[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Case number 21-1146, Midwest ozone group petitioner versus Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
Mr. Flannery for the petitioner, Ms.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
Coleman for the respondents.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Mr. Flannery.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
We will hear from you.

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
and you and your friends on the other side and the other participants will have the historic honor of arguing before Judge Childs, our newest colleague, for the first time.

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
Welcome.

[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court, I'm David Flannery.

[00:00:46] Speaker 01:
I represent the petition of Midwest Sousa Group.

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
Judge Childs, my honor to hear first

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
for you today and the rest of you.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
I'd like to reserve, Your Honor, three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
And let me open by indicating, of course, that this is a case that involves the so-called revised cross-state pollution rule.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
It is the fourth effort on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency to address the good neighbor provision, so-called good neighbor provisions of the Clean Air Act,

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
Significantly, this case is also one that grew out of the remand of the Wisconsin decision in 2019 that addressed the previous rule, the so-called cross-state air pollution rule.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
We'll talk to you today about our concerns about that rule, and we'll talk about our concerns that the EPA made some abbreviated and manipulated decisions that we think were really designed

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
to achieve the timing of the rule.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
And it did so in a way that it took some shortcuts, both technical and legal, with that.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
And we'll take our opening time this morning to take you through those.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
Out of the ones that, issues that we raised in our briefs, we'll point out this morning three of those specific points that we'd like to emphasize.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
Of course, we'll open to any questions that you might have about any of that as we proceed.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
First point that I'd like to raise deals with a so-called harmonization provision of the act.

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
And the concern that EPA would have dealt with this rule never dealt with the mandate of this court that yet harmonized the obligations of the upwind states and the downwind states as it achieved the result that it was seeking.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
EPA instead used

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Pardon me, your honor.

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
Used 2021, the analytical year involved, the attainment year involved, but it did not seek to reconcile the obligations of upwind and downwind states.

[00:02:59] Speaker 01:
And I'll have more for that for you in a moment.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
The result is it shifts the burden of compliance from the downwind states to the upwind states.

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
We'll also, in our second point, raise with you that even though all of the

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
Rules that have been before the court on this have used air quality model.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
Be sure, very scientific approach to that.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
All prior rules have used air quality modeling to address these future year issues.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
In this case, EPA did not do that.

[00:03:31] Speaker 01:
It defaulted to a linear interpolation rule, did so to save time, and did so even though this court in its prior decisions have said

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
that if EPA is to do an analysis of these good neighbor provisions, the court expects it to engage in an analysis that is time sensitive.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
And in fact, we see a result here that involves this linear interpolation methodology

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
driven by a district court order of the Southern District of New York.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
But hadn't the EPA actually, I believe it was 2023 or 2016, used these photochemical projections at some point in time, and then even in using this interpolation for 2021, it brought over some of those estimations to come up with the new formula.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
And Your Honor, we'll go into some detail.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
You're absolutely right.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
Rather than to model 2021

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
which is what had been done in every other rule that had been before the court.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
It took modeling and already had.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
It happened to have modeling for 2023.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
It happened to have modeling for 2016.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
It plotted those and it literally, Your Honor, drew a straight line to see whether the 2023 data and the 2016 data intersected 2021 on the time axis.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
We do not believe this was a linear.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
We do not believe you can extrapolate that data in a linear fashion.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
And I'll have more for that for you in just a moment.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
But you are also criticizing their method.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
But did you actually perform the protochemical modeling yourselves to suggest that the numbers would come different, as you indicated?

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
We do point out that if you conducted other analysis, as EPA did, EPA, for example, looked at how this is all about plenty of emissions, how plenty of emissions affect our quality.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
And so if you look at what you think is a realistic picture of power plant emissions in 2021, EPA estimated those.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
And it estimated those as 124,000 tons.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
But EPA never took that independent estimate and compared that back what it would have gotten out of that linear interpolation methodology that we think was inaccurate.

[00:05:53] Speaker 01:
And it turns out that if you make that comparison, as we do in our brief,

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
It turns out that their methodology over predicts those emissions by 24%.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
24% at a time when the downwind monitors, the critical downwind monitors in Connecticut, that drive this rule for all but one state.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
For 11 out of 12 states, these Connecticut monitors are pivotal in the logic on this.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
And it turns out those monitors are above the standard by only 4%, and not the 24%.

