Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

States Win Suit to Stop New EPA Standards

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 05:52 PM
Original message
States Win Suit to Stop New EPA Standards
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/mar/17/031707455.html

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - A federal appeals court Friday blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from easing clean air rules on aging power plants, refineries and factories, one of the regulatory changes that had been among the top environmental priorities of the White House.

The new rules, strongly supported by industry representatives, would have allowed older plants to modernize without having to install the most advanced pollution controls.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington declared that the EPA rules violate the Clean Air Act and that only Congress can authorize such changes.

<snip>

"This is an enormous victory for clean air and for the enforcement of the law and an overwhelming rejection of the Bush administration's efforts to gut the law," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who led the lawsuit for the states. "It is a rejection of a flawed policy."

<more>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. thank god. thank god. thank god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!
:woohoo:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laheina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Please, let it stand.
I need to find a praying smilie. But this is awesome!!

Every day was about to become a "spare the air day" in California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. I can't process good news. How did this happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broca Donating Member (524 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. It happened
through the work of several environmental groups:

http://www.nrdc.org/media/#0317b

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press contact: NRDC: John Walke, 202/289-2406 or Elliott Negin, 202/289-2405; American Lung Association: Diane Maple, 202/785-3355; Earthjustice: Howard Fox, 202/841-6656, or Brian Smith, 510/550-6714; Environmental Defense: Janea Scott, 212/616-1267; Sierra Club: David Willett, 202/675-6279; U.S. PIRG: Emily Figdor, 202/546-9707
If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at [email protected] or see our contact page.

COURT REJECTS BUSH ADMINISTRATION PLAN TO GUT KEY CLEAN AIR ACT SAFEGUARD

Ruling Blocks Thousands of Facilities from Increasing Pollution


WASHINGTON (March 17, 2006) -- A federal court today killed a Bush administration rule that would have sabotaged a key provision of the Clean Air Act. Agreeing with a coalition of public health and environmental groups, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a loophole the Bush administration adopted for the law's new source review program would have allowed thousands of aging power plants and other industrial facilities to emit more air pollution, threatening the health of millions of Americans.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the administration's loophole contradicted the purposes of the Clean Air Act. "Indeed," the court stated, "EPA's interpretation would produce a 'strange,' if not an 'indeterminate,' result: a law intended to limit increases in air pollution would allow sources operating below applicable emission limits to increase significantly the pollution they emit without government review." The court refused to adopt what it called the Environmental Protection Agency's "Humpty Dumpty" upside-down world view. (Download a copy of the ruling.)

"This is a victory for public health," said Howard Fox, an attorney at Earthjustice, which represented six groups in the case. "It makes no sense to allow huge multi-million-dollar projects that drastically increase air pollution without installing up-to-date pollution controls or even notifying nearby residents."

The organizations in the lawsuit included Alabama Environmental Council, American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, Delaware Nature Society, Environmental Defense, Group against Smog and Pollution, Michigan Environmental Council, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Ohio Environmental Council, Scenic Hudson, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and U.S. PIRG.

"Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day," said John Walke, director of NRDC's Clean Air Program. "The court recognized the blarney in the administration's plan to gut a key part of the Clean Air Act and rejected it. Now thousands of dirty facilities will not be able to pollute more."

The Court of Appeals initially issued a stay in December 2003 blocking the loophole from taking effect. If the court had not issued the stay, the new rules would have gone into effect on December 26, 2003, in at least 17 states and territories, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Industrial facilities in those states would have been able to take advantage of the new air pollution loophole immediately. The remaining states across the country would have been forced to adopt the loophole shortly thereafter.

Many of the nation's older power plants have operated long beyond their expected lifespans, polluting at excessively high levels, largely because utilities have rebuilt these grandfathered plants over time. Often they modified these facilities in ways that increased air pollution without complying with Clean Air Act requirements to install modern emissions controls.

The Clean Air Act's new source review program was designed to curb air pollution from these and other industrial facilities by requiring them to install up-to-date pollution controls whenever they made physical or operational changes that increased air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency launched enforcement lawsuits against utility and refinery violators during the latter part of the Clinton administration for pollution increases that had resulted in millions of tons of air pollution.

The Bush administration wanted to derail these enforcement suits and eliminate future actions by changing the rules to allow companies to virtually rebuild their facilities and boost pollution levels without having to meet new source review program requirements.

The loophole created by the administration's new rule would have allowed more than 20,000 power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities to replace existing equipment with "functionally equivalent" equipment without undergoing the clean air reviews required by the new source review program if the cost of the replacement did not exceed 20 percent of that of the entire "process unit." This exemption would have applied even if a facility's air pollution increased by thousands or tens of thousands of tons as a result of the replacement.

"Today's victory means that thousands of Americans will not have their lives cut short because of the pollution that would have blown through this huge loophole," said Janice Nolen at the American Lung Association. "The court could not have told the EPA more clearly that they must follow the Clean Air Act as it is written, not as they wish it were written."

Emily Figdor, U.S. PIRG's clean air advocate, agreed. "Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for public health and the environment," she said. "The court slammed the door on the Bush administration's attempt to create a gaping loophole in the Clean Air Act for some of the nation's worst polluters."

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I see, but... when did they start listening to environmental groups?
I thought they'd all been consigned to the same "smile and wave" bin as war protesters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Blows against the Empire
woo hoo!

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hoooray!!!!
This is wonderful news amongst all the bad. Could there be hope???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC