Post - Articles

US power companies win delay on air pollution legislation

  • 12 years ago (2012-01-01)
  • Junior Isles
North America 998

The US Environmental Protection Agency has been forced to delay its January 1, 2012 implementation of new rules on interstate air pollution after a federal court ruled in favour of electric power producers seeking to defeat the new regulations.

European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC) 2024
More info

European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC) 2024

The US Appeals Court in Washington granted a request by electric power producers and other challengers to postpone the deadline for plants in 27 states to begin reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, while the court considers the rule’s legality.

More than three dozen lawsuits in the Washington court seek to derail the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was originally issued in July and since revised in October. No date has been set, though today’s order suggested judges would hear the case by April.

Southern Co., EME Homer City Generation LP, a unit of Edison International, and Energy Future Holdings Corp. units in Texas are among the power companies challenging the rule. They claim the new regulation puts ‘an undue financial burden’ on power producers and in forcing older plants to close will risk reducing grid reliability. The state of Texas, the national Mining Association and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have joined in a parallel case.

The EPA remains steadfast on implementation though. “The court’s decision is not a decision on the merits of the rule and EPA firmly believes that when the court does weigh the merits of the rule it will ultimately be upheld,” Betsaida Alcantara, an EPA spokeswoman has said.

Henry Eisenberg, counsel with the environmental department of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP says, “it is highly unlikely that the cross-states rules will take effect in 2012, even if the EPA ends up winning the court case”.