[00:06:25] Speaker 05:
So, um, I mean, I understand that you disagree with the EPA's chosen methodology, but what are your arguments that their methodology is arbitrary and capricious, right?

[00:06:36] Speaker 05:
You may think that another methodology would be preferable or, you know, better in some sense, but what is it about the EPA's method in this case facing statutory and court deadlines?

[00:06:48] Speaker 05:
Um, what about their method was arbitrary and capricious?

[00:06:51] Speaker 05:
Cause that's the standard we have to apply here.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
Uh, correct honor.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
And this court has pointed out in its previous rulings in this case, in these very rules, the Appalachian power decision in 1999 and in 2001 pointed out that yes, there will be deference.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
The court will extend the EPA on these technical issues.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
These technical issues have to be vetted back against realistic data.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
And in this case, where it misses this, this court has said in the past that it

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
approves what EPA has done, but only because it has used air quality modeling, modeling the air involved.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
It's not done here.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
This court has said, and it did so in its Maryland decision in 2020 most recently, that it expects that when EPA does this analysis, that it will approach this using a time intensive analytical process.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
So it is expected

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
expected at EPA to conduct a detailed modeling and not take the shortcut.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
And in this case, they admit they took the shortcut simply because a district court order had said, we'd like you to do it quickly.

[00:08:00] Speaker 05:
I think that focusing on the district court deadline, I mean, that that overlooks that the district court's deadline is set in part because of the statutory deadlines, which are a very important part of the Clean Air Act.

[00:08:13] Speaker 05:
It's not just an arbitrary date that they picked.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
That takes me to the harmonization point that answers your question about the statutory deadline.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
This case is all about interpreting the provisions of 110A2D of the Clean Air Act, which says that an upwind state may not significantly contribute to downwind non-attainment.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
But it doesn't say by the next attainment date.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
The language says you have to determine when the Upward State makes that obligation go away by looking to see what is consistent with what is being done with Title I, the rest of the Act, the non-attainment provisions of the Act.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
So there's no specific date that's set there.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
This court in the Wisconsin Remand said, yes, the next analytical, the next payment date is 2021.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
But what is said in that opinion is you've got to reconcile

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
what the upwind states and downwind states are doing at that 2021 date.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
You've got to ask the question, has EPA done something in the downwind states to delay their obligation to comply with the requirements of that attainment date?

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
And if so, the Wisconsin court specifically said, EPA may delay the responsibility for the upwind states if that's what's needed to reconcile that and terminize the two obligations.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
But hasn't the EPA indicated its rationale so that we have a very well-reasoned methodology as to why it chose this particular alternative?

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
But EPA did not offer an explanation for why it didn't look at the delay and the opposition of the controls of the downwind states.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
But it responded to all that criticism, you know, during this whole process with respect to the rule.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
I don't think so, Your Honor.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
I think UPA never addressed the question of the delay that appeared with the downwind states that would have kept those downwind states being in nonattainment for years after the 2021 date, even though we explained to them, and they knew that delay occurred, but they never acknowledged that that delay had to be reconciled.

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
with the burden they were putting on the upwind states.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
And this court specifically mandated that they do that.

[00:10:37] Speaker 01:
That's literally the ruling out of the Wisconsin case.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
So it's a two-step process.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
Yes, they have an attainment date of 2021, but when they get there, our reading of the Wisconsin agreement is that you've got to ask yourself a question.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
What have the downwind states done if EPA has in fact approved a delay in those downwind state controls that affects the rule?

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
And EPA's done that.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
And there are citations for that in the record list where they came back and approved those delays under the non-attainment provisions of the act, not the good neighbor provisions.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
And that's the point.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
The good neighbor provisions are driven off the deadline that EPA sets for the downwind states coming in to comply.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
And EPA knew that delay occurred, but it never took that into account

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
when it made its decision to impose these controls on the other states.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
With those errors, and with the failure to align these two obligations with the decision to shortcut the analytical process to use this linear interpolation rather than air quality modeling, which this court has, the only technique this court has ever sanctioned for EPA to use on it,

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
We have a situation where, in our view, we have to turn to the question of vacating this rule.

