[Mb-civic] Looser Emission Rules Rejected - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01

A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year 
effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, 
unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act 
and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New 
York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- 
allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their 
facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution 
controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of 
health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was 
formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal 
challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The 
administration has long argued that the existing standards are too 
stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from 
upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have 
characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in 
the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to 
public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to 
block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's 
ruling "a major victory for clean air and public health" and a 
"rejection of a flawed policy."

"It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead 
of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants," Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: "We are disappointed 
that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are 
reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this 
time."

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as 
many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. 
Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of 
their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they 
celebrated the ruling.

"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 the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense 
Council. "This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give."

President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on 
coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production 
initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried 
without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the 
Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and 
refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment 
when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.

Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power 
plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new 
pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their 
operations.

The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an 
industrial facility "modification," because that is what triggers the 
federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by 
utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and 
manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill 
Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical 
activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the 
exception of routine maintenance.

EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this 
exemption by asserting that "routine maintenance" is any activity that 
amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, 
written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.

"EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 
'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, 
frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic," Rogers 
wrote. "Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use 
superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that 
Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view."

The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers 
Brown.

The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends 
to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the 
utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to 
forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said 
the decision is tantamount to the court "burying the rule six feet 
under, where before it was just in a casket."

Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. 
"This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier 
to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad 
news for consumers and the environment," he said. "We believe it is a 
step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060318/b7ee8d28/attachment.htm