Even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now CAIR-free, a lot of folks at the agency’s air quality program aren’t very happy.
The federal court decision issued on July 11 that struck down the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) blindsided both regulators and power industry professionals and left them shaking their heads. To make matters worse, this decision came after another federal court decision in February that threw out the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).
But the surprise packages don’t stop there. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its Massachusetts v. EPA decision that the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles if the agency determines they pose a threat to human health. On July 11, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling by announcing that the CAA is “the wrong tool” to regulate GHG emissions and that Congress should act on developing new legislation to control GHGs.
To figure out where industry now stands in the wake of these recent topsy-turvy events requires taking a closer look at these legal actions and at the EPA’s ability to regulate air pollution in the future.
Closing the door on CAIR
CAIR established a cap-and-trade program for controlling fine particulates and smog-causing emissions. The EPA estimated the rule would cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution by as much as 70% by 2025. In a surprising alliance, the power industry and most environmentalists generally supported the program (Figure 1).
1. Removing the cap. The Clean Air Interstate Rule was focused on reducing emissions of principally SO2, NOx, and particulates in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. CAIR was declared void by the U.S. Court of Appeals on July 11. Source: EPA
Despite CAIR’s popularity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the rule and declared it was illegal because it failed to require each state to analyze its own contribution to poor air quality. The court stated that the trading program should connect a state’s emissions reduction with its contribution to pollution.
The court did acknowledge concern that throwing out the entire CAIR rule--as opposed to letting the EPA fix the problems cited in the opinion--would delay the substantial emissions reductions that would be achieved by the CAIR program. Such an acknowledgement provides small consolation to affected stakeholders, such as power plants that spent huge sums of money trying to comply with CAIR.
Email
Comments
Print
Reuse
