Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA: Difference between revisions
Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) removed link from lead citation per WP:SCOTUS/SG; added library of congress source for scan of U.S. Reports; citation tweaks |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|USVol=540 |
|USVol=540 |
||
|USPage=461 |
|USPage=461 |
||
|ParallelCitations= |
|ParallelCitations=124 S. Ct. 983; 157 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 967 |
||
|Prior=Petition denied, 298 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/20021112298f3d81411024 814] ([[9th Cir.]] 2001); case suspended, 244 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/2001992244f3d7481900 748] (9th Cir. 2001); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|537|1186|2003|el=no}}. |
|||
|Prior= |
|||
|Subsequent= |
|Subsequent= |
||
|Holding= |
|Holding= |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|Dissent=Kennedy |
|Dissent=Kennedy |
||
|JoinDissent=Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
|JoinDissent=Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
||
|LawsApplied= |
|LawsApplied=[[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA''''', |
'''''Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA''''', 540 U.S. 461 (2004), is a U.S. Supreme Court case clarifying the scope of state environmental regulators as well as the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found the EPA has authority to overrule state agency decisions under the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] that a company is using the "best available controlling technology" to prevent pollution.<ref>''Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA'', {{ussc|volume=540|page=461|pin=|year=2004}}.</ref> |
||
==Background== |
==Background== |
||
The [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] requires state agencies to determine optimal methods of preventing air quality degradation in areas that meet national clean air standards.<ref>42 |
The [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] requires state agencies to determine optimal methods of preventing air quality degradation in areas that meet national clean air standards.<ref>{{USCSub|42|7470|1}}.</ref> The Act regulates air quality and establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards in every state to prevent public health issues.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act|title=Summary of the Clean Air Act|last=EPA, OA, OP, ORPM, RMD|first=US|website=www.epa.gov|language=en|access-date=2017-02-15}}</ref> The Act prohibits construction of major air polluting facilities not equipped with "the best available control technology" (BACT).<ref>{{USCSub|42|7475|a|4}}.</ref> |
||
In 1998, [[Teck Resources|Teck Cominco Alaska]], requested a permit to build an additional generator and modify an existing generator at its mines in order to expand zinc extraction. In May 1999, the [[Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation]] (ADEC) issued the permit, and a technical report, which concluding that "Low NOx" technology was BACT and identifying "selective catalytic reduction" (SCR) as the best control technology. The EPA opposed the permit, objected that ADEC had identified SCR as the best control technology, but failed to require it as BACT. |
In 1998, [[Teck Resources|Teck Cominco Alaska]], requested a permit to build an additional generator and modify an existing generator at its mines in order to expand zinc extraction. In May 1999, the [[Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation]] (ADEC) issued the permit, and a technical report, which concluding that "Low NOx" technology was BACT and identifying "selective catalytic reduction" (SCR) as the best control technology. The EPA opposed the permit, objected that ADEC had identified SCR as the best control technology, but failed to require it as BACT. |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
==Holding== |
==Holding== |
||
===Ginsburg's opinion for the court=== |
===Ginsburg's opinion for the court=== |
||
The Court held that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to bar the construction of the polluting facility in Alaska. EPA correctly interpreted the Clean Air Act to give EPA authority to review state authorities' BACT determinations.<ref>The court found such authority in 42 |
The Court held that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to bar the construction of the polluting facility in Alaska. EPA correctly interpreted the Clean Air Act to give EPA authority to review state authorities' BACT determinations.<ref>The court found such authority in {{USCSub|42|7413|a|5}} and {{USC|42|7477|notitle=1}}.</ref> |
||
Since the Act does not specify a standard for judicial review, the court applied "the familiar default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act,<ref>5 |
Since the Act does not specify a standard for judicial review, the court applied "the familiar default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act,<ref>{{USCSub|5|706|2|a}}.</ref>" of whether the EPA's action was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The court found that, although EPA's orders were explained with "less than ideal clarity,<ref>{{ussc|name=Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.|link=|volume=419|page=281|pin=286|year=1974}}.</ref>" EPA's comments and orders were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. |
||
===Kennedy's dissent=== |
