north carolina motion to intervene 9/24/2013 nd cal

Marc Bernstein (Motion for admission pro hac vice pending)

Special Deputy Attorney General

North Carolina Department of Justice

P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602

NC State Bar No. 21642

Phone Number: (919)716-6956

Fax Number: (919) 716-6764

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Michael N. Westheimer (State Bar No. 178938)

Buchalter Nemer, PC

55 Second Street, Suite 1700

San Francisco, CA 94105-3493

Phone Number: (415) 227-0900

Fax Number: (415) 904-3111


Attorneys for the State of North Carolina, Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

SIERRA CLUB and NATURAL

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Plaintiffs,

and

THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official

capacity as Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 4:13-cv-03953(KAW)

Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor

North Carolinas Notice of Motion, Motion to Intervene and

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene

Date: November 7, 2013

Time: 11:00 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor

Magistrate Judge: The Hon. Kandis A.

Westmore

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document16 Filed09/24/13 Page1 of 19

Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene and Memorandum CASE NO.: 4:13-cv-03953

of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene Page i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

I. ISSUE TO BE DECIDED .................................................................................................. 2

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2

III. NORTH CAROLINA IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT .... 5

A. Legal Standard ........................................................................................................ 5

B. North Carolina Has Timely Moved to Intervene. ................................................... 5

C. North Carolina Has a Significant Protectable Interest Relating to the Issues. ........ 6

D. Disposition of the Action May Impair or Impede North Carolinas Ability to

Protect its Interests. ................................................................................................. 9

E. North Carolinas Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by the

Existing Plaintiffs.................................................................................................. 11

IV. ALTERNATIVELY, NORTH CAROLINA IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE

ON A PERMISSIVE BASIS. ........................................................................................... 12

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 14



of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene Page ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 5,6,9

Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ................................................................. 4

Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489(9th Cir. 1995)........................... 6

General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S. 530 (1990) ........................................................ 2

In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig., 536 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2008) ............ 6

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................... 12,13

Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians v. State of Minn., 989 F.2d 994 (8th Cir. 1993) .................. 6

Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................ 11,13

Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1993)........................................................................ 9

Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................ 12,13

Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................... 9,11

Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (1972) .................................................. 11

U.S. ex rel. McGough v. Covington Technologies Co., 967 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1992) ................. 6

U.S. v. State of Oregon, 745 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1984) ................................................................... 5

Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) ................................................................................ 3

United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................... 6

Statutes

28 U.S.C. 1367(a) ................................................................................................................. 13,14

42 U.S.C. 7407(a) ........................................................................................................................ 2

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A) .............................................................................................................. 3

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii) ....................................................................................................... 12

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i) .......................................................................................................... 3

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(2)(A) .............................................................................................................. 3

42 U.S.C. 7409(a) ........................................................................................................................ 2

42 U.S.C. 7410(a) ........................................................................................................................ 8



of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene Page iii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42 U.S.C. 7475-7479 ................................................................................................................. 4

42 U.S.C. 7501-7509 ................................................................................................................... 4

42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(2) .................................................................................................................. 13

42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(2) ................................................................................................................. 12

N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-215.107D ..................................................................................................... 7

United States Constitution

U.S. Const. Article III .................................................................................................................. 14

Rules of Court

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 ............................................................................................................................ 9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) .................................................................................................................... 1,2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) ................................................................................................................... 5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) .................................................................................................................... 1,2

7C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,

Fed. Prac. & Proc. 1911, 357-63 (2d ed. 1986) ............................................................12

Regulations

40 C.F.R. 50.17 ............................................................................................................................ 8

75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010) .............................................................................................. 4

77 Fed. Reg. 46,295 (Aug. 3, 2012)................................................................................................ 4

78 Fed. Reg. 47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013) ................................................................................................4



of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 7, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter

as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 4, 3rd

Floor, of the Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay

Street, Oakland, California 94612, the State of North Carolina will bring for hearing a motion to

intervene in this action.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b), the State of North Carolina

moves to intervene in this matter as a matter of right or, in the alternative, on a permissive basis.

This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and

Authorities filed herewith, the proposed Complaint in Intervention filed as an exhibit herewith,

the declaration in support of this Motion from Sheila Holman, Director of the Division of Air

Quality of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and upon such

other matters as may be presented to the Court at the time of the hearing. The State requests that

the Court allow this motion, allow the State to participate fully in this matter as a plaintiff, and

allow the State to proceed without the technical requirement of filing an intervenor complaint, as

discussed more fully below. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the State respectfully requests

that the Court grant this motion without oral argument or, if the Court wishes to hear oral

argument, that the argument take place by telephone conference.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

Whether the State of North Carolina is entitled to intervene as of right in this action under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or, in the alternative, is entitled to permissive intervention under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 24(b).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On August 26, 2013, Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council

(collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Defendant, EPA, or

Administrator). The Complaint alleges that the Defendant has failed to promulgate and

publish designations for the revised sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). Comp. 1, 32. The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants failure to take

such action constitutes a failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act

(CAA). Comp. 1, 32, 37.

