Opinion ID: 187215
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Border State Issues

Text: Under Title I of the CAA, there is a presumption of state-level regulation generally, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a); Union Elec., 427 U.S. at 256, 267, 96 S.Ct. 2518, and the text of section 110, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, establishes the state as the appropriate primary administrative unit to address interstate transport of emissions. To take action regarding a state pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) EPA need only have evidence that emissions within the State contribute significantly to another state's nonattainment or interfere with its maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), unless there is evidence that exculpates part of the upwind state from that determination. See Michigan, 213 F.3d at 684. Thus, in developing a rule, EPA may select states as the unit of measurement. Id. The burden is on the party challenging inclusion of part of a state to present finer-grained computations showing that it is innocent of material contributions to the state's overall downwind pollution. Id.; see Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1050-51 (D.C.Cir.2001). In response to such data, EPA must ensure that the contested area makes a measurable contribution, Michigan, 213 F.3d at 684, such that it is part of the problem of the state's aggregate downwind impact, Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at 1050. Various utilities and one municipality, [5] but not the States themselves, challenge inclusion in CAIR of the upwind States of Texas, Florida, and Minnesota. The court denies all except Minnesota Power's petition.
The final rule included the State of Texas due to its maximum downwind contribution of 0.29 µg/m3 to PM2.5 nonattainment, which is above the air quality threshold of 0.2 µg/m3. Petitioners unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of inclusion of that part of the State west of the north-south I-35/I37 corridor (West Texas), submitting modeling that showed few emitting facilities were located in West Texas. Petitioners contend that under Michigan, 213 F.3d at 681-85, EPA, on its own initiative, should have excluded West Texas given the State's size, location, low emissions density, and logical intrastate dividing line, and that EPA's concern about in-state pollution havens developing in West Texas is unfounded. See Corrected Response, at 230. They also contend that EPA acted unreasonably in denying reconsideration in view of the modeling data showing that sources in West Texas demonstrably were not significant contributors to nonattainment in downwind states. Pet'rs' Br. at 14. However, the record establishes that EPA appropriately included all of the State in CAIR. The record includes data showing that the State of Texas makes a maximum downwind contribution greater than the 0.2 µg/m3 air quality threshold for inclusion. Petitioners have neither challenged this threshold nor presented data that would require EPA to determine whether West Texas makes a measurable contribution. See Michigan, 213 F.3d at 684. Instead, their comments on the proposed rule and the August 2004 Notice of Data Availability speculated that West Texas's contribution level was likely to be less than 0.05 µg/m3. Neither did petitioners claim that they were unable to present modeling without assistance from EPA and that such assistance was refused. After EPA released updated data in November 2004, petitioners did submit comments expressing concern about EPA's analysis, but again did not include any new modeling or indicate that they could not do so without EPA assistance that was denied. EPA effectively responded to petitioners' concerns by referring to the possibility that dividing the State could create in-state pollution havens in West Texas where exclusion from CAIR would lead to increased capacity with a consequent increase in emissions, Corrected Response, at 230; there is at least one western source connected to the eastern grid and a possibility that more could be integrated through the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. In these circumstances, EPA had no duty to divide the State or to model West Texas separately. In seeking reconsideration, petitioners for the first time presented new modeling on West Texas. However, EPA found, as the record shows, that petitioners had already had a meaningful opportunity to comment on the inclusion of West Texas and had not shown that it was impracticable for them to present the new modeling sooner or that a new issue arose after the close of the comment period. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). Although petitioners insist that they could not satisfy their evidentiary burden without receiving data from EPA, they do not explain why the data from August and November 2004 on which they commented was insufficient to allow them to do so. That they may have failed to realize that EPA had not already conducted more detailed, subregional modeling is beside the point; the lack of record discussion of West Texas should have alerted them to the need to present data to challenge its inclusion. Because petitioners did not request assistance duplicating EPA's modeling until after the final rule was promulgated, they fail to advance a reason for reconsideration or demonstrate prejudice due to EPA's late disclosure of data, see, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 362 F.3d 861, 869 (D.C.Cir.2004); see also Am. Radio Relay League v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 237-38 (D.C.Cir.2008), which they also have not shown was any more than supplementary as to the State, see Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473, 484 (D.C.Cir. 1991). [6]