===Kennedy's dissent=== |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{Reflist}} |
{{Reflist}} |
||
==External links== |
|||
* {{caselaw source |
|||
| case = ''Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA'', {{ussc|540|461|2004|el=no}} |
|||
| findlaw =https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/461.html |
|||
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep540/usrep540461/usrep540461.pdf |
|||
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-658 |
|||
}} |
|||
[[Category:1999 in Alaska]] |
[[Category:1999 in Alaska]] |
Revision as of 14:42, 7 January 2019
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA | |
---|---|
Argued October 8, 2003 Decided January 21, 2004 | |
Full case name | Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. |
Citations | 540 U.S. 461 (more) 124 S. Ct. 983; 157 L. Ed. 2d 967 |
Case history | |
Prior | Petition denied, 298 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2001); case suspended, 244 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2001); cert. granted, 537 U.S. 1186 (2003). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Breyer |
Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
Laws applied | |
Clean Air Act |
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004), is a U.S. Supreme Court case clarifying the scope of state environmental regulators as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found the EPA has authority to overrule state agency decisions under the Clean Air Act that a company is using the "best available controlling technology" to prevent pollution.[1]
Background
The Clean Air Act requires state agencies to determine optimal methods of preventing air quality degradation in areas that meet national clean air standards.[2] The Act regulates air quality and establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards in every state to prevent public health issues.[3] The Act prohibits construction of major air polluting facilities not equipped with "the best available control technology" (BACT).[4]
In 1998, Teck Cominco Alaska, requested a permit to build an additional generator and modify an existing generator at its mines in order to expand zinc extraction. In May 1999, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) issued the permit, and a technical report, which concluding that "Low NOx" technology was BACT and identifying "selective catalytic reduction" (SCR) as the best control technology. The EPA opposed the permit, objected that ADEC had identified SCR as the best control technology, but failed to require it as BACT.
ADEC issued a second report reinforcing the original findings, but conceded the lack of cost data from Teck Cominco made it impossible to evaluate the impact of SCR on the mine's profitability. EPA issued orders to ADEC under §§113(a)(5) and 167 of the act, prohibiting ADEC from issuing permits to Teck Cominco without documenting why SCR was not BACT. ADEC appealed the EPA's orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the EPA did not have the right to interfere with the state agency's decision. The Ninth Circuit sided with EPA, and ADEC appealed.
Issue
Under the Clean Air Act, can EPA block construction of a new major pollutant emitting facility permitted by a state environmental regulator, when EPA finds the state environmental regulator's determination unreasonable? What standard of review applies to such actions?
Holding
Ginsburg's opinion for the court
The Court held that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to bar the construction of the polluting facility in Alaska. EPA correctly interpreted the Clean Air Act to give EPA authority to review state authorities' BACT determinations.[5]
Since the Act does not specify a standard for judicial review, the court applied "the familiar default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act,[6]" of whether the EPA's action was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The court found that, although EPA's orders were explained with "less than ideal clarity,[7]" EPA's comments and orders were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Kennedy's dissent
Justice Kennedy wrote a dissent for Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Justice Kennedy found that the State of Alaska procedures were in full compliance with the Clean Air Act and accompanying regulations promulgated by EPA. EPA's action to overturn ADEC's decision was based on nothing more than its substantive disagreement with the State's discretionary judgment, exceeded its powers in setting aside Alaska's BACT determination.
See also
References
- ^ Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004).
- ^ .
- ^ EPA, OA, OP, ORPM, RMD, US. "Summary of the Clean Air Act". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2017-02-15.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ .
- ^ The court found such authority in § 7477. and
- ^ .
- ^ Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974).
External links
- Text of Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) is available from: Findlaw Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- 1999 in Alaska
- 2004 in Alaska
- 2004 in the environment
- 2004 in United States case law
- Environment of Alaska
- Mining in Alaska
- Pollution in the United States
- United States waste law
- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
- Zinc mining in the United States
- United States Environmental Protection Agency