[00:12:01] Speaker 01:
We know this court has looked at the vacancy issue, and its earlier cases have said that in order to make that decision, you have to look at the seriousness of the discrepancies that are in the rule, and you have to look at whether there are adverse consequences related to that.

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
We've already talked about the serious errors that are here.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
Just a word about the consequences of vacatur, if any.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
We don't think there would be.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
This rule never changes into the downwind non-attainment.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
So if this rule is vacated, it won't affect downwind air quality.

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
Two, there are other mechanisms that are out there that are available to petitioners that have that problem.

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
And for those reasons, Your Honor, I think

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
We'll find that you'll conclude that there really does no adverse consequences to vacating that.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
I see you on the end of my rebuttal time.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
And we'll pause there.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Let's go ahead.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:13:07] Speaker 00:
We'll hear from you on rebuttal.

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
And now we'll hear from Ms.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
Coleman on behalf of the EPA.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, my name is Chloe Coleman on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
With me at counsel's table are agency counsel Rosemary Coban and Daniel Schramm.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
In light of what the course has just heard, I'd like to use my time today to provide a little clarity, if I can, on petitioners to primary allegations.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
First, that the needs of complete rulemaking in 2021 prompted EPA to unreasonably alter its methodology.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
And second, that EPA should not have imposed upwind reductions in 2021 because the mission reduction efforts endowment stays would continue past that date.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
Both of these challenges confuse the nature of EPA's technical and policy choices here and misapply the opinion in Wisconsin.

[00:14:06] Speaker 04:
So I'd like to briefly address them.

[00:14:08] Speaker 04:
With regard to petitioners contention that EPA used an inferior methodology to project downwind air quality in 2021, petitioners acknowledged that EPA did not have time to build and run a full photochemical grid model for the 2021 analytic year if it wished to complete rulemaking by the next attainment deadline.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
So EPA devised here an alternative methodology that could be executed in the time available.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
It ran photochemical grid modeling for the 2023 analytic year, which was the year for which it had a full suite of data.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
And then it used those projections to derive 2021 values, essentially by walking back its projections to estimate how much the modeled air quality improvement in 2023 would be actually seen by 2021.

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
That last step to interpolate 2021 values from 2023 data, however,

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
was a relatively small mathematical adjustment to a very detailed multi-step methodology built on both models and the actual measure of data.

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
And on top of that, EPA performed two additional analyses to check its work, both of which used 2021 specific data, and both of which reached the same regulatory result here, showing that all 12 of the regulated upwind states would be linked to at least one downwind air quality problem in 2021.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
And this confirmed that the conclusions EPA reached through its primary methodology were well-founded, notwithstanding the use of that limited interpolation method between 2023 and 2021.

[00:15:35] Speaker ?:
And Ms.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
Coleman, you started out your argument about the deadlines, and then one of which was court-imposed.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
So tell me a little bit about how the attainment deadlines are determined and whether or not they could have been postponed.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
So Your Honor, the attainment deadlines are set by a statutory schedule.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
So in the first instance, that schedule appears in sections 120, or, pardon me,

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
181, which is 7511 of the Clean Air Act.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
And that set the schedule as actually key to a 1990 schedule.

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
It was written at a time when EPA was anticipating the first round of these ozone standards.

[00:16:10] Speaker 04:
But EPA then has sort of a regulatory structure that's built on top of that that says, OK, well, we'll take that schedule.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
And obviously, 1990 is not going to work anymore.

[00:16:19] Speaker 04:
But all of those deadlines in the 1990 schedule were queued from the moment at which

[00:16:24] Speaker 04:
A nonattainment area is sort of classified as having a problem and so it all.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
No, well, so there is 1 provision there's a provision 75 11.

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
8.

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
5 that allows to do limited extensions of those download attainment deadlines, but it's very specific and it's very narrow.

[00:16:42] Speaker 04:
It's something you can only do in a circumstance.

[00:16:45] Speaker 04:
where essentially the downwind air quality area has shown that it's really on the knife's edge of attainment.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
And so if only it has just a little bit more time rather than sort of imposing this cascade of consequences that come with being bumped up to a new classification because you failed to meet the last deadline.

