
    WILD EQUITY INSTITUTE; Sierra Club, Petitioners, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Scott Pruitt, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents.
    No. 15-70199
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 14, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed August 28, 2017
    Matt Kenna, Attorney, Durango, CO, Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners
    Jon Michael Lipshultz, Kristen Byrnes Floom, Senior Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Jon Michael Lipshultz, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, Daniel Pinkston, Esquire, Senior Litigation Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Denver, CO, for Respondent Scott Pruitt
    Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Andrew P, Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wild Equity Institute and the Sierra Club (collectively “Wild Equity”) petition this court to review the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Administrator’s denial of Wild Equity’s Petition for Objection to Permit (“Petition”). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”), a local entity responsible for enforcing some Clean Air Act (“CAA”) permitting requirements, proposed to issue a Title V operating permit to Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”) for the Gateway Generating Station (“Gateway”) in Antioch, California. The Administrator did not object to the issuance of the Title V permit. Wild Equity then petitioned the Administrator to review her decision. The Administrator denied Wild Equity’s Petition.

Wild Equity timely petitions for review by this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661d(b)(2) and 7607(b)(1), “In considering ,.. [a Petitioner’s] petition for review, we do not decide whether .., [the] substantive argument ... is correct. Rather, we consider only whether the EPA Administrator erred in determining that ... [Wild Equity] failed to demonstrate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2), that the final Title V permit ... did not comply with the CAA.” MacClarence v. U.S. E.P.A., 596 F.3d 1123, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010).

We deny Wild Equity’s Petition. A prior Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit was issued after Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. That PSD permit expired, but PG&E continued and completed construction on Gateway. PG&E and the EPA thereafter entered into a consent decree, settling an enforcement action brought by EPA. The consent decree allows Gateway to operate without a new PSD permit. The Administrator did not abuse her discretion in concluding that there are no applicable PSD permit requirements that apply to the proposed Title Y permit challenged in this suit.

The petition to review the Administrator’s order is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     