The CAA establishes a comprehensive national program that makes the States and the

Federal Government partners in the struggle against air pollution. General Motors Corp. v.

United States, 496 U.S. 530, 532 (1990). The CAA charges EPA with setting the NAAQS,

which prescribe the maximum permissible levels of common pollutants in the ambient air. 42

U.S.C. 7409(a). The States, however, retain the primary responsibility for choosing how to

attain those standards within their borders. Id. 7407(a) (Each State shall have the primary

responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such State . . .

.). The States implement the NAAQS within their borders through State Implementation Plans

(SIPs). Through the SIP, each State has broad discretion to choose which sources within its




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

borders will reduce emissions, and how to allocate the reductions. See Union Elec. Co. v. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 249-50 (1976).

The State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (NCDENR) and its Division of Air Quality (DAQ), implements and

enforces the States SIP. DAQ oversees the implementation and enforcement of the new and

revised NAAQS under the CAA, including the issuance of preconstruction permits to new or

expanding facilities within the State. (Holman Decl. 5) (Attached as Exhibit A)

Section 107(d)(1)(A) of the CAA states that within one year after promulgation of new or

revised NAAQS, the Governor of each State shall submit to the Administrator of EPA a list

designating all areas (or portions thereof) in the State as nonattainment, attainment, or

unclassifiable for that NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A). An area is designated

nonattainment for a particular pollutant if the ambient levels of that pollutant exceed the

respective NAAQS. In an attainment area, the air quality comports with the NAAQS. An area

is unclassifiable if it cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or

not meeting the [NAAQS]. Id. Section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA provides that upon

promulgation or revision of a NAAQS, the Administrator shall promulgate the designation of

all areas submitted by the Governor of each State under 107(d)(1)(A) as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no case later than two years from the date of promulgation of the new or

revised [NAAQS]. Id. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). The Administrator must publish a notice in the

Federal Register promulgating such designations. Id. 7407(d)(2)(A). The deadline for

promulgating these designations may be extended for up to one year in the event the

Administrator determines that additional information is needed. Id.

How the State carries out its implementation program depends in part on how the areas

of the State are designated. For example, for each nonattainment area the State is required to




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

devise and implement a strategy to achieve pollution reductions that are calibrated to bring the

area into attainment. See e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509. No such pollution reduction requirements

apply in attainment and unclassifiable areas. Illustrative of this distinction are the CAAs

preconstruction permitting programs. Preconstruction permitting for new and significantly

modified sources in attainment/unclassifiable areas falls under the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) program. 42 U.S.C. 7475-7479. However,

preconstruction permitting in nonattainment areas falls under the nonattainment new source

review (NNSR) program. Id. 7503. The NNSR program requires much stricter pollution

controls in nonattainment areas than does the PSD program in attainment/unclassifiable areas.

See Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 26 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revision of the primary NAAQS for SO2. 75 Fed.

Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010) (revised SO2 NAAQS). This promulgation triggered the States

obligation to submit designations by June 3, 2011. North Carolina complied with this obligation.

(Holman Decl. 8) The promulgation of the revised SO2 NAAQS also triggered the

Administrators nondiscretionary duty to promulgate area designations by no later than June 2,

2012. On August 3, 2012, EPA announced in the Federal Register that it was extending the

deadline for promulgating area designations for the revised SO2 NAAQS by one year. 77 Fed.

Reg. 46,295 (Aug. 3, 2012). The notice stated that, [w]ith this extension, the EPA is now

required to complete . . . designations for this NAAQS by June 3, 2013. Id.

On August 5, 2013, EPA published in the Federal Register final air quality designations

for the SO2 NAAQS for only 29 areas, encompassing parts of only sixteen states. 78 Fed. Reg.

47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013). EPA only promulgated designations for areas that included air quality

monitors showing nonattainment. EPA did not designate any areas as attainment even if

monitors in those areas showed attainment. EPA did not designate any areas in North Carolina




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

including areas with monitored attainment for the SO2 NAAQS. At the time of the filing of

this Motion, EPA continues to fail to designate any areas for the SO2 NAAQS within the State of

North Carolina.

III. NORTH CAROLINA IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.

A. Legal Standard

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) traditionally receives liberal construction in favor of applicants

for intervention. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). Rule 24(a)(2)

provides that on a timely motion, the Court must permit anyone to intervene who claims an

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of this action, and is so situated

that disposing of the action may impair or impede the movants ability to protect its interest,

unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

A party seeking to intervene as of right must meet four requirements: (1) the

applicant must timely move to intervene; (2) the applicant must have a

significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the

subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be situated such that the disposition of

the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the partys ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicants interest must not be adequately represented by existing parties.

Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1083; Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). North Carolina meets these four

requirements.

