Opinion ID: 4546108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hunter Plant’s Permit for Modifications

Text: The parties’ dispute centers on the regulatory requirements for PacifiCorp’s modification of an industrial plant known as the “Hunter Plant.” PacifiCorp began the NSR preconstruction permitting process in 1997 in order to modify the plant. In considering PacifiCorp’s permit request, Utah determined that the modifications triggered only minor NSR requirements. This determination went unchallenged. During the same time period, PacifiCorp was obtaining its initial Title V operating permit for the Hunter Plant. Utah ultimately issued the Title V permit in 1998, incorporating Utah’s determination that the modifications required only minor NSR. Renewal of the Title V permit was required in 2003 and every five years thereafter. Id. § 7661a(b)(5)(B). In 2001 PacifiCorp applied to renew the Title V permit, but Utah waited roughly fourteen years to act on the application. 1 When Utah finally acted, it renewed PacifiCorp’s Title V permit, incorporating the 1 Utah acted on the application only after the Sierra Club sought mandamus relief. 6 requirements from the minor NSR permit. Utah sent its proposed permit to the EPA, and the EPA did not object. The Sierra Club filed a petition to compel the EPA to object, 2 arguing in part that the modifications from 1997 to 1999 should have triggered major NSR requirements.