The final rule included the State of Florida for ozone and PM2.5. However, the proposed rule had included the State only for PM2.5. Petitioners sought reconsideration contesting the inclusion of the State as a whole for ozone and the inclusion of southern subregions for ozone and for PM2.5. Upon granting reconsideration as to ozone only, EPA affirmed its determination that the State should be included in CAIR. Petitioners now object to EPA's use of rounding at an initial screening stage for including the State for ozone as arbitrary and capricious. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9)(A). Alternatively they contend that under Michigan, 213 F.3d 663, EPA was required to exclude parts of Southern Florida (south of latitude 28.67 for ozone and south of latitude 29.2 for PM2.5) that do not make a significant contribution to nonattainment, or at least the area south of latitude 26 for both ozone and PM2.5 because EPA initially had no data for this area. The record supports EPA's reasoned explanation for including the entire State for ozone and PM2.5. As an initial screening indicator of whether to include a state in CAIR for ozone, EPA considered whether the state's average contribution to ozone nonattainment in a downwind area was less than one percent of total nonattainment in the downwind area. [7] CAIR, 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,191. If so, then EPA would not test the state further; if not, then EPA would perform additional analysis to determine whether the state should be included. EPA found the State of Florida's average percent of contribution to nonattainment in Fulton County, Georgia to be 0.81 percent. Upon rounding up to one percent, EPA determined after further analysis that the State makes large and frequent contributions... to elevated ozone concentrations in Fulton Co[unty] and should be included for ozone. Reconsideration, 71 Fed.Reg. at 25,320. Although petitioners characterize this rounding as creating the nonsense result of transforming a number ... that is clearly `less than one percent' to one, Pet'rs' Br. at 28, the court owes substantial deference to EPA's technical expertise, see Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at 1051-52, absent a showing of legal or factual error. Because petitioners challenge only the initial screening indicator and not the record evidence showing that the State of Florida meets the air quality threshold, [8] they can hardly protest that rounding did not serve the appropriate purpose of identifying the State for further analysis. EPA treated this State no differently than others at the initial screening stage. Even assuming the rounding convention were flawed, it was not dispositive of the State's inclusion in CAIR. Hence, no prejudice could be shown on the basis of that error alone. EPA reasonably explained that its use of the rounding convention is commonplace and customary as well as a reasonable means of creating a conservative initial indicator that cast[s] a wider net, with further winnowing to occur in subsequent steps when more detailed analysis is applied. Reconsideration, 71 Fed. Reg. at 25,320. Petitioners neither identify error resulting from use of rounding at the initial screening stage nor offer any persuasive reason to question EPA's choice of a technical convention that is reasonable on this record. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9)(A). Neither have petitioners shown that EPA should have excluded any part of Southern Florida. EPA was not obligated to measure pollution coming from each possible slice of the State. See Michigan, 213 F.3d at 684. The lack of information about a subregion conceivably might result in a miscalculation of the downwind contribution of the State as a whole, see id. at 682, but alone could not exonerate a subregion and does not undermine EPA's inclusion of the area south of latitude 26 for either ozone or PM2.5. Given the rulemaking record, EPA appropriately determined that the State of Florida as a whole should be included. In regard to inclusion of the area south of latitude 29.2 for PM2.5, petitioners submitted no modeling or data during the comment period to show that it was innocent of contributing to the State's collective downwind pollution impact. See id. at 684; Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at 1050-51. Instead, their first request to EPA for assistance in duplicating EPA's modeling results came after the final rule was promulgated. They offer no reason why they could not present such modeling during the comment period. EPA thus properly denied reconsideration on inclusion of the State for PM2.5. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). [9] In regard to ozone, petitioners submitted data in support of their request for reconsideration of inclusion of the area south of latitude 28.67. EPA declined to exclude this area. First, EPA found that the data was unpersuasive inasmuch as it has authority to regulate an upwind area even if its specific contribution may appear insubstantial as long as it contributes a measurable amount of pollution to the State's collective contribution to downwind nonattainment. Reconsideration, 71 Fed.Reg. at 25,321. The court agrees; EPA was not required to exclude an area that petitioners have drawn precisely in order to avoid the significance threshold. See Michigan, 213 F.3d at 684; Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at 1050. Second, EPA found that the area south of latitude 28.67 is not innocent of material contribution but contribute[s][a] substantial portion[ ] of the total ozone loading from Florida to Fulton County[, Georgia]. Reconsideration, 71 Fed.Reg. at 25,321 (citing Michigan, 213 F.3d at 683-84). As the contested area contributes almost one-third of the State's entire downwind ozone contribution, petitioners' challenge to its inclusion fails. Petitioners' other concerns, such as the test for measurable contribution and the alleged departure from EPA precedent, were not presented to EPA and thus the court does not address them. See supra notes 6 & 9; 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B); S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 472 F.3d at 891.