B. North Carolina Has Timely Moved to Intervene.

The instant motion was filed at a very early stage of the proceeding without any

improper delay, and without causing any prejudice to the existing parties. The Ninth Circuit has

directed that courts be lenient in applying the timeliness requirement where, as here, the

intervention is sought as a matter of right. U.S. v. State of Oregon, 745 F.2d 550, 552 (9th Cir.

1984). The Courts leniency is applied after considering three factors: (1) the stage of the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the

reason for and length of the delay. U.S. ex rel. McGough v. Covington Technologies Co., 967

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1992). All three factors militate in favor of finding that North

Carolinas motion is timely. North Carolina has filed its motion at a very early stage of the

proceeding. The Defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs complaint and

the Court has not yet held the initial case management conference. Order August 26, 2013,

DKT# No. 8. Furthermore, although the parties may not favor the intervention of another party

with a distinct interest, they will not suffer any prejudice from the timing of North Carolinas

motion. See Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians v. State of Minn. 989 F.2d 994, 999 (8th Cir.

1993) (distinguishing the type of prejudice that always exists when a party with an adverse

interest seeks intervention from prejudice caused solely by the timing of the motion).

C. North Carolina Has a Significant Protectable Interest Relating to the Issues.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the requirement of a significant protectable interest is

satisfied when the interest is protectable under some law, and . . . there is a relationship between

the legally protected interest and the claims at issue. Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Sierra

Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993)). The Courts inquiry is practical, and [n]o

specific legal or equitable interest need be established. Forest Conservation Council v. U.S.

Forest Serv. 66 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc.

v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit has held that the interest

test is primarily a guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned

persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process. In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos

Human Rights Litig., 536 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. City of Los

Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002)).




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

North Carolina has a protectable interest in insuring that EPA carries out its

nondiscretionary duty of designating areas in North Carolina for the revised SO2 NAAQS as

expeditiously as possible, but in no case later than Congress explicit deadline. As stated above,

North Carolina has been charged under the CAA with ensuring that the NAAQS are met in a

timely manner and maintained within its borders.

North Carolina has taken great strides in reducing SO2 emissions. Fossil fuel-fired

electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) are the single largest category of SO2 emissions

sources in the United States, as well as here in North Carolina. In June 2002, North Carolina

enacted landmark multi-pollutant legislation known as the Clean Smokestacks Act (NCCSA)

which requires significant reductions of SO2 emissions from the investor-owned EGUs those

owned by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) and Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

(Progress) in North Carolina. (These companies have since merged and are now collectively

known as Duke Energy.) Under the NCCSA, coal-fired power plants were required to reduce

SO2 emissions by 73% by 2013 relative to 1998 emission levels. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-

215.107D. The power companies have gone beyond the requirements of the NCCSA. By

calendar year 2012, Duke Energy and Progress had reduced SO2 emissions by 89% relative to

1998 emission levels. The reductions required by the NCCSA must be achieved through actual

reductions at the EGUs, not by buying or trading emissions credits from utilities in other states.

Additionally, the EGUs have entered into binding agreements with the State barring them from

selling credits for the reductions achieved as a result of the NCCSA, ensuring that utilities in

other States do not negate gains achieved in North Carolina. (Holman Decl. 6,7)

Additionally, with regard to the revised SO2 NAAQS that is at issue in this case, North

Carolina initially had one monitor in the State that exceeded the standard. NCDENR worked

closely with sources in the area to determine which sources were causing or contributing to the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

exceedance. NCDENR amended air quality permits for three facilities to reduce their SO2

emissions. As a result, North Carolina was able to demonstrate attainment at this monitor with

data for the three-year period of 2010-2012, which is the time interval specified by EPA for use

in the designation process. 40 C.F.R. 50.17. With that situation resolved, all five SO2

monitors in North Carolina are attaining the SO2 NAAQS. Thus, North Carolina requested that

the five counties with monitored attainment be designated as attainment, that 32 counties be

designated as attainment due to having no or only small SO2 sources, and that the remaining 63

counties be designated as unclassifiable/attainment. (Holman Decl. 9)

On February 6, 2013, EPA acknowledged that no monitors showed violations of the SO2

NAAQS in North Carolina. EPA stated that it was not yet prepared to propose designation

action in North Carolina, and therefore, in direct contravention of the CAA, indicated that it was

deferring action to designate areas in North Carolina. EPA stated that it anticipated that it

would proceed with designation action in North Carolina once additional data are gathered

pursuant to our comprehensive implementation strategy. On April 8, 2013, NCDENRs

Secretary responded to EPA, noting that there is no deferral option for designations under the

CAA and requesting that EPA designate all areas in North Carolina as

unclassifiable/attainment. (Holman Dec. 10)

North Carolina is prejudiced by EPAs failure to follow the requirements of the CAA.

