{"id":16785,"date":"2012-08-21T11:04:22","date_gmt":"2012-08-21T16:04:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/texas\/?p=16785"},"modified":"2012-08-22T00:41:44","modified_gmt":"2012-08-22T05:41:44","slug":"appeals-court-turns-down-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-epa-must-revise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/texas\/2012\/08\/21\/appeals-court-turns-down-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-epa-must-revise\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals Court Turns Down Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, EPA Must Revise"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Photo by Brendan Smialowski\/Getty Images<\/p>

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott joined dozens of others in challenging the EPA rule.<\/p><\/div>\n

Just a week after a court victory<\/a> against the Environmental Protection Agency<\/a> (EPA), Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has another notch in his belt. Today, an appeals court in Washington has ruled that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act<\/a> with its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and now must revise the ruling.<\/p>\n

It’s welcome news for Abbott, who just last week bragged that he likes to “sue the Obama administration<\/a>” for fun. The state of Texas was joined by dozens of others, including some Texas power companies, in challenging the rule. Abbott quickly tweeted this:<\/p>\n

#<\/s>EPA<\/strong><\/a> overlords suffer another defeat to #<\/s>Texas<\/strong><\/a>: The power to regulate is the power to destroy. bit.ly\/ShfBYc<\/a>#<\/s>txlege<\/strong><\/a>#<\/s>tcot<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) August 21, 2012<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The proposed rules<\/a> (you can read more about them here<\/a>) would limit pollution (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide) from older coal power plants that ends up in other states. The rule would apply to 28 states, and would utilize a cap-and-trade system for the plants to come into compliance. Of particular concern to Texas were several aging coal plants that threatened to shut down<\/a> because of the rule.<\/p>\n

The EPA claims that if enacted, within two years, the rules would prevent “13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths,\u00a015,000 nonfatal heart attacks,” and “400,000 aggravated asthma attacks.”<\/p>\n

Why did the court vacate the EPA’s rule? <\/p>\n

Related<\/h4>
Posts<\/h5>