The Great Lakes Zephyr - Wind Energy & Hydrogen Journal

States and cities challenge EPA air pollution rules


Tuesday, October 28, 2003
By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press


WASHINGTON — Lawsuits filed Monday by 13 states and more than 20 cities — which seek to block changes to the Clean Air Act — contend that new rules from the Bush administration would weaken protections for the environment and public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency regulation makes it easier to upgrade utilities, refineries, and other industrial facilities without installing additional pollution controls.

The rule, proposed in December and signed by EPA's administrator in August, was made final Monday. It will take effect in two months, and states have up to three years to comply.

The agency said in a statement it does not believe the rule will result in significant changes in emissions, and it "preserves the public health protections" under law.

Attorneys general for 12 states — New York, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin — and legal officers for New York City, Washington, San Francisco, New Haven, and a host of other cities in Connecticut complained about the regulations that they contend will weaken protections for the environment and public health.

Illinois filed a separate but similar claim, and other states, including California, are considering legal action. Their filings could be consolidated later with the 12-state suit.

They argued only Congress can make sweeping changes to such a bedrock law.

"We are not going to sit by quietly and allow the energy interests in this country to receive special treatment while so many of our children and elderly are needlessly suffering from respiratory problems that are, in essence, brought on by bad environmental policy," Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly said.

The rule broadens EPA's interpretation of routine maintenance for older plants. Before the rule change, operators who did anything more than routine maintenance were required to add more pollution-cutting devices.

Under the new rule, industrial facilities avoid paying for expensive emissions-cutting devices for up to 20 percent of the replacement costs for major equipment.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer called the rule an attack on the Clean Air Act.

"The president is taking the nation in the wrong direction on environmental policy," Spitzer said.

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of power companies that support the rule change, argued it would clarify regulations, and "no litigation from the Northeast attorneys general can produce anything but confusion."

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A similar group of states also filed suit in that court to challenge a previous batch of the administration's related changes to the Clean Air Act.


Source: Associated Press