North Carolina is charged with submitting a SIP that provides for implementation, maintenance,

and enforcement of the SO2 NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a). North Carolinas efforts to

implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act are adversely impacted by EPAs failure to

promulgate designations. EPAs failure to designate areas as required by the CAA subjects

North Carolina to a detrimental uncertainty that will negatively affect the States economy,

private development, and the public interest. (Holman Decl. 16)




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. Disposition of the Action May Impair or Impede North Carolinas Ability to Protect its Interests.

An applicant satisfies the requirement that disposition of the action may, as a practical

matter, impair or impede the partys ability to protect that interest if the resolution of the

plaintiffs claims actually will affect the applicant. Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Sierra

Club, 995 F.2d at 1484). [I]f an absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense

by the determination made in an action, he should, as a general rule, be entitled to intervene.

Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 24 advisory committee notes).

The resolution of the Plaintiffs claims will affect North Carolina. Should the Plaintiffs

prevail, any resolution of the Plaintiffs claims, either by order or settlement, would presumably

provide a directive as to when EPA must take action on North Carolinas SO2 NAAQS

attainment designations. Furthermore, North Carolinas interests may also be adversely affected

by such a resolution to the extent that it includes substantive requirements for making

designations.

North Carolina has an interest in assuring that any resolution of this matter is limited to

requiring EPA to immediately promulgate and publish SO2 designations. On February 6, 2013,

the same day EPA notified North Carolina and other states of its decision to defer

designations, EPA published a document entitled Next Steps for Area Designations and

Implementation of the [SO2 NAAQS]. The document purports to describe EPAs plans for

completing the designations, and importantly notes that the strategy for doing so anticipates

further rulemaking and development of guidance by EPA. (Holman Decl. 12) EPA has

issued numerous guidance documents and white papers regarding implementation of the SO2

NAAQS since its promulgation in 2010, which specifically address the approach for determining




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

whether an area is or is not meeting the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Due to limitations in the scope of

the ambient monitoring network, EPA proposed some combination of air quality modeling and

monitoring. (Holman Decl. 12) North Carolina has been an active participant in commenting

on EPAs various proposals, and has consistently taken the position that, (1) as EPA has

suggested, any such implementation must be adopted through rulemaking, and not informal

guidance documents, and (2) that modeling should not be used as the basis for designating an

area as nonattainment. Plaintiff Sierra Club has submitted comments to EPA suggesting that

EPA must designate several areas, including an area in North Carolina, as nonattainment based

upon the very modeling that North Carolina has concluded should never be used to designate an

area as nonattainment. (Holman Decl. 13)

On September 3, 2013, the Director of DAQ, Sheila Holman, wrote a letter to the EPA

Administrator expressing her concerns regarding this lawsuit. Ms. Holman explained that North

Carolina has a direct interest in the issue addressed in this lawsuit, and that it was her

understanding that EPA and Sierra Club were discussing terms of a possible settlement regarding

designations. Ms. Holman indicated that it was important that all stakeholders, including North

Carolina, be included in any settlement discussions and be given a chance to provide input into

any proposed settlement agreement. (Holman Decl. 15)

North Carolina is concerned that the current Plaintiffs will seek, and the Defendant will

agree to, a resolution to this case that involves not only the timing of the NAAQS designations,

but also sets forth requirements regarding how EPA will make the designations themselves. As

noted above, EPA has recently indicated its interest in dramatically changing its decades-old

methodology for promulgating designations. Enshrining such a policy shift in a consent decree

would allow EPA to bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, prejudicing the rights

of sovereign States.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E. North Carolinas Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by the Existing Plaintiffs.

An applicants burden in showing inadequate representation is minimal, and the

applicant need only show that representation of its interests by existing parties may be

inadequate. Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). In

determining whether the prospective intervenors interest will be adequately represented by an

existing party, courts consider:

(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all

the intervenors arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether the would-be intervenor would offer any

necessary elements to the proceedings that other parties would neglect.

Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 838 (9th Cir. 1996). [I]t is not the

Applicants burden at this stage in the litigation to anticipate specific differences in trial strategy.

It is sufficient for Applicants to show that, because of the difference in interests, it is likely that

Defendants will not advance the same arguments as Applicants. Sw. Ctr. for Biological

Diversity, 268 F.3d at 824.

As explained above, the States are in the unique position of being charged under the CAA

with ensuring that the NAAQS are met and maintained within their borders. Therefore, North

Carolina may have substantially different views on a timeline relating to a potential remedy that

may not be adequately represented by the Plaintiffs or the Defendant. Furthermore, North

Carolina may also have substantially different views as to whether any potential settlement

between the parties should go beyond addressing the timing of the publication of the SO2

NAAQS designations in the Federal Register. Should any such resolution address the

substantive designations or the methodology used for making those designations, North Carolina

does not agree with Plaintiff Sierra Clubs position that any areas in North Carolina may be

designated as nonattainment based upon modeling. Instead, North Carolina believes that in light




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of EPAs admission that the areas for which it has deferred designation cannot be classified

on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the [NAAQS], EPA must

designate those areas as unclassifiable in accordance with the CAA. 42 U.S.C.

