanded to allow the EPA to decide whether or not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles. Contrary to the PRBRC's assertion, the Court's ruling established that carbon dioxide is potentially subject to regulation, but not that it is subject to regulation. See Longleaf Energy Assoc. v. Friends of the Chattahoochee, Inc., 298 Ga.App. 753, 681 S.E.2d 203, 207 (2009) (The United States Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA does not mandate the Superior Court's ruling [that carbon dioxide is subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act].) [¶ 59] Following the decision in Massachusetts, the Sierra Club challenged a PSD permit issued by the EPA to a coal-fired power plant in Utah. In re Deseret Power Elec. Coop., 2008 WL 5572891 (E.P.A. Nov. 13, 2008). As in the case before us now, the Sierra Club asserted that the EPA was required to apply BACT analysis and controls to the plant's carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA responded that it had historically interpreted the term subject to regulation to include only those air pollutants subject to statutory or regulatory emissions controls, not to pollutants such as carbon dioxide that are subject only to monitoring and reporting requirements. [¶ 60] The Environmental Appeals Board rejected the Sierra Club's argument that the term subject to regulation was so clear and unambiguous as to require the EPA to include carbon dioxide emissions. Id. at 26. It also ruled, however, that the EPA's stated reason for not including a BACT limit for carbon dioxide in the permitthat it was bound by the historical interpretation of the term subject to regulationwas not sufficiently supported in the administrative record of the permitting decision. Id. at 37. On that basis, the Board remanded the permit to the EPA to reconsider whether carbon dioxide should be considered subject to regulation. Id. at 63. The Deseret decision, much like the Massachusetts decision, establishes only that carbon dioxide is potentially subject to regulation at some future time. [¶ 61] Shortly after the Deseret decision, the EPA issued a memorandum reaffirming its historical interpretation that the term subject to regulation includes those pollutants for which a statute or regulation requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant. Memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA, to Regional Administrators (Dec. 18, 2008). The PRBRC tries to minimize the significance of this memorandum by pointing out that the EPA later granted a petition to reconsider. See Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, to David Bookbinder, Sierra Club (Feb. 17, 2009). In granting reconsideration, however, the EPA expressly refused to stay the effectiveness of the interpretation set forth in the memorandum. [¶ 62] On reconsideration, the EPA might change its interpretation, and begin to consider carbon dioxide subject to regulation. Such a change would not affect Dry Fork, however, because its air quality permit has already been issued. While the PRBRC has made a persuasive argument that carbon dioxide may be regulated in the future, it has not shown that carbon dioxide was subject to regulation when the Dry Fork permit was pending. We therefore agree with the DEQ and Basin Electric that the DEQ was not required to subject the Dry Fork Station's carbon dioxide emissions to BACT analysis and control. On this basis, we affirm the Council's decision to dismiss the PRBRC's claim on this issue.