Alaska v. Environmental Protection Agency
 | |
| Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency | |
| Docket number: 02-658 | |
| Court: United States Supreme Court | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer John Paul Stevens • Sandra Day O'Connor • David Souter | |
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to overrule a state government's decision regarding the construction of a facility that emits or can potentially emit air pollutants.[1]
The court had to decide whether the federal Clean Air Act allows federal regulatory decisions to overrule state regulatory decisions regarding the best achievable air pollution control technology at facilities such as power plants and factories. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the EPA may overrule a state government's decision and can require a facility to have the best achievable pollution control technology—and block a facility's construction if it does not.[1]
Background
In 1988, Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc., the owner of one of Alaska's largest mines, received approval to operate a zinc mine (known as the Red Dog Mine) in northwest Alaska. Under the Clean Air Act, private companies must apply for a permit if their facilities emit air pollution. In this case, the Alaska mine emitted nitrogen oxides, which are natural chemical compounds regulated under federal law. The company applied for a permit with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Under the Clean Air Act, state agencies must require companies to use the "best available" anti-pollution technology at any buildings or facilities that produce air pollutants such nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other chemical compounds. A state agency determines whether the technology is best available for facilities on a case-by-case basis.[1]
The company’s initial permit authorized five diesel electric generators that were subject to regulation. The company announced in 1996 that it planned to expand zinc production by 40 percent and applied for another permit with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to allow the increased electric generation.[1]
The state agency proposed an emission control technology (known as “selective catalytic reduction,” or SCR) that would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent. Amending its application, Teck Cominco Alaska added another generator and proposed an alternative control technology (known as “Low NOx”) that would reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions from the added generator by 30 percent.[1]
In May 1999, the state agency produced a report that identified the SCR technology as the best available pollution control technology that was also technically and economically feasible. At the same time, however, the state agency endorsed Teck Cominco Alaska’s preferred technology, Low NOx, for the company’s additional generator. Approving the permit, the state agency argued that the Low NOx technology would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions similar to the reduction achievable by the SCR technology, which the agency argued was economically and logistically more difficult to implement.[2][3]
In July 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to the Alaska agency's approval of the permit. The EPA argued that Alaska did not adequately explain why the state did not require the company to install the SCR technology as the best available pollution control technology. Further, the EPA argued that the Clean Air Act prohibits construction on a facility that does not have the “best available control technology,” which the Clean Air Act defines as “an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of [pollutant] reduction” that takes into account “energy, environmental, economic impacts and other costs.” Though state agencies are authorized to determine whether anti-pollution technology is best available for facilities on a case-by-case basis, the EPA argued that the federal government may override a state agency’s decision under the Clean Air Act.[1]
The Alaska agency argued that the SCR technology would have made the mine less efficient and would have hindered the company's economic competitiveness. The EPA prohibited the Alaska agency to issue the permit without providing a satisfactory reason for permitting one of the mine’s generators to have the Low NOX technology. Further, the EPA also prohibited the company from building any new mines or modifying its existing mines, citing the federal agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.[1][2][3]
Supreme Court ruling
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court found that the EPA had the legal authority to stop the Alaska mine's construction under the Clean Air Act. She was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens. Specifically, the court said that while state governments share enforcement responsibilities with the EPA under the Clean Air Act, the discretion provided to state governments is limited in decisions regarding the best available anti-pollution technology for regulated facilities. The court found that the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to check a state agency’s designation of this technology. The Clean Air Act mandates a specific level of air quality throughout the United States, and state governments must meet specific legal requirements when it issues permits to private companies whose facilities release air pollution. If states do not meet the legal requirements, then the EPA can overrule their decisions.
According to Ginsburg, "Without a federal check, new plants will play one State off against another with threats to locate in whichever State adopts the most permissive pollution controls." Ginsburg said that some states may lose their industries to states with fewer pollution control requirements unless the federal government intervenes. Thus, state governments would have an incentive to lower their pollution standards in order to keep industries in their states. Additionally, the majority on the court did not find that the EPA's actions were "arbitrary or capricious" when the agency required more stringent anti-pollution technology at the Alaska mine.[4]
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion. He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Kennedy disagreed that Alaska had acted contrary to the Clean Air Act. He argued that the EPA had exceeded its own legal authority when it overruled Alaska's decision. "Alaska followed these procedures to determine the best available control technology (BACT). EPA, however, sought to overturn the State’s decision, not by the process of judicial review, but by administrative fiat," Kennedy wrote. Kennedy said that the law gave more discretion to the states regarding anti-pollution technology. According to Kennedy, the Alaska agency was legally permitted to consider all relevant economic, energy, and environmental factors before it decided upon a certain type of anti-pollution technology for a private company.[5]
See also
External links
- United States Supreme Court
- Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency - Majority Opinion
- Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency - Dissenting Opinion
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Find Law, "Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004)," accessed October 11, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 New York Times, "Court Upholds E.P.A. Role in Alaska Case," January 22, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Oyez Project, "Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004)," accessed April 1, 2015
- ↑ Cornell University School of Law, "Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) - Majority Opinion," accessed April 1, 2015
- ↑ Cornell University School of Law, "Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) - Dissenting Opinion," accessed April 1, 2015
