As reported by Platts, on October 21st the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asked whether the parties involved in the lawsuits that led to vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) want the entire rule to be thrown out or to be kept in place until U.S. EPA revises the rule.
The US
I mentioned in my post discussing LADCO air quality meeting that I would put up the most relevant slides or graphics from all the presentation over the two days in Chicago. I think I can pretty much boil it down to two slides.
This slide was put together by U.S. EPA when meeting to discuss their
I participated today in a Midwest Air Quality Workshop in Chicago. At the workshop, Bill Harnett from U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Strategy (OAQPS) gave an interesting presentation regarding U.S. EPA’s reaction to the vacatur of CAIR by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Here are a couple of the key issues
On September 24, 2008 U.S EPA filed its petition to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing En Banc on the vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). While focus may be on EPA’s request for rehearing, a significant concession was made in EPA’s brief that has major implications regardless of whether rehearing is granted.
As reported on CNN, the Senate is debating how or whether to legislatively restore the CAIR program that was struck down in Court. EPA still has a week or so to decide whether to appeal, but all bets are that Congress needs to act in order to save the program.
The game of chicken centers around
As reported in Platts, the Court of Appeals has granted US EPA until September 24th to determine whether to pursue rehearing of the ruling that struck down the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced
….it was giving EPA more time to file any
.gif)
Yesterday, U.S. EPA announced its proposed non-attainment designations for counties not meeting the new P.M. 2.5 (fine particle) pollution standard. Ohio was second only to California in total counties designated non-attainment with 28 total counties.
A county’s designation as non-attainment makes economic development efforts more difficult and increases competitive pressure on existing businesses. The
The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a timely hearing on the effect of the Court of Appeals decision vacating CAIR. There was testimony from US EPA, State, Utilities and one Environmental Group.
The Senators and all who testified agreed on certain items:
In my prior posts on CAIR, I analyzed the real world impacts of the Court’s decision to vacate the program. In my final post on CAIR, I highlight some of the legal implications from the Court’s decision on business and policy makers. This is not meant to be a legal brief for lawyers, but rather
In my previous post on the CAIR decision, I discussed the environmental and practical ramifications of the Court’s decision vacating the program. While speaking at a large permitting seminar for manufacturer’s, I had a chance to discuss the conclusions of my prior post with some State officials. While I was correct that the CAIR decision complicates