Opinion ID: 4546108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Hunter Order

Text: The EPA denied the Sierra Club’s petition in 2017. In denying the petition, the EPA did not decide whether the Hunter Plant’s modifications should have triggered major NSR requirements. The EPA instead focused on the meaning of the term “applicable requirements,” interpreting it as a general reference to the requirements stated in the prior Title I permit: Where a final preconstruction permit has been issued, whether it is a major or minor NSR permit, the terms and conditions of that permit should be incorporated as “applicable requirements” and the permitting authority and EPA should limit its review to whether the title V permit has accurately incorporated those terms and conditions . . . . Joint App’x at 19. 2 The Sierra Club had also objected in state court to renewal of PacifiCorp’s Title V permit, and Utah opposed the objections. 7 Applying this definition, the EPA relied on Utah’s earlier refusal to apply major NSR requirements. 3 So the EPA denied the Sierra Club’s petition, finding that  the proposed permit had accurately incorporated the requirements stated in the minor NSR permit and  any major NSR requirements were not considered “applicable requirements.” The Sierra Club then sought review of the EPA’s decision, and PacifiCorp and the State of Utah intervened as respondents.