7407(d)(1)(A)(ii). (Holman Decl. 17)

Therefore, North Carolina has met the test for intervention as a matter of right and should

be allowed to intervene.

IV. ALTERNATIVELY, NORTH CAROLINA IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE ON A PERMISSIVE BASIS.

In the alternative, North Carolina should be allowed to intervene in this action on a

permissive basis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) states that the court may grant permissive intervention

on a timely motion to anyone who has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a

common question of law or fact. North Carolina clearly meets these requirements.

As discussed above, the instant motion is timely. In addition, North Carolinas claims

share the same nucleus of laws and facts as the Plaintiffs action. If there is a common

question of law or fact, the requirement of the rule has been satisfied. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 7C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. 1911, 357-63 (2d ed. 1986), abrogated on other

grounds by Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). On August 2,

2013, pursuant to section 304(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(2), North Carolina gave

notice to Defendant of North Carolinas intent to sue Defendant for failure to designate areas for

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS the very issue that Plaintiffs have brought before this Court. (Holman

Decl. 14) North Carolina has a significant interest in the outcome of this litigation, and its

participation would significantly contribute to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal

questions presented. Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1977), because North Carolina brings to the litigation the perspective of a party with unique

status under the statutes at issue. Thus, North Carolinas involvement in this litigation would

assist and not prejudice or delay the adjudication of the original parties rights.

The Ninth Circuit has previously stated that, in addition to the requirements listed under

Rule 24, an applicant seeking permissive intervention must also show that the court has an

independent basis for jurisdiction over the applicants claims. Nw. Forest Resource Council, 82

F.3d at 839. However, Ninth Circuit case law is not uniform as to whether an independent

jurisdictional basis is an absolute requirement for permissive intervention. In Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1109 (9th Cir. 2002), the court stated that permissive

intervention generally only requires a common question of law or fact between the proposed

intervenors claim and the main action. The court, however, found that in the unusual context

where only the intervenors appealed, the court was required to find independent jurisdictional

grounds for the defendant-intervenors appeal. Id. (emphasis added). This explanation in

Kootenai indicates that showing an independent jurisdictional basis is not necessary in the more

typical context, such as the case here, where an applicant seeks to intervene at the district court

level.

North Carolina should not be required to demonstrate an independent basis for this

Courts jurisdiction to support its motion to intervene in this case. North Carolina will not be

asserting additional claims beyond those raised in the Plaintiffs complaint. Section 304 of the

CAA makes it clear that the district court has jurisdiction over actions, such as the case sub

judice, against the Administrator of the EPA where there is an alleged failure of the

Administrator to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(2).

However, to the extent that North Carolina is required to demonstrate a jurisdictional basis




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

independent of that provided under Section 304 of the CAA, such basis is provided in 28 U.S.C.

1367(a) which states the following:

[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the

district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so

related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part

of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States

Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the

joinder or intervention of additional parties.

The only claim that North Carolina will pursue herein against the Defendant is, in

essence, the same as that pursued by the Plaintiffs (i.e., the Defendant failed to promulgate and

publish area designations for the revised SO2 NAAQS). Therefore, North Carolina has satisfied

all the requirements for permissive intervention.

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c), this motion is accompanied by a pleading that sets

out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought, which is attached as Exhibit B.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the State of North Carolina respectfully requests that the Court

grant its motion to intervene.

DATED: September 24, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

ROY COOPER

Attorney General

By: /s/ Marc Bernstein

Marc Bernstein


N.C. Department of Justice

/s/ Michael N. Westheimer

Michael N. Westheimer

Buchalter Nemer, PC

Attorneys for the State of North Carolina




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 24th day of September, 2013, I electronically filed the

foregoing Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor North Carolinas Notice of Motion and Motion to

Intervene and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene with the

Court using the ECF system and served notice by first-class mail return-receipt requested on the

following parties:

Regina McCarthy

Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. EPA

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

N.W., Washington, DC 20460

United States Environmental Protection Agency

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Eric Holder

U.S. Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Melinda Haag

United States Attorney for the Northern District of California

Federal Courthouse

Eleventh Floor

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

/s/ Marc Bernstein

Marc Bernstein


EXHIBIT A

Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document16-1 Filed09/24/13 Page1 of 7

Affidavit and Declaration in Support of the State of CASE NO.:4:13-cv-03953-KAW

North Carolinas Motion to Intervene PAGE NO. 1 OF 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Marc Bernstein (motion for admission to practice pro hac vice pending)

Special Deputy Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 NC State Bar No. 21642 Phone Number:(919)716-6956 Fax Number: (919) 716-6764 E-mail Address: [email protected] Michael N. Westheimer (State Bar No. 178938) Buchalter Nemer, PC 55 Second Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105-3493 Phone Number: (415) 227-0900 Fax Number: (415) 904-3111 E-mail Address: [email protected] Attorneys for the State of North Carolina, Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor



SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION SIERRA CLUB and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL Plaintiffs, and THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official


Environmental Protection Agency Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.4:13-cv-03953-KAW

AFFIDAVIT & DECLARATION

OF SHEILA HOLMAN IN

SUPPORT OF THE STATE

OF NORTH CAROLINAS MOTION TO INTERVENE

SHEILA HOLMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I, Sheila Holman, am over the age of twenty-one (21) years and am competent to

testify. I make this Declaration for all purposes permitted by law.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Except where qualified, I have personal knowledge of the facts hereinafter stated

or I have obtained such knowledge after review of DAQs books and records as they are kept in

the ordinary course of business.

