in Mount Holley, N.C.
Source: Duke Energy
Read the full article by Charles Lane in The Washington Post of November 2, 2006.
"Supreme Court justices took a skeptical view of an Environmental Protection Agency crackdown on air pollution from electric power plants yesterday as the court heard oral arguments in a major case on the authority of the federal government to punish violations of the Clean Air Act.
"At issue is a wave of lawsuits begun by the EPA during the last two years of the Clinton administration in which the agency sought to force utilities to equip their refurbished older plants with state-of-the-art pollution control equipment. The EPA said it was enforcing its long-established view of the Clean Air Act's requirements. But companies objected, saying the EPA was unfairly imposing a new and stricter interpretation of ambiguous federal regulations.
"At yesterday's argument, most of the justices who spoke up seemed to agree with industry's view. 'What I'm concerned about is that companies can get whipsawed,' said Justice Antonin Scalia.
When Sean H. Dona, a lawyer for Environmental Defense, a private organization defending the EPA enforcement actions, told the court that the agency's regulations were 'clear on their face,' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. interjected, 'That's an audacious statement.'"
Comment: A faction of the Republican Party, including decision makers in the Bush Administration, is skeptical of scientific evidence and supportive of industrial interests especially in the area of environmental regulation. It appears that that faction has succeeded in gaining a significant voice in the Supreme court. JAD
1 comment:
For an in-depth look at the Fourth Circuit's analysis in this case, what's wrong with EPA's subsequent rulemaking response, and a novel proposal for regulatory NSR revisions, please see the upcoming Ecology Law Quarterly article on SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=877544
Post a Comment