[00:17:03] Speaker 04:
It gives EPA a very small, sort of narrow authority to give them just one extra year to show that they're really almost there.

[00:17:12] Speaker 04:
And so we shouldn't be triggering all those consequences.

[00:17:14] Speaker 02:
But by the court imposing the deadline, did you feel forced to this particular methodology?

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
I think there are a couple of things going on here, your honor.

[00:17:22] Speaker 04:
One is, I'd like to note that that extension provision in a five was never used here.

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
So, when petitioners talk about giving parallel extensions to New York and to upwind states, New York state downwind attainment deadline was actually never extended.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
They were just judged to have failed to attain the July twenty twenty one attainment deadline because that was a deadline.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
So, there isn't an issue here of parallel extensions.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
With specific reference to your question about the deadline, we do have this district court proceeding that's saying, looking at the situation created by the Wisconsin opinion, looking at the determination in Wisconsin that the act has to be read to require these eliminated reductions to come before the next payment deadline.

[00:18:02] Speaker 04:
And the district court just essentially put that into practice.

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
It asked EPA, what are you doing here?

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
How long is it going to take?

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
How do we make sure this all gets done by 2021?

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
And I think as our brief showed, ultimately that district court deadline is irrelevant in the sense that if BPA was going to complete rulemaking in time for those reductions to be in place by the 2021 deadline, it had to issue a rule in the spring regardless.

[00:18:27] Speaker 04:
So the fact that we sort of had on top of that a district court deadline specifically stating March 15th really sort of

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
You can have to do it then anyway, so, you know, I think it's hard to see that that district court deadline was really driving things here.

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
But it's also hard to see how, you know, petitioners argument comes down to suggesting we should be violating, you know, 2 federal court orders instead of just 1.

[00:18:51] Speaker 04:
So I think the sort of relevant thing here with respect to this first question on interpolation is also sort of playing out what petitioners are saying, because they've essentially said we cannot reach a reasoned result here without a full grid model for 2021.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
That's what we just heard counsel say.

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
But petitioners don't dispute that modeling in that preferred manner would have pushed EPA past this 2021 deadline in contravention of Wisconsin.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
And so instead, they suggest that EPA should have claimed that that deadline was impossible.

[00:19:21] Speaker 04:
But this court has repeated on numerous occasions that the pursuit of methodological perfection is not a basis to delay statutory obligations, including in Wisconsin itself, where the court explained that compliance with the statutory mandate is only excused where, quote, the scientific uncertainty is so profound it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
EPA's technical approach here balanced

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
exactitude and timeliness as it was required to do to meet that deadline.

[00:19:49] Speaker 04:
And the records demonstrates that it did so reasonably.

[00:19:53] Speaker 05:
Can I just ask, as a practical matter, how often does EPA fail to meet its non-attainment deadlines?

[00:19:59] Speaker 05:
Is that a common occurrence or?

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
With respect to the non-attainment deadlines for its sort of approval actions or, you know, I mean, there's a long history here of these approval actions taking a long time.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
Obviously, we're in a 2022 courtroom for a 2008 standard.

[00:20:14] Speaker 04:
And, you know, that reflects a lot of complexity in the statute.

[00:20:17] Speaker 04:
So, you know, the non-attainment deadlines are obviously obligations states bear rather than EPA.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
But as you suggest, I mean, there's a complicated process here of submissions to EPA that EPA then has to approve.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
And if EPA disapproves, it submits, you know, its own plans in the state's place.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
And so, yes, there is often delay in sort of how those, you know, rule makings and approvals happen, obviously.

[00:20:42] Speaker 05:
Have to answer suits for mandamus for delay in this process.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
There are unreasonable delay suits that would that's what that district court proceeding was that set the March 15th deadline is essentially saying, you know, you can't wait on this obligation.

[00:20:55] Speaker 04:
We have a decision in Wisconsin.

[00:20:57] Speaker 04:
You have an obligation under the under the good.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
Right?

