ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 8, 1999
    PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE
    COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 98-102
    (Permit Appeal - Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by K.M. Hennessey):
    On June 24, 1999, petitioner Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company (Panhandle) moved the
    Board to stay the Board’s order of January 21, 1999, in this matter (Motion). See Panhandle
    Eastern Pipeline Company v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (January 21, 1999), PCB 98-102. Panhandle has filed a petition for review of the Board’s
    order with the Fourth District Appellate Court of Illinois and asks the Board to stay its order
    while judicial review of the order is pending. Motion at 2-3. The Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency did not respond to the Motion.
    BACKGROUND
    The Board’s January 21, 1999 order affirmed the Agency’s denial of Panhandle’s
    application to revise an air permit regarding certain compressor engines at Panhandle’s
    Glenarm Station in Sangamon County, Illinois. See Panhandle, PCB 98-102, slip op. at 1, 19.
    The Board found that Panhandle failed to show that issuing the permit would not violate the
    Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1
    et seq
    . (1998). In part, the Board found that
    Panhandle failed to demonstrate that it would satisfy the requirements for the Prevention of
    Significant Deterioration (PSD) in air quality under the federal Clean Air Act. Specifically,
    Panhandle did not show that its proposed performance levels for controls on emissions of
    nitrogen oxides from the compressor engines constitute the best available control technology.
    Id.
    at 2-3, 8-9, 16, 19. The Board also refused to estop the Agency from requiring Panhandle
    to submit a PSD permit application.
    Id.
    at 18.
    DISCUSSION
    Panhandle seeks a stay under Section 101.303 of the Board’s procedural rules, which
    provides that the “procedure for stay of any Board order during appeal shall be as provided in
    Rule 335 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.303. Illinois
    Supreme Court Rule 335(g) provides that the “[a]pplication for a stay of a decision or order of
    2
    an agency pending direct review in the Appellate Court shall ordinarily be made in the first
    instance to the agency.” 172 Ill. 2d R. 335(g).
    Panhandle seeks a stay because it is “seeking judicial review of the permit denial and
    specifically seeks consideration of whether it must obtain a PSD permit.” Motion at 3.
    Panhandle argues that the stay is necessary “so that Panhandle is not compelled to apply for a
    PSD permit during the appellate court’s review of whether it is even required to do so.”
    Id.
    Panhandle asserts that it would suffer undue economic hardship if the Board denies the
    Motion. Panhandle states that the PSD permit application process is “arduous, time
    consuming and expensive” and that if it obtains a PSD permit before judicial review is
    complete, Panhandle “may also be required to undergo costly construction and other activities
    . . . .”
    Id.
    The Board has been reluctant to stay its orders when a stay may result in harm to the
    public or the environment. See,
    e.g.
    , Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Pielet
    Bros. Trading, Inc. (February 4, 1982), PCB 80-185, slip op. at 1,
    aff’d sub nom.
    Pielet
    Bros. Trading, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 110 Ill. App. 3d 752, 442 N.E.2d 1374 (5th
    Dist. 1982); Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Incinerator, Inc. (October 14, 1971),
    PCB 71-69, slip op. at 1, 3,
    aff’d sub nom.
    Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 15
    Ill. App. 3d 514, 305 N.E.2d 35 (1st Dist. 1973),
    aff’d
    , 59 Ill. 2d 290, 319 N.E.2d 794
    (1974). In this case, the PSD requirements that apply to Panhandle are intended to prevent
    significant deterioration in air quality, and thereby to protect public health and welfare. See
    42 U.S.C. §§ 7409, 7470-7492. If Panhandle delays implementing PSD requirements,
    deterioration in air quality, and harm to public health and welfare, may result. This factor
    militates against a stay; in addition, Panhandle provides only generalizations about the costs it
    may incur to meet PSD requirements. Under these circumstances, the Board finds that a stay
    of its January 21, 1999 order is inappropriate and therefore denies the Motion.
    CONCLUSION
    The Board denies Panhandle’s request to stay the Board’s January 21, 1999 order. The
    Board notes that Panhandle may seek a stay from the appellate court under Illinois Supreme
    Court Rule 335(g).
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 8th day July of 1999 by a vote of 5-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top