Opinion ID: 187215
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Minnesota

Text: 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.