• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Editorials on Clean Air Act Ruling

Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2006, 12:00 CST

The following editorial appeared in the Dallas Morning News on Tuesday, March 21:

COURT RIGHT TO REJECT EASING CLEAN AIR ACT

This is not a Humpty-Dumpty world.

So says a federal appeals court in scolding the Bush administration for a gambit that would have rolled back gains in the fight for clean air.

The court's ruling _ a big favor to all oxygen-breathing Americans _ threw out new environmental rules that would have made it easier for factories and power plants to avoid installing expensive pollution-control devices.

The 1970 Clean Air Act spared many older plants from stringent new limits on emissions, based on the assumption that they would soon be retired and cease polluting altogether. If upgrading a plant, however, the owner is required to install better emission-control equipment. The law says "any physical change" that increases emissions can trigger requirements for tighter pollution controls.

Three years ago, the Bush administration came up with new, looser interpretations of the language. The new approach would classify as "routine maintenance" anything that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value, even if the project increased pollution.

The appeals court for Washington didn't buy that noxious approach and said it was an attempt to skirt clear language in the Clean Air Act.

The administration's re-interpretation would make sense "only in a Humpty-Dumpty world," the court said.

The provision of the law in question _ called New Source Review _ affects emission permits at more than 1,000 power plants and thousands more chemical plants, refineries and factories nationwide.

Used properly, New Source Review can be an effective tool in demanding compliance of manufacturers.

Four years ago, with Texas officials in the lead, the Environmental Protection Agency took action against Alcoa, which made major changes at its gigantic aluminum smelter in Rockdale, northeast of Austin, without a permit. Alcoa, the government and environmental groups agreed to negotiate a multimillion-dollar settlement in that case.

Thirty-six years ago, passage of the Clean Air Act represented a clear and fair understanding between Washington and plant owners under which they could plan future investments.

Gains are too few in the nation's often-losing battle for clean air. It's a Humpty-Dumpty world when the government willingly tosses aside a useful weapon.

___

The following editorial appeared in the Seattle Times on Tuesday, March 21:

BREATHE EASIER: AIR RULING ENFORCED

A Bush administration contrivance to let aging power plants, refineries and industrial facilities evade federal clean-air laws was shot down by a panel of incredulous federal court judges.

This is a big win for public health, and a lot of gasping states from Maryland to Maine are celebrating a victory for honest enforcement of the 1970 Clean Air Act. They are the tail-pipe states that catch the exhaust from Midwestern power plants and have the asthma rates to prove it. Many of these coal-fired enterprises had been exempt from the first federal law, with the understanding they would modernize their equipment when it needed to be replaced. The Environmental Protection Agency drafted a rule that allowed them to skirt anti-pollution enforcement if replacement components could be installed for less than the cost of modern, emissions-cutting equipment.

The operating standard was, essentially, patch it up on the cheap and continue to pollute with EPA's blessing. Reminiscent of that infamous comment about "it all depends on what the meaning of is is," the EPA tortured the definition of "any" improvement.

As far as the court was concerned, the Bush administration's legal rationales strained both common sense and traditional interpretation _ determining what Congress intended.

Here the judges offer a timely reminder about the breadth of the 36-year-old Clean Air Act: Congressional intent was to intensify the war on pollution, establish a permit program that struck a balance between environmental and economic interests, and stimulate technology to control pollution.

That last point is particularly useful, because pressure to clean the air would surely inspire a response to improve and market better equipment to 20,000 potential customers. Letting them off the hook not only fouls the air, it stunts the growth of innovation.

Congress has resisted White House attempts to change the law, so the administration tried to get clever with bureaucratic language.

Three federal judges just rolled their eyes.

___

The following editorial appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on Tuesday, March 21:

FOR THE SAKE OF HEALTH

Advocates for public health and the environment won an important battle last week. A federal court blocked a regulatory change that would have let operators of the dirtiest power plants evade the Clean Air Act.

But Congress needs to make sure those advocates win the war.

The regulatory change the court blocked would have let operators of power plants and other industrial facilities make modifications that would increase emissions without installing modern pollution-control equipment. The change would have undone a Clean Air Act provision.

The Bush administration had failed to get Congress to agree to such a change in the law. The court ruled the administration couldn't do so through a regulation.

Old, coal-fired power plants are major sources of air pollution. Their emissions contribute to smog and acid rain, and taint waterways. Studies have blamed them for thousands of premature deaths every year.

In Florida, the Clean Air Act persuaded Tampa Electric Co. to install modern pollution controls on one coal-fired power plant and replace another with a cleaner, natural-gas plant. But Florida still has 25 old coal-fired plants that could have been let off the hook by the regulatory change. That's not fair for TECO and its customers. It's also not healthy for neighbors of the dirty plants.

Despite the court ruling, the administration could appeal, or seek other ways to weaken the Clean Air Act. For the sake of public health and the environment, Congress needs to set a firm deadline for old power plants and other industrial facilities to clean up.

___

(c) 2006, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Not for publication or retransmission without permission of KRT.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune

More News in this Category