This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The dispute involves the EPA’s claimed authority under statutes 7477 and 7413(a)(5) to enforce a state’s best available control technology (BACT) determination.
Six other generators are involved in the matter.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), the Court asked whether the statute requires BACT to be applied to each individual generator.
According to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation answered that question in the negative.
What each side argues
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Petitioner)
According to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the petitioner argues that the statute does not require BACT to be applied to each individual generator.
Environmental Protection Agency (Respondent)
The EPA maintains that it has authority under statutes 7477 and 7413(a)(5) to enforce BACT determinations.
According to Thomas G. Hungar (Respondents), thomas G. Hungar (Respondents) noted that the petitioner's fundamental contention is that, once a State issues a BACT determination, the Federal Government has no enforcement authority under the act, even if the determination is arbitrary, factually unsupported, or unreasoned.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:02 a.m.
Thomas G. Hungar presented the respondents’ oral argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- c2d7a375e7a46eb071f7-r1-9521fa37e4e3bd37.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.