In the proposed rule, EPA included the State of Minnesota after determining that its downwind contribution of PM2.5 was 0.39 µg/m3, well above the air quality threshold of 0.2 µg/m3 needed for inclusion in CAIR. In the preamble to the final rule, however, EPA indicated that it had recalculated Minnesota's contribution to be 0.21 µg/m3, and included the State in CAIR. Upon reconsideration, EPA again recalculated and determined that the State's contribution was actually 0.20 µg/m3, the exact threshold for inclusion. Minnesota Power challenges the inclusion of the State for PM2.5 as resting on two types of unaddressed flawed data resulting in an overstatement of emissions: (1) projecting units' emissions as of 2010 to be at a significantly higher rate than as of 2001, with some above the permitted level, and (2) misallocating energy production or heat input projections between units. In view of these claimed errors, Minnesota Power contends that EPA has failed to provide a complete analytic defense, Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at 1054 (quotation omitted), of its model's treatment of Minnesota. The court grants the petition because EPA's failure to address the claimed errors was unjustifiable. Although EPA maintains that this concern was not timely presented or with sufficient specificity to satisfy CAA § 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), and thus the issue has been forfeited, see S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 472 F.3d at 891, the record is to the contrary. Prior to the deadline for petitioning for reconsideration, Minnesota Power raised its emissions overstatement concern, and identified three units with disparities between 2001 actual and 2010 projected emissions. After EPA released additional analysis of the State that included changes based upon comments received about the Metropolitan Emission Reduction Proposal (MERP), Minnesota Power set forth by letter of May 10, 2005 to EPA claimed errors in the new analysis, including emissions measurements for the Boswell Energy Center, and the predominantly wood waste unit of Hibbard Energy Center. [10] The final rule was promulgated on May 12, 2005, and Minnesota Power timely petitioned for reconsideration to challenge the moving target of EPA's data and determination regarding the State, and referred to its May 2005 letter. Minn. Power, Pet. for Recon. at 7 (Aug. 5, 2005), docketed as EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053-2211. In granting reconsideration in December 2005, EPA again recalculated the State's contribution to be 0.20 µg/m3, after removing about 16,500 tons of NOx and about 5,800 tons of SO2 emissions, and requested comments on the corrected 2010 inputs. Minnesota Power submitted comments on January 13, 2006, again raising the measurement issue and attaching the May 10, 2005 letter describing as examples the claimed errors at the Boswell and Hibbard units and referring as well to error at the Sherco unit. Minnesota Power also met with EPA officials on February 2, 2006 regarding its measurement concerns. Nothing in the CAA requires a petitioner's comments to be more specific or to raise every potential explanation for claimed disparities in order to receive a response to timely concerns. See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791, 817-18 (D.C.Cir.1998). EPA thus lacked discretion not to address the claimed errors in view of the timely May 2005 letter, petition for reconsideration, and January 2006 comments. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7607(d)(6)(B), (7)(B). EPA's suggestion that the May 2005 letter was part of a data dump in the reconsideration comments, Resp't's Br. at 53, ignores that the comments referred to the May 2005 letter on the first page. Even if EPA had previously overlooked the May 2005 letter, [11] as of January 2006 there was no need for EPA to cull through more than a few pages of comments to confront the claimed errors. See Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1231 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quotation omitted). EPA twice reanalyzed Minnesota's contribution to address the MERP issue, but never addressed the claimed measurement errors at the Boswell, Hibbard, or Sherco units. On reconsideration, EPA explained that it was not responding because it was unable to find any [such] instances [of a double value], i.e., overstated emissions. Reconsideration, 71 Fed.Reg. at 25,318. Yet a double value was identified by Minnesota Power at the Boswell unit and other substantial disparities were identified at the Hibbard and Sherco units in the May 2005 letter and January 2006 comments. EPA's suggestion that many other factors ... may change in the future leading to greater projected than actual emissions, id., is insufficient in view of the fact that these claimed errors, if confirmed by EPA, could affect inclusion of the State in CAIR. See West Virginia v. EPA, 362 F.3d at 869. The inclusion of the State of Minnesota in CAIR was a borderline call, and the State's actual downwind contribution to PM2.5 remains uncertain. EPA acknowledges on appeal that even after two recalculations it is still an open question whether the information would ... change[] [EPA's] determination to include the State in CAIR. Resp't's Br. at 47. Minnesota Power estimates that corrected inputs could remove 25,911.4 tons of emissions and thus reduce the State's contribution below the threshold, to the amount of 0.1878 µg/m3. Contrary to EPA's suggestion, Minnesota Power is not challenging the Integrated Planning Model itself, see Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at 1052-53; rather, the claimed data disparities would require a response regardless of methodology. The claims of error involving the Boswell, Hibbard, and Sherco units, including the treatment of Hibbard as a coal rather than predominantly bio-mass unit, do not appear to be an improper request for a selective[ ] rather than holistic[ ] methodological approach. See Reconsideration, 71 Fed.Reg. at 25,318. Instead, Minnesota Power has presented these units as examples to illustrate that the overstatement objection requires a response from EPA. A remand is therefore appropriate. See Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at 1054. On remand, EPA also should respond to Minnesota Power's concern about shifting of heat input allocations between units. See Pet'rs' Br. at 23-25.