3. I am the Director of the Division of Air Quality (DAQ), North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). I was Chief of the

Attainment Planning Branch at DAQ from January 1993 until August 2002. I was the Assistant

Chief of the Planning Section from August 2002 through June 2003, when I became Chief of the

Planning Section. I became Deputy Director of DAQ in August of 2008, in which position I

remained until I became the Director in June of 2010. From January 1988 to January 1993 I was

an Environmental Engineer with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As part of my responsibilities at EPA, I was one of the primary authors of the General Preamble

for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act of 1990. I graduated from North Carolina

State University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering.

4. My responsibilities at DAQ include overseeing the State of North Carolinas

efforts to control emissions of criteria air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), in order to

achieve the purposes of North Carolinas pollution control laws and the Clean Air Act (CAA).

5. DAQ oversees the implementation and enforcement of the new and revised

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under the CAA, including the issuance of

preconstruction permits to new or expanding facilities within the State.

6. North Carolina has taken great strides in reducing SO2 emissions. Fossil fuel-

fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) are the single largest category of SO2

emissions sources in the United States, as well as here in North Carolina. In June 2002, North

Carolina enacted landmark multi-pollutant legislation known as the Clean Smokestacks Act

(NCCSA) which requires significant reductions of SO2 emissions from the investor-owned

EGUs those owned by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) and Progress Energy




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Carolinas, Inc. (Progress). (These companies have since merged and are now collectively

known as Duke Energy.)

7. Under the NCCSA, coal-fired power plants were required to reduce SO2

emissions by 73% by 2013 relative to 1998 emission levels. The power companies have gone

beyond the requirements of the NCCSA. By calendar year 2012, Duke Energy and Progress had

reduced SO2 emissions by 89% relative to 1998 emission levels. The reductions required by

NCCSA must be achieved through actual reductions at the EGUs, not by buying or trading

emissions credits from utilities in other states. Additionally, the EGUs have entered into binding

agreements with the State barring them from selling credits for the reductions achieved as a

result of the NCCSA, ensuring that utilities in other states do not negate gains achieved in North

Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-215.107D.

8. On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revision of the primary NAAQS for SO2.

North Carolina complied with its obligation to submit designations by June 3, 2011,

recommending one area in part of one county be designated as nonattainment, forty-three

counties be designated attainment, and 63 counties be designated as unclassifiable/attainment.

9. While North Carolina initially had one monitor in the state that exceeded the

standard, NCDENR worked closely with sources in the area to determine which sources were

causing or contributing to the exceedance. NCDENR amended air quality permits for three

facilities to reduce their SO2 emissions. As a result, North Carolina was able to demonstrate

attainment at this monitor with data for the three-year period of 2010-2012, which is the time

interval specified by EPA for use in the designation process. With that situation resolved, all

five SO2 monitors in North Carolina are attaining the SO2 NAAQS. Thus, North Carolina

requested that the five counties with monitored attainment be designated as attainment, that 32

counties be designated as attainment due to having no or only small SO2 sources, and that the

remaining 63 counties be designated as unclassifiable/attainment.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10. On February 6, 2013, EPA acknowledged that no monitors showed violations of

the SO2 NAAQS in North Carolina, but stated that it was not yet prepared to propose

designation action in North Carolina, and was therefore deferring action to designate areas in

North Carolina. EPA stated that it anticipated that it would proceed with designation action in

North Carolina once additional data are gathered pursuant to our comprehensive implementation

strategy. On April 8, 2013, NCDENRs Secretary responded to EPA, noting that there is no

deferral option for designations under the CAA, and requesting that EPA designate all areas in

North Carolina as unclassifiable/attainment.

11. On August 5, 2013, EPA published in the Federal Register final air quality

designations for the SO2 NAAQS for only 29 areas, encompassing sixteen states. EPA did not

designate any areas in North Carolina including areas with monitored attainment for the SO2

NAAQS. At the time of the signing of this Declaration, EPA continues to fail to designate any

areas for the SO2 NAAQS within the State of North Carolina.

12. On February 6, 2013, the same day EPA notified North Carolina and other states

of its decision to defer designations, EPA published a document entitled Next Steps for Area

Designations and Implementation of the [SO2 NAAQS]. The document purports to describe

EPAs plans for completing the designations, and importantly notes that the strategy for doing so

anticipates further rulemaking and development of guidance by EPA. EPA has issued

numerous guidance documents and white papers regarding implementation of the SO2 NAAQS

since its promulgation in 2010, which specifically address the approach for determining whether

an area is or is not meeting the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Due to limitations in the scope of the

ambient monitoring network, EPA proposed some combination of modeling and monitoring.

