Opinion ID: 2685304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Baghouses

Text: In its opening brief on appeal, WildEarth placed primary reliance on the argument that the EPA could have required baghouses on Units 1–3 of the Plant if consultation had convinced it of the need for further mercury and selenium emission reduction. Its theory was that in determining BART, (1) the EPA needed to consider “nonair quality environmental impacts,” 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2); (2) the impact from the deposition in 13 local streams of mercury and selenium emitted by the Plant was an impact of that type; and (3) consultation could have led the EPA to require baghouses (which reduce NOx and PM emissions) as part of the FIP because of their added advantage in reducing mercury and selenium emissions. Now, however, Units 1–3 have been closed. This theory of relief has therefore been mooted. There is nothing this court could do that would lead the EPA ultimately to impose a baghouse requirement on facilities that have been permanently shut down. See Copar Pumice Co. v. Tidwell, 603 F.3d 780, 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The core question in mootness inquiry is whether granting a present determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).