The coal-powered Riverbend Steam Station near North Carolina's Mountain Island Lake. (Jeff Willhelm/Charlotte Observer/MCT/NEWSCOM/FILE)
Pollution ruling somehow manages to irk both White House and environmentalists
By Eoin O'Carroll | 07.11.08
A Federal appeals court unanimously struck down an Environmental Protection Agency regulation Friday that requires states to reduce polluting emissions from power plants.
Introduced in 2005 and set to take effect in 2009, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, would have required 28 Eastern and Midwestern states to reduce smog and soot that can travel across state borders. The EPA says that the rule would have prevented about 17,000 deaths a year.
North Carolina and some electric power producers opposed the rule and sued the EPA. The court agreed, citing what they called “more than several fatal flaws” in the regulation, ruling that the EPA was improperly meddling with allowance trading markets and unfairly privileging coal utilities over natural-gas ones.
The Associated Press describes CAIR as “a signature component of President Bush’s clean air policies“. The rule would have permanently capped emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the eastern United States. The AP notes that many power companies are not happy with Friday’s ruling, quoting one source who says the power industry has already invested billions in anticipation of a trading market in pollution credits that would have eased the burden of complying with the rule
Environmentalists are upset too. Reuters quotes Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch in Washington, who called the court’s ruling “the legal equivalent of a dirty bomb: literally tens of thousands of Americans could see their lives cut short by dirty air.”
The White House can seek to appeal the ruling, but some environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, are calling for “immediate corrective action.”
You can view the text of court’s ruling here.
<< Study: green jobs rising, fossil fuel jobs falling | MainComments
2. tuj | 07.14.08
Actually, can’t blame the WH or the EPA on this one. The logic the judge used really didn’t make any sense, to invalidate all of CAIR. Some of the states, like TX wanting to be split into two zones, were valid points. But to strike the entire thing…..what were they thinking? CAMR was one thing, but I didn’t see anyone who was against the entire CAIR, heck, even the utilities had accepted it; they just had some nitpicks mostly (besides SC, who was out of hand).
3. Lynn Chakoian | 07.14.08
In Vernon County Wisconsin there is a collective sigh of relief that the local utility will not be putting in scrubbers. The fly ash that is produced is not recyclable (yet) and so we faced a toxic landfill in our backyard. Given we have serious concerns about leaching into fractured limestone bedrock, this court decision is a strange victory for locals here who consider themselves environmentalists. We need to think through measures like adding scrubbers to stacks before legislating these actions. Some local info and link are in this story:
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Robin Kaiser | 07.11.08
Really illustrates the blind, ignorant greed that seems to spawn in every form of govt these ignorant humans try. Protect me o’ fatherland. Ha ,ef ‘n ha.