13. North Carolina has been an active participant in commenting on EPAs various

proposals, and has consistently taken the position that, (1) as EPA has suggested, any such

implementation must be adopted through rulemaking, and not informal guidance documents, and




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(2) that modeling should not be used as the basis for designating an area as nonattainment.

Plaintiff Sierra Club has submitted comments to EPA suggesting that EPA must designate

several areas, including an area in North Carolina, as nonattainment based upon the very

modeling that North Carolina has concluded should never be used to designate an area as

nonattainment.

14. On August 2, 2013, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(2), North Carolina gave

notice to Defendant of North Carolinas intent to sue EPA for failure to designate areas for the

2010 SO2 NAAQS.

15. On September 3, 2013, I wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

expressing my concerns regarding the lawsuit filed by Sierra Club. I explained that North

Carolina had a direct interest in the issue addressed in the lawsuit, and that it was my

understanding that EPA and Sierra Club were discussing terms of a possible settlement regarding

designations. I indicated that it was important that all stakeholders, including North Carolina, be

included in any settlement discussions and be given a chance to provide input into any proposed

settlement agreement.

16. North Carolinas efforts to implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act are

adversely impacted by EPAs failure to promulgate designations. EPAs failure to designate

areas as required by the CAA subjects North Carolina to a detrimental uncertainty that will

negatively affect the States economy, private development and the public interest.

17. North Carolina believes that in light of EPAs admission that the areas for which

it has deferred designation cannot be classified on the basis of available information as

meeting or not meeting the [NAAQS], EPA must designate those areas as unclassifiable in

accordance with the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii).


EXHIBIT B


North Carolinas Complaint in Intervention Case No. 4:13-cv-03953

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Marc Bernstein (motion for admission to practice pro hac vice pending)



P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602


Phone Number: (919) 716-6956

Fax Number: (919) 716-6764


Michael N. Westheimer (State Bar No. 178938)

Buchalter Nemer, PC



Phone Number: (415) 227-0900

Fax Number: (415) 904-3111


Attorneys for the State of North Carolina, Plaintiff-Intervenor



SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

SIERRA CLUB and NATURAL

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Plaintiffs,

and

THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official


Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 4:13-cv-03953 (KAW)

PROPOSED PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR

NORTH CAROLINAS COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

(Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION

1. The State of North Carolina (Plaintiff) files this suit to compel the Administrator of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator or EPA), to take action mandated by

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (CAA) to designate areas within North Carolina as

nonattainment or attainment/unclassifiable for the revised National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revision of

the primary NAAQS for SO2 (revised SO2 NAAQS). 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010).

This promulgation triggered a nondiscretionary duty for EPA to designate areas throughout the

country as attainment/unclassifiable or nonattainment with respect to the revised SO2 NAAQS.

EPA did not designate any areas in North Carolina for the revised SO2 NAAQS. At the time of

the filing of this Complaint, EPA continues to fail to designate any areas for the revised SO2

NAAQS within the State of North Carolina.

JURISDICTION

2. This is an action to compel the Defendant to perform acts or duties under the CAA that

are not discretionary. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(a). This Court

also has jurisdiction because the claim arises under the laws of the United States, namely the

CAA, and because the United States is a defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1346.

3. On June 4, 2013 and June 25, 2013, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(2), Plaintiffs Sierra

Club and Natural Resources Defense Council sent notice to the Defendant of their intent to

pursue legal action due to the Administrators failure to perform the nondiscretionary duty under

the CAA. The sixty-day period indicated in 42 U.S.C. 7604 expired and the Administrator has

not performed the nondiscretionary duties under the CAA as complained of herein. The

Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(2).



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. As shown more fully by the facts set forth below, this case presents a case or controversy

within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution, and, more particularly, the

Plaintiff North Carolina has standing to pursue this claim.

VENUE

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1331,

1391. The relief requested by Plaintiff is authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604 and 28 U.S.C.

2201, 2202, and 1361.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

6. This action does not arise in any particular Division of the Court. However, because this

is a Complaint in Intervention in an existing matter -- Sierra Club v. Regina McCarthy, Case No.

4:13-cv-03953 -- that is assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland Division of this Court, for the

efficient administration of justice and the convenience of the parties, the matter should be

assigned to the same Division.

PARTIES

7. The Plaintiff is a sovereign State. The Plaintiff is also a person as that term is used in

42 U.S.C. 7604(a). Id. 7602(d), (e).

8. Defendant Regina McCarthy is the Administrator of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency. In that role, Administrator McCarthy has been charged by Congress with the

duty to administer the Clean Air Act, including the mandatory duties at issue in this case.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUES

9. The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate NAAQS for certain criteria pollutants in the

ambient air, such as SO2. 42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1).

