560
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SW: cleanup formatting CLean Air page
* 1998 EPA orders 22 states in the Northeast and the Midwest to curb nitrogen oxide emissions, mostly from coal fired power plants in the Ohio Valley region. The new EPA plan called for a 28% regionwide reduction by the year 2007, costing $1.7 billion annually but offset by $3.4 billion annual savings in health benefits, EPA said.
* 1998 - 2000 Duke Energy makes 29 modifications and upgrades to equipment in older coal-generated power plants. Duke did not apply without applying for or obtain permits from the EPA and was sued in . The lawsuit Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. results.
* 2000, December 20 -- EPA announces decision to include coal- and oil-fired power plants among HAPS sources subject to regulation.
* 2007 US Supreme Court unanimously upholds New Source Review in Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp
* 2007 US Supreme Court also rules that the EPA has the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.
* 2007 EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommends lowering the ground level ozone standard from 85 PPB to between 60 PPB - 70 PPB. The committee concluded that at 75 PPB there would b e 1,300-3,500 fewer premature deaths annually, but recommended lowering the standard to 65 PPB to reduce the number of deaths by 3,000-9,200 each year. The standard was reduced only to 75 PPB in 2008.
The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other programs are federal, but states run more than 95 percent of EPA’s programs and 90 percent of the enforcement actions under State Implementation Plans (SIP). In exchange, the EPA funds many of the programs. However, electing a SIP is not mandatory and in some cases states have chosen to not accept responsibility for enforcement of the act and force the EPA to assume those duties.<ref name="state">[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007410----000-.html "§ 7410. State implementation plans for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards"] Cornell Law University, accessed July 2010.</ref>
In order to take over compliance with the CAA the states must write and submit a an SIP to the EPA for approval. A state implementation plan is a collection of the regulations a state will use to clean up polluted areas. The states are obligated to notify the public of these plans, through hearings that offer opportunities to comment, in the development of each state implementation plan. The SIP becomes the state's legal guide for local enforcement of the CAA. For example, in the case of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island General Law Title 23 Chapter 23 Section 2 (RIGL 23-23-2) states that it is a state policy requirement to comply with the Federal CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7401) through the SIP. The state SIP delegates permitting and enforcement responsibility to the state Department of Environmental Management (RI-DEM).<ref name="state"/>
The law recognizes that states should lead in carrying out the Clean Air Act, because pollution control problems often require special understanding of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. However, states are not allowed to have weaker pollution controls than the minimum criteria set for the whole country by the EPA. EPA must approve each SIP, and if a SIP isn't acceptable, EPA can take over, enforcing the Clean Air Act in that state.<ref name="state"/>
On March 16, 2011, EPA announced its [http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposal.pdf proposed emissions standards] to limit mercury, acid gases and other toxic pollution from power plants, to prevent an estimated 91 percent of the mercury in coal from being released to the air. The proposed rule covered national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) under Clean Air Act section 112(d), and proposed revised new source performance standards (NSPS) for fossil fuel-fired EGUs under CAA section 111(b).The EPA estimated that there are approximately 1,350 units affected by the action, including 1,200 existing coal-fired units.<ref name=fs>[http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf "Fact Sheet: Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards"] EPA, accessed March 2011.</ref>
On July 6, 2011 EPA issued its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) issued, requiring requires 27 states to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. <ref> [http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ Cross State Air Pollution Rule”] EPA, July 11, 2011. </ref> EPA said the regulations would prevent as many as 34,000 premature deaths along with 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks and hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma every year. <ref>John M. Broder [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/science/earth/08epa.html?partner=rss&emc=rss EPA issues tougher rules for power plants] New York Times, July 7, 2011. </ref>
Electric utility reactions to the MACT / HAPs rule proposal were sharp. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said the regulations would cost 1.3 million jobs and raise electric costs by 28 percent. <ref> [http://cleancoalusa.org/press-and-media/press-releases/epa-finalizes-expensive-new-regulation EPA finalizes expensive new regulation] American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, press release, July 7, 2011. </ref> The Electric Reliability Council of Texas said: "We fear that many of the coal plants in ERCOT will be forced to limit or shut down operations in order to maintain compliance with the new rule." More time would be needed for compliance, they said. <ref> [http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/354 CEO statement regarding EPA cross-state rule] ERCOT News release, July 19, 2011. </ref>