[00:20:59] Speaker 05:
So the agency sort of has it from both sides.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
Yeah, of course.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
And so several of these suits, as you can see in our brief, are, you know, New York VEPA because it's, you know, it's oftentimes a downwind state or Maryland EPA, you know, asking EPA to make sure that these obligations are being met on a schedule.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
You know, 1 of the things that creates a difficulty here, as you can imagine, and thinking about in particular, the New York City attainment area, that's the focus of the briefs here is that state may sort of start at a moderate, you know, not attain or moderate attainment deadline.

[00:21:27] Speaker 04:
It has an obligation to complete certain things by 2018.

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
It's submitting plans with respect to.

[00:21:33] Speaker 04:
the requirements that attach to moderate nonattainment.

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
And then while EPA is working on those obligations, all of a sudden it's a nonattainment for moderate.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
And so now it's at serious.

[00:21:43] Speaker 04:
And so a new set of obligations attached.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
And so there's this sort of ladder that's constantly happening.

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
And I think that's really at the heart of what makes petitioner's harmonization argument so difficult.

[00:21:53] Speaker 04:
Because there isn't a single moment in time when EPA's obligation to look at upwind and downwind obligations is coinciding, where it says, oh, look, these parties are going to do this, and these parties are going to do that.

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
It's all going to be equal, and it's all going to be harmonized.

[00:22:08] Speaker 04:
Because downwind obligations, as we know here with New York, if they're continuing to struggle with their quality, they're going to continue to take additional measures.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
So the peaker rule at issue here is New York making an effort to add additional controls because it's continuing to struggle here.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
But we know under the Act that that doesn't actually allow upwind states to abandon their responsibility.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
And we know that for a number of reasons, not least of which is the court's recent opinion in the 2020 Maryland B EPA case, where the court was actually looking at the question of if we have upwind reductions being due by a sort of early attainment date, in that case the marginal non-attainment date, which is the first in the schedule,

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
But we know at the same time that downwind reductions aren't actually going to occur.

[00:22:54] Speaker 04:
Comparable downwind reductions are going to occur for three more years.

[00:22:58] Speaker 04:
Is that a problem of harmonization?

[00:23:01] Speaker 04:
And the court said no, that it was perfectly acceptable for upwind states to have to deal with their contribution, notwithstanding that downwind actions were going to come up a little bit later.

[00:23:10] Speaker 04:
And I think at the heart of that is that the Wisconsin court was not talking about aligning upwind and downwind efforts.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
It was talking about aligning upwind reductions with downwind deadlines, because the downwind deadlines are when the statute sort of triggers a bunch of consequences for downwind areas that upwind states simply don't bear.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
So, you know, Wisconsin was talking about this idea of, you know, we don't want to put downwind states to the Sophie's choice of.

[00:23:37] Speaker 04:
Should we be requiring downwind states then have to make deeper cuts to try and prevent triggering these consequences, or do we just ask downwind states to bear the risk of those consequences, notwithstanding that they're due in part to inaction by others?

[00:23:51] Speaker 04:
And so the Wisconsin court ultimately said, no, we're not going to let upwind states push these obligations off on downwind states.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
We're going to make sure that upwind states are actually answering the question of whether they bear some responsibility here.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
And taking responsibility for that and not to the point of attainment, you know, when states are not required to do everything down when states are, they're only required to address their significant contributions.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
And that's what the rule did here.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
If we do allow the EPA to use this interpolation method, but you have used the other methods in the past, are we then either encouraging or allowing you to

[00:24:31] Speaker 02:
continue to be more creative along the way.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
In other words, you've been set on a particular type of methodology, but now you're using something else.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
And part of it is based on the deadlines that you've had to deal with.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
But I'm just concerned about whether the court, in the next case, you all come up with something else, then how are you buying us into that process?

[00:24:54] Speaker 04:
Your honor, I think it's important to recognize that EPA did use the photochemical grid model here.

[00:24:58] Speaker 04:
It did everything that it did for the update rule, for the cross-state rule before that.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
It used that same model.

[00:25:05] Speaker 04:
It did that same methodology, the four-step methodology that's been approved by the Supreme Court.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
So there wasn't a deviation here that says, we're going to throw that in the trash and just do something really simple.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
EPA basically did that entire sort of stack of complicated relative response factors and all of these things to get to an answer for 2023.

