Clean Air Act

Where the book uses it

• Chapter 9 — The Price of Permission

  Who gets to say yes or no to a campus: counties, air regulators, courts and legislatures, and what their permits, abatements and refusals cost in time and money.

Where the record uses it

• Person Tipton, Robert, Jr

Sources that use it

• NAACP and NAACP Mississippi State Conference v. X.AI Corp. and MZX Tech LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00074-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., Oxford Division), Opinion and Order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 139, 30 October 2026, Judge Debra M. Brown (on the complaint’s allegations taken as true: “Because the plaintiffs have statutory standing under the Clean Air Act, because the combustion turbines are not “mobile sources” under Mississippi’s SIP, and because the citizen suit provision does not violate Article II of the Constitution,” the motion is denied; the turbines are “stationary combustion turbines” subject to standards of performance under section 111 of the Act; the order finds no violation and grants no injunction) In the Sources
• NAACP v. X.AI Corp. and MZX Tech LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00074-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), opinion and order, ECF 135, District Judge Debra M. Brown, signed and filed 19 October 2026 (the court’s ruling on the United States’ amended motion to intervene and dismiss, entry 85, granted as to intervention and denied in all other respects, with five other motions, among them the government’s for a stay and for a written order, denied as moot, and nothing in it ruling on the preliminary injunction or on whether the defendants’ turbines are lawful; “the United States will be allowed to intervene but will not be allowed to dismiss this case”; “The motion is GRANTED to the extent the United States is allowed to intervene. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”; “nothing in the Clean Air Act allows the Administrator to unilaterally dismiss a citizen suit upon intervention”; “Accordingly, the Court will not consider the United States’ reasons for dismissal and the plaintiffs’ challenges to those reasons.”; footnote 6: “the Court does not consider the United States’ national security concerns relevant and thus will not require additional briefing on that topic.”; on the status conference of 24 August, at which the court stated that it “intend[s] to deny” the amended motion: “That statement is not (and was not then) an order.”; “The notice of appeal was therefore premature such that this Court’s jurisdiction over the Amended Motion to Intervene/Dismiss was not altered by its filing.”; “The pending Motion to Intervene/Dismiss [58], Motion to Strike [82], Written Order Motion [117], Stay Motion [124], and Transcripts Motion [131] are DENIED as moot.”; footnote 3, the order’s account of the Fifth Circuit’s order denying the United States’ motion of 9 October to stay the litigation pending its appeal, in which the Fifth Circuit recognized that the district court “has not fully determined this issue”, that order known only from this footnote and footnote 10; “The only purpose the United States identifies for its intervention is to voluntarily dismiss this case.”; the United States to file a pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c) “No later than October 23, 2026, to the extent the United States wants to participate in this litigation”; footnote 12: “If the United States files a Rule 24(c) pleading that requires a response, any such response must be filed no later than October 30, 2026.”; footnote 11, on the defendants’ motion of 15 June to dismiss, entry 54, and their joint motion of 19 June, entry 72: “Those motions will be addressed by separate order.”; the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, entry 51 of 12 June, appears only in the order’s procedural history, with no ruling and no hearing set; the caption, “OXFORD DIVISION”; a second copy, Earthjustice’s as the plaintiffs’ counsel, carries the same text on all 22 pages; the RECAP copy read in full, 23 October 2026) In the Sources
• NAACP v. X.AI Corp., No. 3:26-cv-00074-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), United States’ Complaint for Declaratory Relief, ECF 136, filed 23 October 2026 by the United States as plaintiff-intervenor (a crossclaim against the NAACP and its Mississippi State Conference, filed on the last day the order of 19 October 2026 allowed, asking for relief on which no order had been entered; “Declare that the Clean Air Act citizen-suit provision’s authorization for federal intervention includes the United States’ right to dismiss NAACP’s citizen suit, and that its citizen suit cannot proceed against the objection of the United States.”; “NAACP threatens American national, economic, and energy security by seeking to shut off the power supply for Super Intelligence innovation that is essential to the Department of War’s military operations.”; “NAACP should not be permitted to pursue this Clean Air Act enforcement action over the United States’ objection.”; footnote 1: “the United States is not required to state defenses to the NAACP’s claims”; paragraph 16: “during Operation Epic Fury, Grok” and, inside its quotation marks, “enabled U.S. forces to deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours”; paragraph 18, quoting the State’s letter: “would create an immediate and substantial disruption to the State’s economy”; the docket as read on 25 October 2026 shows no later entry) In the Sources
• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. X.AI Corp. and MZX Tech LLC, No. 3:26-cv-74 (N.D. Miss.), complaint, filed 14 April 2026 (the plaintiffs are the NAACP and its Mississippi State Conference; “Tens of thousands of people, including members of Plaintiffs NAACP and NAACP Mississippi State Conference … live, worship, study and work in the homes, churches, and schools that immediately surround the Colossus Gas Plant”, paragraph 5; “The Clean Air Act treats turbines affixed to portable units as stationary sources and not as mobile sources”, paragraph 188; “The Mississippi SIP has no exception to permitting requirements for sources that operate on-site for less than twelve months”, paragraph 189; read in Earthjustice’s copy of the filing). In the Sources
• Public Citizen, Inc. and Sierra Club, Inc. v. VoltaGrid LLC, Vantage Data Centers Management Company, LLC, Vantage Data Centers TX11, LLC and Vantage Data Centers TX21, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-06032 (W.D. Tex.), complaint filed 21 September 2026 (a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604, over two datacenter campuses in San Antonio, at Omicron Drive and Rogers Road, Bexar County; gas-fired generation “as currently disclosed to” the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality of about 405 MW and diesel backup of about 455 MW; the complaint alleges that each campus and its generation is one major source permitted as minor sources through VoltaGrid’s standard permit registrations and Vantage’s permit-by-rule registrations, “sham permitting tactics” in its words, that the Rogers Road campus ran its diesel generators as a primary power source, and asks the court to “Enjoin Defendants from continuing construction and/or operation” of both campuses until major-source permits issue; a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed the same day (docket 6); every statement an allegation, nothing adjudicated on the docket as read on 6 October 2026; the complaint posted by the Environmental Integrity Project, plaintiffs’ counsel, which is not a party). In the Sources

And 4 more: search the Sources.

Related terms

• Southaven
• NAACP
• Agreed order
• Catalytic controls
• Consent
• Evidentiary hearing
• Injunction
• Mobile and temporary
• Moot
• Moratorium
• Nitrogen oxides
• Nonroad engine