Opinion ID: 2586581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board's Interpretation of the BACT Regulation to Exclude Carbon Dioxide Was Reasonable

Text: ¶ 29 The Sierra Club argues that a BACT analysis should have been completed because the Clean Air Act regulates carbon dioxide by requiring facilities to monitor and report carbon dioxide emissions. [10] In contrast, Respondents and PacifiCorp argue that to be regulated, the emission of a pollutant must actually be restricted or limited in some way, not merely measured. We conclude that the Board did not err in narrowly interpreting the phrase subject to regulation when reasonable policy concerns support this interpretation. ¶ 30 Rule 307-101-2 required a new source to adopt the BACT for each pollutant subject to regulation. [11] Recently the United States Supreme Court determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) ([G]reenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant.'); therefore, our review focuses on whether carbon dioxide is subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act and/or the Utah Air Conservation Act. Utah Admin. Code r. XXX-XXX-X (2004). ¶ 31 We begin our analysis by determining the proper meaning of the term subject to regulation. This issue has recently been addressed by two state courts and by the Environmental Appeals Board, with no consensus on the meaning of the phrase. It is clear, however, from the analysis completed by these courts that the language itself does not compel a particular interpretation. Therefore, the meaning of the phrase must be determined by reference to administrative intent and policy. ¶ 32 We conclude that the phrase subject to regulation is ambiguous because there does not appear to be an agreed upon ordinary meaning for the phrase. As the Environmental Appeals Board recently concluded, the language is broad enough to embrace different meanings, or shades of meaning. In re: Deseret Power Elec. Coop., ___ E.A.D. ___ (2008), 2008 EPA App. LEXIS 47, . ¶ 33 Both sides direct our attention to the parallel federal regulation, which uses a similar phrase in its BACT definition but also defines New Source Review Pollutants. We find the definition of little help, however, as it only directs us once again to our starting pointis carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the Act? As defined in 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(50), regulated pollutants as used in the PSD permit rules include pollutants for which a national ambient air quality standard has been set, a new source performance standard has been set, those specifically listed and governed by the ozone protections of the Clean Air Act, and [a]ny pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under the Act. To date, carbon dioxide is not governed by the national ambient air quality standards, the new source performance standards, or the ozone protection standards. Thus, it is only a regulated pollutant for purposes of federal PSD permitting if it is regulated somewhere else in the Clean Air Act. To date, the EPA has not settled on a definition of what it means to be regulated by the Clean Air Act. [12] ¶ 34 We focus next on policy concerns underlying the adoption of a broad or narrow definition of the subject to regulation language. Respondents and PacifiCorp argue that requiring BACT review for carbon dioxide undermines the rulemaking process for controlling pollution emissions. Further, the Board argues that it would be impractical to complete a BACT analysis for carbon dioxide without any governing standards or rules. This argument was accepted recently in a Wyoming administrative adjudication, which upheld the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's interpretation of subject to regulation as not applying to carbon dioxide. The Wyoming Environmental Quality Council was greatly troubled by the fact that a broader interpretation would require the state agency to regulate greenhouse gases... without the scientific and policy resources available to the EPA and the United States Congress. Basin Elec. Power Coop., Dry Fork Station, EQC Docket No. 07-2801 2008 Wyo. ENV LEXIS 3 at  (Wyo. Envtl. Quality Council Aug. 21, 2008). We agree and conclude that, given these concerns, the Board's interpretation of the BACT rule was reasonable. ¶ 35 The negative impact of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is an issue of national and global concern. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 497, 521-24, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (chronicling the development of climate change research). We do not disregard the import of this issue. We also do not disregard the broad wording and preventative purpose of the BACT regulation. Still, when reviewing the decisions of an administrative agency, we must afford proper deference to the expertise and discretion of the Board and decline to overturn its interpretation unless it was irrational or unreasonable. In this case we conclude that the Board's interpretation of the BACT regulation as a supplement to already existing pollutant control regulations rather than a stand-alone control regulation is reasonable in light of the need for a thorough research and rulemaking process to determine the appropriate standards for controlling or limiting carbon dioxide. The EPA (spurred by the United States Supreme Court) has recently undertaken this process. See Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 73 Fed.Reg. 44354 (July 30, 2008). We hold that the Board's determination to defer to this formal process rather than preempt[ing] ongoing Congressional and EPA efforts to formulate a CO2 emissions policy by instituting an emission limitation as part of BACT review was reasonable. Longleaf Energy Assocs., LLC v. Friends of the Chattahoochee, Inc., 298 Ga. App. 753, 681 S.E.2d 203, 207 (2009).