[00:25:24] Speaker 04:
and then because of the time frame it had to walk that back for 2021.

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
So in a circumstance where EK had enough time to conduct that model, you know, and build all these new inventories and do all that new work for 2021, it would have done that.

[00:25:37] Speaker 04:
And so I don't think there's a concern here that EPA is just sort of jaunting off in a new direction to just simplify its process.

[00:25:45] Speaker 04:
It did something very specific here to account for the deadlines in question.

[00:25:49] Speaker 04:
But these are all very complicated projection methodologies that are ultimately about trying to predict the future.

[00:25:56] Speaker 04:
And so this court has been very deferential to EPA's modeling choices, recognizing that that prediction process is very difficult.

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
And so I don't think there would be a concern in the future if EPA were to deviate from aspects of how it does that modeling.

[00:26:11] Speaker 04:
EPA routinely sort of shifts some aspects of that, you know, which, how are we going to build this particular inventory?

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
You know, what source are we going to use for this?

[00:26:19] Speaker 04:
There's always, I think, a little bit of movement in there.

[00:26:21] Speaker 04:
And over time, EPA has chosen different modeling tools for different elements.

[00:26:25] Speaker 04:
So it's really not as static, I think, as petitioners suggest.

[00:26:28] Speaker 04:
But in any case, we think those are areas for very significant deference from this court, precisely because they are so technical and because there's so much uncertainty already built into the project here, projecting future air quality.

[00:26:41] Speaker 00:
Even given the deference, though, what's your response to petitioner's argument that it's nonetheless arbitrary and capricious, particularly given the

[00:26:56] Speaker 00:
just check that they did on this that reveals that the model is inactive.

[00:27:02] Speaker 04:
But Your Honor, as I mentioned, EPA did two additional confirmatory analyses once it even got through that first set of very complicated modeling.

[00:27:10] Speaker 04:
And those confirmatory analyses checked exactly what petitioners were asking about.

[00:27:15] Speaker 04:
If we assume that the amount of tons from the power plant sector might actually be higher than we projected or lower than we projected, is there a concern here?

[00:27:24] Speaker 04:
And that's what the sensitivity analysis is.

[00:27:27] Speaker 04:
It asks, how sensitive is our result to some of these fluctuations?

[00:27:31] Speaker 04:
If we were wrong by 20,000 tons, would we get a different result?

[00:27:35] Speaker 04:
And EPA actually used numbers that are essentially equivalent to what petitioners used or noted in their brief.

[00:27:42] Speaker 04:
So EPA was using a sensitivity analysis that looked at 124,000 tons.

[00:27:46] Speaker 04:
I believe the petitioner's brief is citing a number of 121,000 tons.

[00:27:50] Speaker 04:
And no matter what EPA did within that range, it continued to get the same regulatory result, which is 12 upwind states linked to at least one downwind on air quality

[00:28:01] Speaker 04:
area.

[00:28:02] Speaker 04:
And so it did that work to ask that question.

[00:28:05] Speaker 04:
Can we be confident that what we've done here isn't producing something that's deviating too far in one direction or another?

[00:28:12] Speaker 04:
And it showed that it wasn't.

[00:28:13] Speaker 04:
And I would note one additional thing in that respect, Your Honor, which is the Supreme Court and E.M.E.

[00:28:17] Speaker 04:
Homer required EPA to do something called an over control analysis.

[00:28:21] Speaker 04:
And that hasn't been an issue in this case.

[00:28:23] Speaker 04:
But what the over control analysis actually asks is once you reduce emissions by the entire budget,

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
that we've done here.

[00:28:31] Speaker 04:
Once you apply this rule and you get to a budget, in this case of about 107,000 funds, the over control analysis it asks, do we still see air quality problems?

[00:28:40] Speaker 04:
And the Supreme Court was trying to have the agency answer the question of, has it done too much?

[00:28:44] Speaker 04:
But I've rated it here because even under a budget of 170 or 107,000 tons or so, much lower than the number of petitioners suggest has made our model arbitrary and capricious, these non-attainment and maintenance receptors, these air quality areas,

[00:28:59] Speaker 04:
still have air quality problems.

