On April 30, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a direct final rule that will allow the rescission of Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permits issued by EPA or delegated state and local permitting authorities under Step 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.  The rule, published at 80 Fed. Reg. 26,183(May 7, 2015), is necessary to implement the decision last year in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (“UARG”) where the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA may not rely on greenhouse gases (“GHG”) alone when determining whether a new source (or modification of an existing source) is required to obtain a PSD preconstruction permit or title V operating permit.  Sources where GHGs alone triggered PSD requirements were known as “Step 2” sources, because they were covered under Step 2 of EPA’s Tailoring Rule.

The direct final rule does not rescind any EPA-issued Step 2 permits, but provides a regulatory mechanism for EPA and delegated state and local permitting authorities eventually to rescind them.  Currently, 40 C.F.R. 52.21(w), which provides authority for a source holding a PSD permit to seek rescission of a PSD permit, is limited to permits issued on or before July 30, 1987.  Because any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits were issued under regulations effective after July 30, 1987, the rescission authority in 40 CFR 52.21(w) is not currently available to sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. This rulemaking will allow for rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits upon request by the permitted source. Permitting agencies already have the necessary regulatory authority to revise any title V permits that incorporated PSD Step 2 permitting requirements.

The direct final rule will become effective on July 6, 2015, unless adverse comments are received by June 8th.   EPA also simultaneously published a proposed rule (at 80 Fed. Reg. 26, 210), and will pursue additional rulemaking under that proposal if adverse comments are received on the direct final rule.  Once the rule becomes effective, EPA will begin the process of rescinding EPA-issued Step 2 permits.  In a guidance memorandum issued on December 19, 2014, EPA outlined that it will exercise narrowly-tailored enforcement discretion with respect to EPA-issued Step 2 permits until they are rescinded.

Note that this action does not apply to state-issued PSD permits in states with GHG PSD programs in their EPA approved State Implementation Plans (“SIP)”.  This is because state authority under the SIPs (e.g., state authority to rescind the permit) already might be available to provide relief from the state-issued Step 2 PSD permit requirements.   In addition, as stated in EPA’s July 24, 2014, post-UARG guidance memorandum, EPA does not read the Supreme Court’s decision as precluding states from retaining permitting requirements for major sources of GHG only emissions to the extent state law provides independent authority to do so. Therefore, sources with state-issued Step 2 PSD permits should review their state permitting requirements to address questions regarding GHG only permits.

This action also does not resolve the question of what constitutes a “significant emissions rate” threshold for GHGs emitted by sources that were regulated under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in UARG held that EPA could subject GHG emissions from new or modified sources to Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) review requirements if their emissions of conventional pollutants were regulated under the PSD program anyway.  The Court said that EPA could regulate these so-called “anyway” sources if GHG emissions were emitted from them at more than de minimis levels.  But the Court further stated that the 75,000 tons per year (“tpy”) threshold that EPA had used in Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule does not necessarily qualify as a de minimis level.  EPA has said that it will initiate a rulemaking to establish an appropriate de minimis threshold for Step 1 sources.  In the meantime, EPA is continuing to apply 75,000 tpy as the emissions rate from “anyway” sources that will trigger BACT review for GHGs at such sources.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Michael Cooke Michael Cooke

Board Certified in State & Federal Government and Administrative Practice, Michael G. Cooke concentrates his practice in administrative law, including environmental, utility, and land use law. He represents industrial, agricultural, banking, government, and developer clients on matters involving clean air, climate change, electric…

Board Certified in State & Federal Government and Administrative Practice, Michael G. Cooke concentrates his practice in administrative law, including environmental, utility, and land use law. He represents industrial, agricultural, banking, government, and developer clients on matters involving clean air, climate change, electric generating facilities, renewable energy, telecommunications, utility plant and transmission line siting, water, and wastewater issues and permitting and zoning matters.

From 2003 to 2006, Michael was the Director of the Division of Air Resource Management for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In this position, he managed the air quality program for the State of Florida, interacting with federal and local agencies and over-seeing permitting and enforcement matters and the development of state air regulations. Michael also served as General Counsel for the Florida Public Service Commission in Tallahassee from 2006 through 2008. His responsibilities at the Public Service Commission included conduct of rate cases, rulemaking, enforcement proceedings, and decision-making involved with policy issues regarding nuclear facility site cost recovery and renewable energy.

Michael has represented clients in connection with numerous environmental regulatory matters, particularly in air permitting and compliance issues. He has represented electric utilities, manufacturing, and agricultural entities in connection with various Title V and New Source Review matters. He is well versed in CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, water, and solid waste matters.

Photo of Christopher Bell Christopher Bell

Chris Bell represents clients in civil and criminal enforcement and investigations, litigation, compliance counseling, emergency incident response, and legislative and regulatory advocacy (including appellate challenges to rulemakings) under all of the major environmental, health, safety and natural resource laws. His enforcement experience includes…

Chris Bell represents clients in civil and criminal enforcement and investigations, litigation, compliance counseling, emergency incident response, and legislative and regulatory advocacy (including appellate challenges to rulemakings) under all of the major environmental, health, safety and natural resource laws. His enforcement experience includes internal investigations, responding to grand jury investigations and agency information requests, and negotiating consent, probation, and debarment agreements. He is currently the EPA Independent Monitor overseeing the nation’s largest investor-owned energy company’s compliance with complex debarment and probation agreements arising from the resolution of a criminal enforcement case brought under the Clean Water Act.

Chris assists buyers, sellers, investors and financial institutions on the environmental aspects of transactions, including conducting due diligence, negotiating the environmental provisions of transactional documents, and identifying and executing insurance-based risk management opportunities. His transactional experience has included upstream, midstream and downstream energy projects, alternative energy projects, and transactions in the manufacturing, logistics, consumer products and chemicals sectors.

He helps clients evaluate and implement compliance and ethics programs (e.g., under the Sentencing Guidelines), and environmental, health and safety management systems (including based on ISO 14001). Chris advises clients on sustainable development, climate change, product and chemical stewardship and regulation, and value chain management. He recently served on an independent committee advising the senior management of a Fortune 50 company on its global sustainability strategy and reporting.