Opinion ID: 3180012
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The SIP’s Choice of BART

Text: EPA’s Guidelines require states to support their BART determinations with “documentation for all required analyses,” including explanations of their BART five-factor analysis. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1). Further, the Guidelines indicate that states “should provide a justification for adopting the technology . . . select[ed] as the ‘best’ level of control, including an explanation of the [Act’s] factors that led [the State] to choose that option over other control levels.” Guidelines at 39,170–71 (emphasis added). A state need not perform this analysis if a source already has, or has committed to installing, the most stringent controls available. Id. at 39,165. Otherwise, as EPA explained in proposing the Rule here at issue, “[s]tates are free to determine the weight and significance assigned to each factor, but must consider all five factors and provide a reasoned explanation for adopting [BART].” 77 Fed. Reg. at 42,838 (emphasis added). 32 ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA In the Final Rule, EPA concluded that, although Arizona “presented information relevant to each of the BART factors” and “expressly stated” that it had considered those factors, it did not “provide[] an explanation regarding how this information was used to develop its BART determinations.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,517; see also id. at 72,566 (“[Arizona] has not demonstrated that it actually took into consideration the BART factors in making its determinations[.] . . . [I]t gave no explanation or rationale for how it reached a determination based on that information.”). More specifically, EPA found that Arizona did not discuss how the results of the visibility index were weighed against the other BART factors for Coronado. Id. at 72,518; 77 Fed. Reg. at 42,851. Further, EPA noted that while the SIP includes cost data, it “provides no explanation regarding how, or even if, th[e] cost information was used in arriving at its NOX BART determinations.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,517. Indeed, “[i]n the case of . . . Coronado, the . . . SIP does not analyze th[e] cost information in even a qualitative manner.” Id. A review of Arizona’s BART Technical Support Document supports EPA’s analyses with regard to Coronado. Arizona’s ultimate determination was that, “[a]fter reviewing the BART analysis provided by the company, and based upon the information above . . . BART control at [Coronado] for NOX is . . . Low NOX burners with OFA” with an emission rate of 0.32 lbs/mmBtu. Before announcing that decision, Arizona provided several charts of data concerning the various controls’ cost-effectiveness and visibility impacts. But, having done so, it provided no reasoning or rationale to justify its ultimate BART selection. There was simply no attempt made to explain why the State chose one control technology over another, or how it evaluated the various BART factors (i.e., cost-effectiveness, visibility ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA 33 improvement, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, existing pollution control technology in use, and the remaining useful life of the source), either individually or in combination. Indeed, Arizona does not meaningfully contest EPA’s adverse characterization of its BART analysis. Rather, it contends that “no great explanation is required to understand the State’s decision not to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of its citizens’ money for an imperceptible improvement in visibility.” Yet, under the Act and its implementing regulations, states are required in SIPs to explain the choice of BART, taking into account not only cost and visibility improvement, but also the three other BART factors. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A); Guidelines at 39,170–71. We recently invalidated a FIP in part because EPA’s conclusory cost-benefit analysis “fail[ed] to reveal to a reader how EPA determined that the cost of controls were not justified.” NPCA, 788 F.3d at 1145. The same failure here, albeit by a state in its SIP, fares no better. Although the Act affords states significant discretion in determining the appropriate levels of BART controls, EPA must review whether a state’s determinations comply with the statute and its rules. See N. Dakota, 730 F.3d at 761; Oklahoma, 723 F.3d at 1209. Just as we could not in NPCA review EPA’s cost/benefit analysis absent any coherent agency analysis, EPA reasonably determined that it could not meaningfully review Arizona’s parallel determination, because the State did not provide an adequate explanation of its underlying analysis, if any. Cf. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A); Guidelines at 39,170–71. 34 ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA In sum, EPA’s conclusion that Arizona did not adequately explain its NOX BART determinations provides reasonable support for its partial disapproval of Arizona’s SIP. We therefore defer to EPA’s determination.