Posted on 01/30/2004 4:21:41 AM PST by snopercod
The Bush administration has filed a lawsuit charging that a Kentucky utility violated the Clean Air Act when it upgraded two coal-fired powerplants without obtaining a permit or installing advanced pollution-control technology.
The case concerns the "New Source Review" requirements under the clean air statute. Those provisions mandate that electric utilities or industrial companies must add pollution-control equipment when they modify their plants. There has been a loud, long debate over NSR, and how large a plant modification should trigger the cleanup technology.
In the suit, filed Jan. 28 by the Justice Dept. on EPA's behalf, the government alleges that East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Winchester, Ky., violated the Clean Air Act's NSR provision because of work done on its Spurlock Plant in Mason County, Ky., and its Dale Plant, in Clark County, Ky. One of Spurlock's two coal-fired generating units and two of Dale's four units are the subjects of the case.
Kevin Osbourn, a spokesman for East Kentucky Power, says, "We believe that we've fully complied with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and related regulations, while doing the work on the units. We also believe that when all the evidence is presented in this case that the facts will bear out that East Kentucky Power complied with the law and acted in good faith." He adds, "We have met and exceeded government emissions regulations."
Osbourn also says that the company "has an outstanding environmental record, " and has spent more than $200 million over two years on environmental control equipment. He also says that East Kentucky Power last year started three renewable-energy plants, the first such facilities in the state.
Thomas Sansonetti, assistant attorney general for the environment and natural resources division, said, "This is yet another in a series of cases filed as part of an enforcement initiative to bring the coal-fired electric power generating industry into full compliance with the Clean Air Act."
The filing of the suit comes just one week after EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt said that the agency would be pursuing new NSR enforcement cases. EPA has been pushing for regulatory changes in the NSR rules, but in December, a federal appeals court issued a stay against one NSR change the agency planned to make.
Amendment V
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The clean air statute is unconstitutional.
EPA has been pushing for regulatory changes in the NSR rules, but in December, a federal appeals court issued a stay against one NSR change the agency planned to make. The filing of the suit comes just one week after EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt said that the agency would be pursuing new NSR enforcement cases.
IOW there is an order precluding the EPA from bringing such cases, so they just do it anyway.
At issue is how the government interprets "New Source Review," which was part of the 1977 Clean Air Act, passed in the era of oil shocks and fear of nuclear power. Realizing that the alternative was coal, the government wanted to make sure that any new power plants (and other major pollution sources such as refineries and paper mills) were fitted with the latest in pollution-control technology. As then-Energy Secretary James Schlesinger writes in a recent memo, the aim was not to force existing plants (which were already subject to emissions caps) to install that technology.Then came the Clinton Administration, which "discovered" that utilities and refiners had been winking at those laws for nearly two decades. Dozens of companies were hauled into court with claims that routine maintenance amounted to "major modification" requiring them to install expensive scrubbers. In one case, Detroit Edison was challenged for replacing aging turbines with newer and more efficient ones, which actually reduced plant emissions. Other companies were tripped up for replacing aging steam ducts that could cause serious accidents if they ruptured.
These suits weren't about clean air. They were about muddying the law so that the government could extort concessions beyond what Congress had mandated. Contrary to their usual impulse to settle, most companies have stood their ground. In the meantime, they are deferring routine maintenance for fear of new legal challenges. Experts say the delays could lead to serious failures in the national power grid by next year.
So what we have here is the Bush administration expanding on clinton's unlawful interpretation of the Clean Air Act of 1977.
Bush tried to get the changes thru Congress but those republicans in the northeast and along the atlantic seaboard united with the dems to stop it. As a generality, those groups are together on anything environmental.
Bush then made the changes administratively, got sued for it and the judge issued a stay.
Bush's actions are dependent on the final judicial ruling. He don't trump the judge.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not the TVA suit from back in the Clinton administration still in play?
There were about twenty suits filed in November, 1999. Most of them were settled (for a total of roughly $3 billion! Who says extortion doesn't pay?). The one against FirstEnergy was successful, and they were found guilty. (I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the verdict came down only a few days prior to the recent NE blackout.) There is a list of the lawsuits here in .pdf.
The one against TVA is still open, to the best of my knowledge. But as Ben was so gracious to point out, I don't know what I am talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.