Brief Fact Summary. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act) created a system under which utilities were given an allocation of pollutants, which they could transfer or sell among themselves. The EPA filled a gap in the Act’s statutory scheme regarding how to define a unit’s actual emission rate, which was challenged in this case.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Agencies very rarely lose at Step 2 of the Chevron analysis: Reasonableness. “Reasonableness” is not well articulated.
The failure to respond to comments is significant only insofar as it demonstrates that the agency's decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Was the EPA’s substitution of a calculated emission rate permissible?
Held. The EPA’s actions were a reasonable interpretation of the statute and not otherwise unlawful. Dissent. None. Concurrence. None.
Discussion. The statute did not address the precise issue and the Court found the agency’s interpretation to be reasonable.