The Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court's fee award in favor of environmental groups in their CAA case against an energy company. Below, the groups moved for summary judgment on the basis that the company was violating the CAA by constructing a new major source of hazardous air pollution without first obtaining a determination from the state of North Carolina that the pollution source, Unit 6, was designed to control its hazardous emissions to the maximum extent possible. The company, meanwhile, filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied the company's motion, but it granted the groups' motion for summary judgment, holding that the CAA applied and required determinations as to whether Unit 6 was a major or minor source and, if a major source, whether "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT) had been achieved. It therefore ordered the company to engage in proceedings under CAA §112(g). Six months later, however, the court dismissed the case because the company had undergone the MACT evaluation with the state, and the parties were contesting the resulting permit before the state administrative hearing office. Although the case was ultimately dismissed, the group's summary judgment victory forced the company to submit to administrative evaluations by the state. Those administrative proceedings constituted some success and thus supported an award of attorney fees under the CAA. Because nothing the Fourth Circuit might hold with regard to the merits of the summary judgment determination could undo those proceedings or nullify the groups' success, the fee award was affirmed.