Opinion ID: 1033609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The New Jersey Department of

Text: Environmental Protection’s Section 126(b) Petition On September 17, 2010, the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the ―NJ Department‖) filed a petition under Section 126(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7426(b), (the ―Section 126(b) petition‖), requesting that the EPA issue an order restricting sulfur dioxide emissions from Portland. Specifically, the NJ Department requested that the EPA make a finding that the 9 trans-boundary sulfur dioxide emissions from the nearby Portland plant significantly contribute to nonattainment and/or interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. In support of its petition, the NJ Department submitted air quality and aerial dispersion modeling analyses4 to show that emissions from Portland cause violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey. On April 7, 2011, the EPA published a proposed response to the NJ Department‘s Section 126(b) petition, finding that sulfur dioxide emissions from Portland violate the interstate air pollution transport provisions of the Clean Air Act and suggesting emissions limitations and compliance schedules to remedy the problem. See Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions from the Portland Generating Station, 76 Fed. Reg. 19,662 (Apr. 7, 2011) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 52) (―Proposed Rule‖). The EPA invited public comments on the Proposed Rule and 4 Dispersion modeling simulates air pollutant emissions as they are carried throughout the atmosphere. These models replicate the conditions of the atmosphere, providing ―an estimate of the concentration of pollutants as they travel away from an emission source‖ and can be used ―to determine whether a new source will adversely impact an area or to predict whether the control of an individual source will have a beneficial effect.‖ Dispersion Modeling , AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT ONLINE PORTAL, EPA, http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/aqmportal/management/modeli ng/dispersion.htm (last visited June 19, 2013). 10 announced a public hearing to be held on April 27, 2011 in Warren County, New Jersey. The EPA received numerous public comments from inter alia, individuals, government officials, environmental groups, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the NJ Department, GenOn, and the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic. Many of these comments favored the Proposed Rule. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection submitted a comment in which it acknowledged that residents of Pennsylvania would realize public health and environmental benefits from a reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions but suggested some alterations to the proposed compliance schedule. On November 7, 2011, the EPA issued its final rule granting the NJ Department‘s Section 126(b) petition, which finds that Portland‘s sulfur dioxide emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. See Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions from the Portland Generating Station, 76 Fed. Reg. 69,052, 69,053 (Nov. 7, 2011) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 52) (―Portland Rule‖). The EPA authorized the continued operation of Portland but imposed emissions limits and compliance schedules to bring Portland into compliance as expeditiously as practicable. The EPA based its finding on a review of the NJ Department‘s air quality modeling, its independent assessment of the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion modeling, and other highly technical analyses. Portland Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. at 69,053. The 11 Portland Rule requires Portland to reduce its sulfur dioxide emissions by approximately 81% at its two coal-fired generating units within three years of the rule‘s effective date and to adhere to interim sulfur dioxide emissions limits to ensure that Portland demonstrates the requisite increments of progress towards achieving final compliance. Portland Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. at 69,053, 69,064. GenOn petitioned for our review of the Portland Rule, challenging the EPA‘s authority to impose direct regulations on Portland before the time that Pennsylvania is required to complete its Section 110 SIP process for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. GenOn contends that this action offends the cooperative federalism structure of the Clean Air Act by undermining a state‘s power to determine how to achieve air control standards.