Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 11-73342 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseAvenal Power filed suit seeking to compel EPA to issue a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit under the old applicable air quality standards that would have applied had EPA acted within the statutory deadline. EPA eventually granted Avenal Power the Permit without regard to the new regulations. Petitioners challenged EPA's action. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that petitioners had associational standing. On the merits, the court held that the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7475(c), unambiguously requires Avenal Power to demonstrate that the Avenal Energy Project complies with the regulations in effect at the time the Permit is issued; because Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., EPA cannot grant the petition for review; and, therefore, the court vacated the decision to issue the permit and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel granted a petition for review brought by environmental groups, and vacated the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to issue a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, allowing Avenal Power Center LLC to build and operate the Avenal Energy Project, a 600 megawatt natural gas-fired power plant, under the old air quality standards. The panel held that petitioners had standing because a number of the petitioners had associational standing to challenge EPA’s action. Turning to the merits, the panel held that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act. The panel applied Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984), analysis, and held that the Clean Air Act unambiguously required Avenal Power to demonstrate that the Avenal Energy Project complied with the regulations in effect at the time the Permit was issued. The panel further held that because Congress had directly spoken on the issue, the EPA could not waive this requirement. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
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.