The Bush administration is working to finalize an
industry-backed emissions rule for power plants that critics say
conflicts with a landmark Supreme Court decision that was handed
down earlier this year.
The administration's rule, which is still in the proposal
stage, and the Supreme Court decision both pertain to the
federal
New Source Review
program, which requires electricity generators to install new
pollution controls when undertaking certain modifications.
Electric utilities strongly support EPA's proposed rule,
saying it would allow them to undertake modifications that
would reduce their emissions as well as generate more power.
The administration's rule, which the Environmental Protection
Agency first unveiled in October 2005, would allow utilities to
sidestep NSR if their post-modification emissions did not
increase on an "hourly" basis. That's a far less rigorous
standard than the "annual" NSR emissions test that Congress
established in 1977.
EPA based its proposed hourly emissions test rule, in large
part, on a decision that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Virginia, issued in 2005 in a case involving Duke
Energy. The Supreme Court struck down that ruling in April,
agreeing with environmental groups that the appeals court should
have used an annual emissions test to judge the legality of
Duke's power-plant modifications.
EPA, though, intends to finalize its hourly emissions test
NSR rule despite the Supreme Court's decision in the Duke case.
"The decision does not affect EPA's plan to proceed with the
emissions test rule," EPA press secretary Jennifer Wood told
Platts shortly after the Supreme Court decided the Duke case.
EPA is taking public comments on the proposed rule until
August 8. The agency could publish a final version anytime after
that, which would open a 60-day window for critics to sue EPA
over the measure.
Environmental groups have strongly hinted that they would sue
EPA if the agency finalizes the rule. John Walke of Natural
Resources Defense Council, which was among the groups that
challenged Duke's modifications before the Supreme Court, said
EPA's draft rule "was illegal before the Supreme Court decision,
and it remains illegal after the decision."
Electric utilities strongly support EPA's proposed rule,
saying it would allow them to undertake modifications that would
reduce their emissions as well as generate more power. But a
host of states and environmental groups reject that reasoning,
saying the rule would allow utilities to radically increase
their emissions.
Created: July 16, 2007
* You may be required to
register/log in for access to some of the feature's pages.
Registration is free. If you have already registered on
platts.com, registration will not be required.
