The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately withdraw final regulations that would dramatically expand the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.
Advertisement
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi called EPA’s invalidation of state air quality plans a “heavy-handed federal overreach” that threatens to disrupt the state’s energy system and raise rates.
He and other state attorneys general have asked EPA to delay that new regulation pending a legal review, but EPA has not committed to do so.
Seventeen states are challenging U.S. EPA’s recent rule that changed the way states are required to address excess air pollution that occurs during plant startups and shutdowns or industrial equipment malfunctions. “Furthermore, the agency’s action could result in higher utility bills for Florida consumers”. In June the EPA issued a final rule requiring 36 states, including Kansas, to revise their individual State Implementation Plans governing carbon emissions during power plant startup, shutdown or malfunction. The rule came after the agency agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club, according to the release.
EPA has said the decision to eliminate affirmative defense from state plans was also in response to a ruling last year by the D.C. Circuit that found the agency lacked authority to grant cement kilns an affirmative defense for pollution violations occurring during malfunctions (Greenwire, October 16, 2014). The adoption and adherence to Florida’s SIP has helped to tremendously and measurably improve the state’s air quality.
“Once again, the EPA is choosing to put the political interests of the Sierra Club ahead of Arkansans”, said Attorney General Rutledge. “In yet another “sue and settle” case, the EPA is rushing to appease the interests of the Sierra Club”.
“But it is absolutely scandalous that EPA disregarded the objections of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which expressed strong concerns that the rule was arbitrarily written, is legally indefensible and would be extremely hard to implement”, he added.
Advertisement
While the Supreme Court rejected portions of the MATS rule in June, on the logic that EPA had failed to do a cost-benefit analysis before writing the rules to show they were necessary, regulators say there is no question the emissions limits provide substantial benefit.
