Opinion ID: 3052689
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the back-cast methodology establishing the

Text: BASELINE INVENTORY IS NOT AN EMISSION STANDARD OR LIMITATION In the district court, El Comité challenged California’s use of the 1990 data instead of the 1991 back-cast data. CaliforEL COMITÉ v. WARMERDAM 11199 nia’s use of the improper methodology, El Comité argued, made it impossible for the state to assess whether new regulations were needed, thereby rendering unenforceable the commitment to adopt regulations, if necessary, by June 15, 1997, and making the entire SIP invalid under the CAA. After analyzing the nature of the baseline inventory, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of California: “[El Comité’s] second claim fails because a ‘baseline inventory’ is not an ‘emission standard or limitation’ subject to challenge under the Clean Air Act.” El Comité, 416 F. Supp. 2d at 927. The district court found that the baseline inventory is not an emission standard or limitation under the statute because it does not “limit[ ] the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis,” and does not “relat[e] to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction.” Although El Comité did not appeal this issue, its arguments nonetheless implicitly quarrel with this finding. Citing Bayview, El Comité attempts to skirt the gap in our jurisdiction by shifting its argument on appeal, claiming that if the SIP is understood to impose an obligation to reduce emissions in nonattainment areas, then the baseline inventory (and by extension, the way it is calculated) are necessary elements of this enforceable commitment. This argument attempts to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt regulations, if necessary. While we acknowledge that the baseline is a critical foundation, this does not change our view that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualify as independently enforceable aspects of the SIP. Bayview is not to the contrary. See Bayview, 366 F.3d at 703 (holding that “Bayview’s citizen suit represents an inappropriate attempt to alter [the] explicit provisions” of a SIP). We emphasize this point because it bears on the issue of remedies. 11200 EL COMITÉ v. WARMERDAM C. THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A REMEDIES ORDER [6] The district court declared that California violated the CAA and the California SIP by “failing to adopt ‘enforceable control measures’ as required by the [CAA].” Remedies Order at 2; see also Remedies Order at 3 n.2 (“[B]y virtue of their failure to use the correct PUR data, defendants consequently were unable to adopt proper ‘enforceable control measures,’ as they must, under the Clean Air Act.”). Because neither the Wells Memorandum nor the baseline data provide an enforceable emission standard or limitation, no relief is available to El Comité under § 304 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). Nor would the district court have jurisdiction to hold, in effect, that the EPA improperly approved an invalid SIP because it lacked enforceable emission standards. That challenge, and any related relief, falls outside the purview of the district court and would have to be brought as a petition to review the EPA’s rulemaking process. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). [7] We reverse the summary judgment in favor of El Comité, vacate the Remedies Order, and remand with orders to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. REVERSED AND REMANDED.