[Jean S]

More from the AP:

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

AP NewsBreak: Appeals court blocks Bush administration clean air changes
JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/24/national1317EST0580.DTL

(12-24) 10:17 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked new Bush administration changes to the Clean Air Act from going into effect the next day, in a challenge from state attorneys general and cities that argued they would harm the environment and public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency rule would have made it easier for utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities to make repairs in the name of "routine maintenance" without installing additional pollution controls.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order that blocks the rules from going into effect until the legal challenge from the states and cities is heard, a process likely to last months.

The court's decision blocks at least temporarily one of the Bush administration's major environmental decisions. The court's justices said the challengers "demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success" of their case, which are required to stop the rule from taking effect.

EPA proposed the rule in December, the then-acting administrator signed it in August and it was made final in October. It was due to have gone into effect this week.

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, 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.

©2003 Associated Press  

[SierraWasp]

Looks like I was wrong about CA's Lockyear!!! (this time)

[CedarDave]

The court's justices said the challengers "demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success" of their case, which are required to stop the rule from taking effect.

Of course the challengers have a likelihood of success with this case. The courts are mostly full of feel-good liberal judges who bring their bias to the bench and don't mind ignoring the constitution or making new law when it suits them.

[Steve_Seattle]

I wonder what the legal basis for this ruling is? As usual with court cases, the article does not spell it out in any detail.

[Carry_Okie]

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, 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.

It is absolutely laughable that San Francisco would be involved since the prevailing winds there come off the Pacific Ocean. They thus do not get downwind pollution from a plant that would require new source review. Virtually all of the electrical power it uses comes from either natural gas or hydro. Neither is the Bay Area in a state of non attainment. I cannot fathom how the city could therefore demonstrate irreparable harm from the proposed change in rules.

My understanding is that areas in non-attainment would still be subject to new source review. So who gets harmed when a plant installs cleaner equipment without upgrading its emissions abatement equipment?

[microgood]

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states

If I were Bush I would make sure next year's budget has plenty of huge cuts for these states. They are probably even using Federal money to sue the Feds.