Grand Canyon Trust v. Tucson Electric Power Company
Opinion
Opinion
Fletcher, J.
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION
ORDER
1. On Slip Op. 12691, in between the carryover paragraph (which ends with “relatively lax pollution rules.”) and the first full paragraph (which begins with “Tucson Electric was well aware ... ”), the following paragraph is inserted:
Specifically, the 1978 Regulations provided:
40 C.F.R. § 52.21 (s)(2) (1978) (emphasis added). Like the district court, we read this language to provide that a permit automatically becomes invalid in the enumerated circumstances unless the administrator exercises discretionary authority to extend the permit. On a natural reading of the language, administrative action is only required to forestall invalidation of a permit. No agency action is required to invalidate a permit if construction is not timely commenced. See Roosevelt Campobello Int’l Park Comm’n v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1034 , 1037 (1st Cir.1982) (stating that a permit “automatically expires” under 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(s)(2) if construction, does not commence with .18 months of issuance).
2. On Slip Op. 12700 at line 2, “the opportunity” is inserted between “allowed Tucson Electric ...” and “to recover some or all.... ” The full sentence now reads: “Rather, it…