This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Roper Construction, Inc. applied for an Air Quality Construction Permit (Permit 9295) to construct and operate a concrete batch plant. The application was reviewed by the Air Quality Bureau (AQB) and deemed administratively complete. However, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) denied the permit following a public hearing due to concerns about compliance with air quality standards. Roper appealed the decision to the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB), which reversed the NMED's denial, leading to an appeal by the Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- NMED Deputy Secretary: Denied Roper Construction, Inc.'s Air Quality Construction Permit (Permit 9295) following a public hearing (para 4).
- Environmental Improvement Board: Reversed the NMED's denial of Permit 9295, determining it lacked jurisdiction over certain emissions factors used by Roper (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation): Argued that the EIB's final order was arbitrary, capricious, and not based on substantial evidence. They contended that the EIB failed to address errors in Roper's emissions modeling and procedural irregularities violated their due process rights. They also argued that the EIB erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the emissions factor used by Roper (para 1).
- Petitioner-Appellee (Roper Construction, Inc.): Maintained that their permit application complied with all applicable state and federal requirements and that the EIB correctly reversed the NMED's denial (para 5).
- Appellee (New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board): Supported the reversal of the NMED's denial, arguing that the EIB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the emissions factor used by Roper (para 5).
- Intervenor-Appellee (New Mexico Environment Department): Argued that the EIB does not have authority over internal NMED policy regarding emissions factors and that the EIB cannot dictate which emissions factors the NMED accepts (paras 10-11).
Legal Issues
- Whether the EIB's final order was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law.
- Whether the EIB erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to review the emissions factor used by Roper.
- Whether the EIB misunderstood and misapplied the parties' respective evidentiary burdens.
- Whether the EIB's final order included sufficient factual findings to permit meaningful appellate review.
Disposition
- The court reversed the EIB's final order and remanded the case for reconsideration, instructing the EIB to conclude it has jurisdiction to review the emissions factor used by Roper and to apply the evidentiary burdens as set forth in the opinion (para 27).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Henderson and Wray JJ. concurring): The court found that the EIB erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the emissions factor used by Roper reflected actual conditions at the concrete batch plant. The court held that the EIB has jurisdiction to evaluate whether a construction permit will cause or contribute to air contaminant levels in excess of a national or state standard. The court also clarified the parties' respective evidentiary burdens, stating that once a petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the opposing party to present adverse evidence. The EIB's final order must include findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit meaningful appellate review (paras 9-26).