Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Environmental Defense, et al., Petitioners v. Duke Energy Corporation et al.

Country/Territory
United States of America
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Apr 2, 2007
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of the United States
Seat of court
Washington D.C.
Judge
Souter
Thomas
Reference number
No. 05-848
Language
English
Subject
Air & atmosphere, Legal questions
Keyword
Emissions Air pollution (stationary sources) Air quality/air pollution
Abstract
Respondent Duke Energy Corporation redesigned the workings of some of its coal-fired electric generating units. Petitioner Environmental Groups filed a complaint claiming that Duke had violated an air pollution control scheme to the Clean Air Act by doing the work without permits. The Environmental Protection Agencies’ (EPA) regulations for the scheme in question, called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), required a permit for a modification of a stationary source of air pollution when it is a “major” one. There was a second scheme to the Clean Air Act, however, called Source Performance Standards (NSPS). This scheme also covered modifications, but EPA’s regulations for the NSPS required a permit only if a modification would increase the discharge of pollutants measured in kilograms per hour. The fourth Circuit held that the two regulations had to be interpreted identically, and that both regulations required an increase in the hourly emissions rate as an element of a major “modification”. As none of Duke’s projects increased hourly emissions rates it held that none was a “major modification” requiring a PSD permit. The Supreme court was of the view that principles of statutory interpretation did not rigidly mandate identical regulation here. A given term in the same statute could take on distinct characters from association with distinct statutory objects calling for different ways of implementation. The court accorded substantial judicial deference to an agency’s longstanding, reasonable, and differing interpretations of the statutory term at issue. It held that the Fourth Circuit’s reading of the PSD regulations in an effort to conform them to their NSPS counterparts on “modification” was not a permissible reading of their terms. The PSD regulations clearly did not define a “major modification” in terms of an increase in the hourly emissions rate. Therefore, the court’s reading amounted to the invalidation of the PSD regulations which had to comport with the Clean Air Act’s limits on judicial review of EPA regulations for validity. The case was vacated and remanded.
Full text
05-848.ZO.html

References

Cites