Testimony of Attorney General
Bill Pryor
On the Clean Air Act New Source Review Joint Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Tuesday, July 16, 2002 Room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC.
Chairman Jeffords, Chairman Leahy, and
distinguished members of the Committees, my name is Bill Pryor, and I am the
Attorney General of the State of Alabama. It is my pleasure to be here today to
discuss the important issue of Clean Air Act New Source Review.
I support the thrust of the report submitted to
President Bush by the EPA Administrator to revitalize the New Source Review
Program and in so doing to restore the delicate balance of "cooperative
federalism" embodied in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970.
Cooperative Federalism
Until the 1970s, the maintenance of clean air was viewed as predominantly
a state and local concern. In 1970, after a series of smaller experiments,
Congress adopted a new blueprint for the battle against air pollution. The new
plan - set forth in the Clean Air Act Amendments of that year (42 U.S.C. §§
7401-7671 (1994 & Supp. V 1999)) - created a model of "cooperative
federalism."
This new model gave the federal government
responsibility for establishing national air quality standards, along with a
variety of enforcement tools for ensuring that those standards are met. It
reserved to each State, however,
“the
primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic
region comprising such State by submitting an implementation plan for such
State which will specify the manner in which national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained within each air
quality control region in such State.”
Clean Air Act § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a). Underlying this provision
was the Congressional finding that "air pollution prevention ... is the
primary responsibility of States and local governments." Clean Air Act §
101(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7101(a)(3).
In a series of decisions in the mid-1970s interpreting the then-new
statute, the Supreme Court laid out and clarified the Act's division of responsibilities
between the federal government and the states. Train v. National Resource
Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975); Union Electric Co. v.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99
(1977) (per curiam). In the quarter century since these cases, the federal
courts have staunchly protected the federalist design of the Clean Air Act.
For example, in 1984, the Seventh Circuit struck down an attempt by EPA
to strengthen a State Implementation Plan (or "SIP") through a
partial approval that was more akin to an amendment. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036 (7th Cir. 1984). As Judge Posner
eloquently explained,
“The
Clean Air Act is an experiment in federalism, and EPA may not run roughshod
over the procedural prerogatives that the Act has reserved to the states,
especially when, as in this case, the agency is overriding state policy.”
Id. at 1036-37 (citations omitted).
Similarly, and more recently, the D.C. Circuit relied on the same
principles and precedents to vacate an EPA rule that purported to require twelve
states and the District of Columbia to amend their SIN to adopt a particular
method of controlling pollution. In so holding, the court emphasized that
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act "does not enable EPA to force particular
control measures on the states . . . ." Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410, amended on
other rounds, 116 F.3d 499 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
As these and other courts
have acknowledged, the delegation of implementation decisions to the states
reflects not only a spirit of comity but also a recognition that state
regulators - well-versed in local needs and circumstances - are best able to
craft detailed programs to improve air quality while ensuring the continued
availability of energy and maintaining economic prosperity.
The Clinton
EPA Enforcement Campaign
In the late 1990s, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
upset this sound design. EPA commenced enforcement actions against a variety of
companies, including a cross-section of the nation's electric utilities,
claiming that certain plant activities triggered the extensive New Source
Review pre-construction permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act.
For two decades, EPA, frontline state regulators, and regulated sources
had all interpreted these activities as falling within an exclusion for routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement. Their common understanding was that New
Source Review applied only to major modification activities that are akin to
new construction. During the Clinton administration, EPA advanced a novel
interpretation that would require the adoption of state-of-the-art pollution
controls at existing sources for activities that state regulators had
considered routine maintenance, repair, and replacement activities.
The Clinton EPA's new interpretation conflicted with
prior federal and state guidance. In several instances, state and local
regulators inspected the facilities that are the subject of EPA's enforcement
actions - before or immediately after the maintenance activities upon which EPA
has based its actions -- without suggesting that a permit was necessary.
Indeed, EPA's enforcement net was so broad as to encompass certain plants that
sought out and received explicit determinations from state regulators that a
particular maintenance activity did not trigger the New Source Review
requirements.
The Clinton-era EPA undertook this abrupt reversal of course without
notice-and-comment rulemaking and without consulting the states, which have had
the primary responsibility to implement New Source Review standards for over
twenty years. EPA's course eviscerated the cooperative federalist approach that
is the heart of Congress's design, in which the federal government has the
authority to set national air quality objectives and standards but the States
have the authority and the responsibility to implement them. EPA invaded the
province of the States and threw their respective air pollution control
programs into upheaval by reversing -- with the blunt tool of enforcement
instead of a collaborative rulemaking process - interpretations that are
central to the day-to-day activities of state regulators.
I urge these committees to work with the President and the EPA in a bipartisan spirit to develop better-defined standards of New Source Review, consistent with the original design of cooperative federalism in the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.