Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 29 (2004)

Page:   Index   Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Cite as: 540 U. S. 461 (2004)

Opinion of the Court

signify that there can be no unreasonable determinations. Nor does Congress' sensitivity to site-specific factors necessarily imply a design to preclude in this context meaningful EPA oversight under 113(a)(5) and 167. EPA claims no prerogative to designate the correct BACT; the Agency asserts only the authority to guard against unreasonable designations. See 298 F. 3d, at 821 ("the question presented is what requirements the state must meet," not what final substantive decision the State must make (emphasis in original)).13

Under ADEC's interpretation, EPA properly inquires whether a BACT determination appears in a PSD permit,

13 The dissent admonishes that "a statute is to be read as a whole." Post, at 504 (quoting King v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991)). We give that unexceptional principle effect by attending both to the unequivocal grant of supervisory authority to EPA in 113(a)(5) and 167, and to the statutory control on permitting authorities' discretion contained in the BACT definition, 42 U. S. C. 7479(3). It is, moreover, "a cardinal principle of statutory construction' that 'a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant." TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 (2001) (quoting Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001)). The Act instructs permitting authorities to identify the "best," "maximum" emission reduction technique, taking account of costs. 42 U. S. C. 7479(3). The dissent does not explain how that instruction can be construed as something other than a constraint on permitting authorities' discretion. Ultimately, the dissent recognizes the essential statutory requirement: selection of "the technology that can best reduce pollution within practical constraints." Post, at 505 (emphasis added).

Nor do we find enlightening Congress' inclusion of the word "determines" in the BACT definition. Post, at 503-504. Even under the dissent's view of the Act, state permitting authorities' BACT determinations are not "conclusiv[e] and authoritativ[e]." Post, at 504 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the dissent develops at length, review of such BACT determinations may be sought in state court. Post, at 509- 512; Alaska Stat. 44.62.560 (2002). And EPA actions, of course, are subject to "the process of judicial review," post, at 503, Congress empowered federal courts to provide, here in 42 U. S. C. 7607(b)(1). See supra, at 482-483.


Page:   Index   Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007