State of North Dakota v. EPA, No. 12-1844 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThe State, in consolidated petitions for review, challenged the EPA's final rule approving in part and disapproving in part two state implementation plans (SIPs) submitted by the State to address its obligations under sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. The final rule also promulgated a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address those portions of the SIPs that were disapproved. The court concluded that, even assuming that the State's interpretation of section 7607(d)(3) was correct, the State has failed to demonstrate that the EPA's error in this regard was so serious and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule that there was a substantial likelihood that the rule would have been significantly changed if the error had not been made; the EPA's refusal to consider the existing pollution control technology in use at the Coal Creek Station because it had been voluntarily installed was arbitrary and capricious and its FIP promulgating selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) as the best available retrofit technology (BART) for the Coal Creek Station was therefore vacated; the State's petition for review of the EPA's disapproval of the State's SIP and promulgating of a FIP was denied because the EPA properly disapproved the State's reasonable progress determination; the Environmental Groups' motion to dismiss their petition for review was moot; and the State's petition for review of the EPA's disapproval of the interstate transport SIP was denied because the EPA properly disapproved portions of the State's regional haze SIP. Accordingly, the court granted the State's and Great River Energy's petitions for review to the extent that they challenged the EPA's BART determination for the Coal Creek Station promulgated in EPA's FIP; vacated and remanded that portion of the final rule to the EPA for further proceedings; and denied the remainder of the State's, Great River Energy's, and the Environmental Groups' petitions for review, as well as the Environmental Groups' motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).
Court Description: Petition for Review - Environmental law. In this proceeding, challenging the EPA's final rule approving in part and disapproving in part North Dakota's State Implementation Plan regarding regional haze and the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for certain pollution sources, the EPA's decision to disapprove the plan and simultaneously issue a Federal Implementation Plan was not a basis for overturning the final rule; the EPA's disapproval of North Dakota's BART plan for the Coal Creek Station power plant was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion; the EPA's refusal to consider the existing pollution control equipment in use at the Coal Creek Station because it had been voluntarily installed was arbitrary and capricious and the EPA's Federal Implementation Plan requiring certain technology for this site is vacated; because the goal of Section 169A of the Clean Air Act is attain natural visibility conditions in Class I Federal areas, and the EPA demonstrated that the visibility model used by the state would serve, instead, to maintain the current, degraded conditions, the court cannot say the EPA acted arbitrarily, capriciously or abused its discretion by disapproving the state's reasonable progress determination for the Antelope Valley Station units in question; the Environmental Group petitioners failed to demonstrate that the EPA's approval of a particular emission limit for the Coyote Station site was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion; because the Environmental Group petitioners' challenges to the EPA's approval of the state's BART determination for the Young Stations Units 1 and 2 and the Olds Station Unit 2 were not raised before the EPA during the rule-making process, the court is without jurisdiction to hear them under 42 U.S.S. Sec. 7607(d)(7)(B); the EPA did not act arbitrarily by refusing to accept the state's "placeholder" submission for the visibility component of its interstate transport State Implementation Plan.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.