Abstract
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act oblige utilities building new coal-fired power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO/sub 2/) emissions from coal combustion to that level achievable through application of the best available control technology (BACT). Since the passage of the 1977 amendments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been embroiled in a hotly contested argument between the coal industry, utilities, and other coal advocates on the one hand, and environmentalists on the other, concerning the extent of emission control that utilities should be required to achieve. This article examines whether one of EPA's actions pursuant to the 1977 amendments can be justified in light of Congress' twin concerns of reduced emissions and increased citizen involvement in air pollution regulation. The article begins with a discussion of the Clean Air Act strategy for new stationary sources. Second, congressional concern over deleterious health and other environmental impacts of coal's principal air pollutants is treated. A third section chronicles the events leading to EPA's promulgation of the final standard, relating the growing national concern with energy regulations to the rulemaking outcome. Fourth, the article analyzes EPA's setting of the revised standard, including the Agency's denial of the request for reconsiderationmore » of the revised standard. The final section relates the defects in the Agency's procedures to the substantive defects in the revised standard.« less
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.