{"id":16807,"date":"2012-08-21T12:26:00","date_gmt":"2012-08-21T17:26:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/texas\/?p=16807"},"modified":"2012-08-21T14:07:18","modified_gmt":"2012-08-21T19:07:18","slug":"reax-roundup-texas-crows-over-victory-on-epa-air-pollution-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/texas\/2012\/08\/21\/reax-roundup-texas-crows-over-victory-on-epa-air-pollution-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Reax Roundup: Texas Crows Over Victory on EPA Air Pollution Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Photo by Andy Uhler\/KUT News<\/p>

A coal power plant in Fayette, Texas.<\/p><\/div>\n

Earlier today, a federal appeals court overturned a new EPA rule<\/a>, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule<\/a> (CSAPR), that would have affected coal power plants in several states, including Texas.<\/p>\n

The rule was defended in a suit from the American Lung Association, several cities and states, and several environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club. Fighting against the new rule were the Texas Attorney General, Texas power companies and several others.<\/p>\n

Now the reactions are rolling in, so it’s time for another “Reax Roundup.”<\/p>\n

First, the state Attorney General’s office says that the rules would have been especially bad for Texas:<\/p>\n

“As the CSAPR regulations were specifically applied to Texas, the EPA\u2019s overreach was especially onerous. First, the EPA failed to provide Texas the advance notice that is required by federal law when it did not include the State in key aspects of the proposed rule that was published in August 2010 \u2013 but then added Texas to the final regulations without notice. Further, Texas\u2019 last-minute inclusion in the EPA\u2019s CSAPR regulations was based upon a single air quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois \u2013 which was fundamentally flawed not only because a nearby steel mill necessarily impacted that location\u2019s air quality, but because that very location actually satisfied federal air quality standards.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But the Sierra Club says that the rules would do more good than harm. Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the group’s Beyond Coal Campaign, says in a statement:<\/p>\n

“Americans have been waiting for the clean air they deserve for decades and the court\u2019s ruling today further delays the Clean Air Act\u2019s promise of safe, breathable air for our children.<\/p>\n

The EPA\u2019s long overdue and much-needed rule would have helped communities clean up their air and save lives by curbing millions of tons of air pollution that travel downwind and across state lines each year.\u00a0Once implemented, the rule would have prevented as many as 34,000 premature deaths annually, avoided 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and improved the lives of millions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Environmental Defense fund calls attention to the dissenting opinion by Judge Judith Rogers <\/a>in\u00a0the 2-1 ruling:<\/p>\n

Judge Rogers vigorously dissented, arguing Judge Kavanaugh\u2019s opinion represented a \u201ctrampling on this court\u2019s precedent on which the Environmental Protection Agency (\u2018EPA\u2019) was entitled to rely in developing the Transport Rule rather than be blindsided by arguments raised for the first time in this court.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Rogers further explained, \u201cThe result is the endorsement of a \u2018maximum delay\u2019 strategy for regulated entities, rewarding States and industry for cloaking their objections throughout years of administrative rulemaking procedures and blindsiding the agency with both a collateral attack on its interpretation of section 110(a) and an objection raised for the first time in this court.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Clean Air Director, John Walke, says that EPA should appeal the ruling:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis rule would have prevented thousands of premature deaths and saved tens of billions of dollars a year in health costs, but two judges blocked that from happening and forced EPA to further delay long overdue health safeguards for Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe EPA can \u2013 and should \u2013 immediately appeal this decision. The dissenting judge correctly follows the Clean Air Act and prior rulings by this court. The majority opinion is an outlier at odds with the court\u2019s own rulings as well as the Clean Air Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You can read more reactions from:<\/p>\n