10. The CAA states that within one year after promulgation of new or revised NAAQS, the

Governor of each State shall submit to the Administrator of EPA a list designating all areas (or



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

portions thereof) in the State as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for that

NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A).

11. Upon promulgation or revision of a NAAQS, the Administrator shall promulgate the

designation of all areas submitted by the Governor of each State as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no case later than two years from the date of promulgation of the new or

revised [NAAQS]. Id. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). The Administrator must publish a notice in the

Federal Register promulgating such designations and the deadline for doing so may be extended

for up to one year in the event the Administrator determines that additional information is

needed. Id. 7407(d)(2)(A).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revision of the primary NAAQS for SO2. 75 Fed.

Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010). This promulgation triggered the States obligation to submit

designations by June 3, 2011.

13. North Carolina complied with this obligation and submitted designations for SO2 by June

3, 2011. In particular, North Carolina requested that its five counties with monitored attainment

be designated as attainment, that 32 counties be designated as attainment due to having no or

only small SO2 sources, and that the remaining 63 counties be designated as

unclassifiable/attainment.

14. The promulgation of the revised SO2 NAAQS also triggered the Administrators

nondiscretionary duty to promulgate designations of nonattainment or attainment/unclassifiable

for the revised SO2 NAAQS for all areas pursuant to CAA Section 107(d)(1)(B) by no later than

June 2, 2012, and to publish a notice in the Federal Register promulgating those designations. 42

U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i).



5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. On August 3, 2012, EPA announced in the Federal Register that it was using its authority

under Section 107(d)(1)(B)(i) of the CAA to extend the deadline for promulgating area

designations for the revised SO2 NAAQS by one year. 77 Fed. Reg. 46,295 (Aug. 3, 2012). The

notice stated that, [w]ith this extension, the EPA is now required to complete . . . designations

for this NAAQS by June 3, 2013. Id.

16. On February 6, 2013, EPA acknowledged that no monitors showed violations of the SO2

NAAQS in North Carolina. EPA stated that it was not yet prepared to propose designation

action in North Carolina, and therefore, in direct contravention of the CAA, indicated that it was

deferring action to designate areas in North Carolina. EPA stated that it anticipated that it

would proceed with designation action in North Carolina once additional data are gathered

pursuant to our comprehensive implementation strategy. On April 8, 2013, NCDENRs

Secretary responded to EPA, noting that there is no deferral option for designations under the

CAA and requesting that EPA designate all areas in North Carolina as attainment/unclassifiable.

On August 2, 2013, pursuant to Section 304(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(2), North

Carolina gave notice to Defendant of North Carolinas intent to sue Defendant for failure to

designate areas for the revised SO2 NAAQS.

17. On August 5, 2013, EPA published in the Federal Register final air quality designations

for the revised SO2 NAAQS for only 29 areas, encompassing parts of only sixteen states. 78

Fed. Reg. 47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013). EPA only promulgated designations for areas that included air

quality monitors showing nonattainment. EPA did not designate any areas as attainment even if

monitors in those areas showed attainment. EPA did not designate any areas in North Carolina

including areas with monitored attainment for the revised SO2 NAAQS.

18. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, EPA continues to fail to designate any areas

for the revised SO2 NAAQS within the State of North Carolina.



6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. North Carolina is prejudiced by EPAs failure to follow the requirements of the CAA.

North Carolina is charged with submitting a SIP that provides for implementation, maintenance,

and enforcement of the SO2 NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a). North Carolinas efforts to

implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act are adversely impacted by EPAs failure to

promulgate designations. EPAs failure to designate areas as required by the CAA subjects

North Carolina to a detrimental uncertainty that will negatively affect the States economy,

private development, and the public interest.

20. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Administrator is in violation of the nondiscretionary

duty imposed by 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1) and (d)(2).

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the State of North Carolina respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Declare that the Administrator is in violation of the Clean Air Act with regard to her

failure to perform each mandatory duty listed above;

2. Issue a mandatory injunction requiring the Administrator to perform her mandatory

duties by a certain date set by the Court;

3. Retain jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the Courts order;

4. Grant North Carolina its reasonable costs of litigation, including attorneys and expert

witness fees; and

5. Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.



7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: September 24, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

ROY COOPER

Attorney General

By: /s/ Marc Bernstein

Marc Bernstein



P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602


Phone Number: (919)716-6956

Fax Number: (919) 716-6764


By: /s/ Michael N. Westheimer

Michael N. Westheimer

(State Bar No. 178938)

Buchalter Nemer, PC



Phone Number: (415) 227-0900

Fax Number: (415) 904-3111

E-mail Address:

[email protected]

Counsel for the Proposed Plaintiff

Intervenor State of North Carolina


north carolina motion to intervene 9/24/2013 nd cal

Documents

support of motion

north carolinas interests

north carolinas ability

marc bernstein motion

phone number

fax number

memorandum case

nc state bar