1 / 9

EPA Environmental Appeals Board Bonanza Decision

EPA Environmental Appeals Board Bonanza Decision. John Barth, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 409 Hygiene, CO 80533 (303) 774-8868 barthlaw@aol.com. Introduction. Importance of Bonanza EAB decision and previous greenhouse gas (GHG) actions.

kaseem-sullivan
Download Presentation

EPA Environmental Appeals Board Bonanza Decision

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EPA Environmental Appeals Board Bonanza Decision John Barth, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 409 Hygiene, CO 80533 (303) 774-8868 barthlaw@aol.com

  2. Introduction • Importance of Bonanza EAB decision and previous greenhouse gas (GHG) actions. • John Barth, Attorney at Law. Specializes in representation of non-profit environmental organizations.

  3. Topics of Discussion • Massachusetts v. EPA • Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANPR) • Bonanza EAB decision • What does it all mean with regard to EPA regulation of GHGs?

  4. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) • U.S. Supreme Court decision under EPA Clean Air Act mobile source program. • Is CO2 an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act (CAA)? Yes. • Who has standing to contest EPA’s failure to regulate GHGs? At least coastal states. • Endangerment finding on remand

  5. ANPR on CO2 • EPA seeks comments on use of CAA to address climate change. • ANPR is response to Mass. V EPA • ANPR is largely a “punt” to next administration

  6. Bonanza EAB decision, 13 EAD __. • Appeal of EPA-issued PSD permit for new coal plant on Utah Indian lands. • Is CO2 a pollutant “subject to regulation” under CAA Section 165(a)(4) thus requiring best available control technology (BACT)? • EAB rejects all EPA’s rationales that CO2 is NOT subject to regulation under CAA. • Scope of remand- EPA must either create a record for case-by-case determinations or address the issue in a national manner.

  7. What does this all mean? • The US Supreme Court and EPA’s own administrative court clear the way for EPA to regulate GHG from both mobile and stationary sources. • New PSD permits issued by EPA and delegated states for coal plants (and other major stationary sources) must have an adequate administrative record explaining rationale for not regulating GHGs. • Directly impacts at least 4 proposed coal plants in western United States. • Bonanza will slow issuance of permits.

  8. What does this all mean? (continued) • Is Bonanza decision legal authority in state-issued PSD permits in SIP-approved states? • Generally, Bonanza likely persuasive authority but not binding in SIP-approved states. • Impact of Bonanza likely state-dependent (Kansas v. Wyoming).

  9. If EPA regulates CO2, how will it proceed? • Amend CAA? • New NSPS Regulations? • Case-by-case BACT? • Mobile sources or stationary sources first? • Supremacy over state regulation?

More Related