The Supreme Court granted certiorari in a Clean Air Act case (1 Viewer)

[aps]

This is fantastic. I can't find a website that posts this. I have this on inside information (my husband works in the department that brought the action against the power plant). So once it's out on the web, I will post it.

In a separate case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just slammed the Bush Administration regarding their anti-environmental New Source Review Act. They unanimously determined that such Act violated the Clean Air Act. The Bush Administration has asked for en banc review. (Not this I have a sight for.)

http://www.eenews.net/special_reports/nsr/

 

[tecoyah]

I was rather hoping these actions against the environment would catch up eventually....good to hear.

 

[jfuh]

No executive power is ever above the law.
There is light at the end of the tunnel.
Now with this sentence as well as the increased gas prices lets go an see about more environmental needs.

 

[aps]

Okay, as promised, here is an article. There is a good editorial in the Washington Post as well, which is cited below the article.

The government did not appeal the Fourth Circuit's ruling; rather, it was the environmentalists that did. This is only the THIRD time in history that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case appealed by the environmentalists. I may have to stand in line to sit in on the oral argument.

Justices to Hear Environmental Appeal on EPA Emissions Rule

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Page A04

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will review a controversial federal court ruling that environmentalists had said would weaken pollution-control requirements for aging power stations across the country.

In a one-line order, the justices said they will hear Environmental Defense's appeal of a June 2005 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, which said that Duke Energy Corp., a North Carolina utility, could operate refurbished power plants even though their total annual emissions would go up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501532.html

The EPA sued the power plant because of the increased annual emissions from changes the power plant made to its facility. The Fourth Circuit's ruling is a joke (which is probably why the Supreme Court decided to take up the case). Because the amount of emissions did not change per hour (but annual emissions had increased), the Fourth Circuit said that Duke was within the law.

The Bush Administration sought to oppose the writ. Too bad that didn't work out for them.

This editorial explains well what the issue is in this case which will be argued this fall.

The Court and Clean Air
When is an increase in pollution not an increase in pollution? Ask the EPA.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A16

. . . Federal clean air law requires power companies to install pollution-fighting equipment when they upgrade their plants in a way that would increase emissions. But Duke Energy, which runs power plants in the Carolinas, convinced the 4th Circuit that its numerous upgrades to its plants didn't count as increasing pollution because they didn't raise the plants' hourly emissions but merely allowed them to run for more hours per day. The 4th Circuit in essence invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency's long-standing rule evaluating increases as actual increases, on the grounds that the agency uses hourly measures for another provision of the statute.

The 4th Circuit shouldn't have been ruling on this question at all, since Congress gave exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to clean air rules to the D.C. Circuit -- which shortly after the 4th Circuit's ruling clarified that "increases" means, well, "increases." But that hasn't stopped the administration from using the 4th Circuit's ruling to undermine that of the court whose opinions supposedly bind it on clean air matters. Even now, the EPA is trying to relax the rules, pushing a regulation that would redefine "increase" in terms of a plant's capacity for emissions rather than its actual emissions -- in defiance of the D.C. Circuit ruling. For its rationale, the EPA points to the 4th Circuit's ruling in Duke Energy. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501693.html

 

[Citizendave]

I'd love an update. Here is a link to the SC site.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/05-1120.htm

Anyone know of any progress???