Reported / Citable
Background
Environmental and public-health organizations challenged EPA approval of California’s contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley, one of the nation’s most persistent air-pollution nonattainment areas. Under Clean Air Act section 172(c)(9), a state implementation plan must include measures that take effect if an area fails to make reasonable progress or misses an air-quality deadline.
California agencies and EPA selected measures they considered capable of automatic implementation and argued that practical feasibility constrained what could be required. Petitioners contended the approved plan delivered too little additional emissions reduction and that EPA had invented an exemption Congress did not authorize.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the challengers and remanded the rule. Applying the independent statutory interpretation required by Loper Bright, the majority concluded that section 172(c)(9) does not permit EPA to excuse inadequate contingency measures based on feasibility. Congress required specific measures that will take effect upon a failure, and reading an unstated feasibility exception into that command would undermine the backstop’s function and the Act’s air-quality goals.
The court did not vacate the existing rule. Removing it immediately could leave the Valley with no contingency measures and disrupt the regulatory program while EPA reconsiders the plan. Judge Bress dissented, reasoning that the majority confused an improper feasibility exemption with the ordinary task of deciding whether a proposed emissions measure can actually qualify and operate as a contingency measure.
Key Takeaways
- EPA may not add a feasibility exception to Clean Air Act section 172(c)(9) when Congress did not include one.
- After Loper Bright, courts independently determine the best reading of an ambiguous environmental statute rather than deferring to the agency.
- Contingency measures must be concrete backstops capable of taking effect when progress or attainment milestones are missed.
- A court may remand an unlawful rule without vacating it when immediate removal would create serious regulatory disruption.
Why It Matters
The ruling puts pressure on EPA and California air agencies to strengthen the San Joaquin Valley’s fallback emissions controls without relying on a broad practicability escape hatch. Regulated businesses may face revised contingency obligations, while communities and environmental advocates gain a significant statutory precedent for demanding measures that meaningfully respond to missed targets. The remedy also preserves current controls during the rewrite, avoiding an immediate regulatory gap.