[00:29:01] Speaker 04:
So we know that there's a problem sort of no matter what that tonnage is.

[00:29:05] Speaker 04:
EPA has shown that it has very robust projections here.

[00:29:08] Speaker 04:
If the court has no other questions, I would just close by noting

[00:29:14] Speaker 04:
That consistent with the opinion and remand in Wisconsin, EPA appropriately balanced necessary expedition and methodological precision in crafting a rule that ensured that upwind emissions significantly contributing to downwind pollution would be eliminated in time for the July 2021 deadline.

[00:29:30] Speaker 04:
EPA repeatedly checked that those regulatory conclusions were supported by the record and explained its conclusions on the record.

[00:29:37] Speaker 04:
None of petitioners' contentions overcome the deference EPA's policy and technical choices are due here, so the revised rule should be upheld.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:29:46] Speaker 00:
Mr. Flannery will give him his full three minutes.

[00:29:51] Speaker 00:
We'll rebut.

[00:30:04] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:30:06] Speaker 01:
Let me begin by responding to the point that the government has made.

[00:30:12] Speaker 01:
without not having time to address this issue.

[00:30:16] Speaker 01:
The two courts involved in this, this court and the district court in New York, both included their orders, the order ordering the March 15 deadline for EPA to file the district court, and your order and the Wisconsin remand included in both of those cases that if additional time was needed by EPA in order to accomplish the objective here,

[00:30:42] Speaker 01:
the parties ought to approach the court again.

[00:30:46] Speaker 01:
This court had made it clear that it expects the analysis done to support this rule to be a time-intensive analysis.

[00:30:53] Speaker 01:
You understand the words of this court?

[00:30:56] Speaker 01:
And yet, EPA never approached either court.

[00:31:00] Speaker 01:
It never approached the district court.

[00:31:02] Speaker 01:
It never approached this court to explain there's a compromise we have to do.

[00:31:07] Speaker 01:
We have a deadline.

[00:31:08] Speaker 01:
We read it as a deadline, but if we

[00:31:11] Speaker 01:
Try to adhere to that deadline that we have to quit doing the modeling that we had done and all of the other things we'd ever done for you.

[00:31:19] Speaker 01:
We never did that.

[00:31:21] Speaker 01:
On the question of the deadline as well, the government would have you believe that there was only one mechanism in the act by which they could move that non-attainment deadline for the downwind states, that one-year extension.

[00:31:36] Speaker 01:
In fact, in this case, under section 172, part of the non-attainment provisions of the act,

[00:31:42] Speaker 01:
They approved an extension of the compliance obligations of the downwind states that delayed for 2027 from a 2021 attainment year.

[00:31:53] Speaker 01:
Delayed until 2027, New York and Connecticut getting the benefit of emission reductions that would have brought all of those monitors into attainment.

[00:32:03] Speaker 01:
EPA did that.

[00:32:04] Speaker 01:
That's formally approved and total registers went to public notice.

[00:32:08] Speaker 01:
No appeal that I know of.

[00:32:10] Speaker 01:
That's final action.

[00:32:11] Speaker 01:
And remember, under the good neighbor provisions under 110A2D, it doesn't set a deadline there.

[00:32:17] Speaker 01:
It just says that the good neighbor provisions for upwind states have to be implemented in a way that is consistent with what EPA is doing with the downwind states.

[00:32:26] Speaker 01:
And I submit to you what they did here is not consistent with that in any way.

[00:32:31] Speaker 01:
In addition, let me mention that the

[00:32:39] Speaker 01:
of the check that EPA said it did with its additional modeling.

[00:32:48] Speaker 01:
But they did do other analysis.

[00:32:49] Speaker 01:
They looked at 2020 in a lot of different ways.

[00:32:52] Speaker 01:
They got comfort out of the analysis.

[00:32:54] Speaker 01:
But as we pointed out in our brief, there's no reason to be comfortable with that, because if you compare that back against what they did with their linear interpolation, it is significantly in error.

[00:33:05] Speaker 01:
Ron, I see my time is up.

[00:33:06] Speaker 01:
We encourage you to grant our petition.

[00:33:10] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:33:11] Speaker 00:
Council on both sides will take the matter under advisement.