backhoeboogie
Well-known member
We are coming up on an election year. Is Obummer going to back off his EPA dogs and allow natural gas power plants to operate under legal regulations?
Here is the latest and it is opinionated FOR power generation. Just an update we get.
CSAPR Legal Update
Oral arguments were completed April 13 with the three judges who will decide the case hearing from all parties involved. The industry petitioners were represented by Peter Keisler, a partner with Sidley Austin LLP. His presentation focused on these key arguments:
• The EPA's method for determining emissions budgets was arbitrary, resulting in budgets that are riddled with errors and that require emissions reductions that exceed EPA's authority.
• It was unlawful for the EPA to rely on modeled projections of future air quality, instead of real-world monitored air quality – especially when the EPA's projections predict that air quality will be worse after the significant emissions reductions required by CSAPR are implemented than if no emissions reductions were required under CSAPR or CAIR.
While we cannot predict the outcome of the hearing, there are three likely rulings that could be handed down:
• The court could affirm, or uphold, CSAPR.
• The court could invalidate, or dismiss, CSAPR.
• The court could remand CSAPR, which means the rule would be sent back to the EPA with guidance for revisions.
There is no deadline for the court to issue a final decision on CSAPR; however, a decision is expected between May and December, but most likely over the summer.
Here is the latest and it is opinionated FOR power generation. Just an update we get.
CSAPR Legal Update
Oral arguments were completed April 13 with the three judges who will decide the case hearing from all parties involved. The industry petitioners were represented by Peter Keisler, a partner with Sidley Austin LLP. His presentation focused on these key arguments:
• The EPA's method for determining emissions budgets was arbitrary, resulting in budgets that are riddled with errors and that require emissions reductions that exceed EPA's authority.
• It was unlawful for the EPA to rely on modeled projections of future air quality, instead of real-world monitored air quality – especially when the EPA's projections predict that air quality will be worse after the significant emissions reductions required by CSAPR are implemented than if no emissions reductions were required under CSAPR or CAIR.
While we cannot predict the outcome of the hearing, there are three likely rulings that could be handed down:
• The court could affirm, or uphold, CSAPR.
• The court could invalidate, or dismiss, CSAPR.
• The court could remand CSAPR, which means the rule would be sent back to the EPA with guidance for revisions.
There is no deadline for the court to issue a final decision on CSAPR; however, a decision is expected between May and December, but most likely over the summer.
