Below are some news stories around the nation relating to climate change and the environment:

• California announced yesterday that it filed a lawsuit against the Bush Administration over changes it made to the Endangered Species Act. The new rules apply to federal agencies that approve projects on land owned or regulated by the federal government. Under the new regulations, mandated independent scientific review of federal agency plans are eliminated if the agency determines that the project poses no threat to protected species.  The rules also remove the requirement to consider the effects of greenhouse gases on protected species and their habitat.
• The Washington Post has an in-depth article discussing California’s rising power over national energy and environmental policy. Specifically, the article discusses the replacement of Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) as the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees climate change legislation. Waxman took on Dingell because he believed that Dingell — who represents Detroit automakers — was too protective of the auto industry.  The article also notes President-elect Barack Obama’s new energy and environmental cabinet nominees, who hail from California and have strong green credentials.  
• Finally, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. is seeking to build two coal-fired power plants in Kansas after having its previous permit applications denied by the governor of that state, Kathleen Sebelius, due to concerns with climate change. A similar issue surfaced in Wisconsin last month when the Public Service Commission rejected a coal-fired power plant in Cassville due to concerns with the plant’s carbon emissions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today reversed its earlier decision that struck down the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and reinstated the rule until the EPA drafts new regulations.

In 2005 the EPA issued CAIR, which established an emissions trading program to control nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from power plants in 28 states.  The rule was challenged by the state of North Carolina and a number of electric utility companies.

In its July 2008 decision, the court vacated the regulation ruling that EPA’s method for allocating emissions allowances for upwind states and its interpretation of protections for downwind states violated the Clean Air Act. (North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).

Shortly after the court’s decision the EPA and most of the opposing parties petitioned the court for a rehearing.  As a result of this extraordinary position, the court requested that the parties address whether any party wanted the court’s vacatur decision to stand.  In addition, the court asked the parties whether the court should stay a mandate implementing its decision until EPA issued a revised rule. 

In its opinion today reversing its prior decision, the court ruled:

Having considered the parties’ respective positions with respect to the remedy in this case, the court hereby grants EPA’s petition only to the extent that we will remand the case without vacatur for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion.

The court’s decision today has ramifications throughout the country, including Wisconsin.  The court’s previous decision vacating CAIR had caused uncertainty, leaving many companies unsure of how much they should invest in emissions controls. While today’s decision provides some short-term certainty, Scott Segal, a electric utility lobbyist, told Greenwire that the opinion “still left significant uncertainty about the future fate of the rule.”

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson issued a memorandum late last week that set an agency-wide policy prohibiting controls on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from being included in air pollution permits for coal-fired power plants and other facilities.

The memo was written in response to a decision by the Environmental Appeals Board – an EPA panel – that had denied construction of a new coal-fired power plant on the site of an existing plant in Utah.  The EPA originally granted the permit in 2007, but that decision was appealed by the Sierra Club.

According to Mr. Johnson, “The current concerns over global climate change should not drive E.P.A. into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls” in cases dealing with coal-fired plants.

Environmentalists argue that the EPA’s decision runs counter to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year where it ruled that the agency could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

While environmental groups criticized the new policy, a former E.P.A. official claims that it could actually help the incoming Obama administration in regulating greenhouse gases.  In comments to the New York Times, Jeff Holmstead, who now works for the Electrical Liability Coordinating Council, said, “I think if you’re Lisa Jackson [President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for EPA Administrator] you have to be pretty grateful. She has the opportunity to go through a rule-making and see how to deal” with the issue. 

However, environmental groups argue that the EPA’s decision will mean a number of new coal plants will be permitted without the EPA having to take into consideration greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States EPA Administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, today issued a letter to Gov. Jim Doyle outlining the agency’s decision to designate six Wisconsin counties as PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several types of air pollutants.  One of those air pollutants is fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, which is a mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. 

In September 2006 the EPA strengthened the 24-hour fine particulate standard. The agency lowered the standard by 50 percent, from 65 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter.  As result of the new standard, the EPA required states to submit a list of nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified areas to the EPA.

In a letter dated October 20, 2008, Gov. Jim Doyle requested that the EPA not designate any Wisconsin counties as failing to meet the PM2.5 standard. In his letter, Gov. Doyle explained that Wisconsin had taken a number of measures to greatly reduce the pollutant, including implementing the Mercury Multipollutant rule. 

The Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and Wisconsin Economic Development Association also sent letters to the EPA explaining why no Wisconsin counties should be designated as nonattainment status. 

Despite the Doyle administrations’ request, the EPA decided to designate six Wisconsin counties as nonattainment areas: Brown, Columbia, Dane, Milwaukee, Racine, and Waukesha.  According to the EPA, the designations were based on air quality monitoring data for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. The designations take effect 90 days after the Federal Register notice, most likely in April, 2009. 

As a result of the new designations, new businesses and power plants will have to install more expensive pollution controls and meet more rigorous permitting requirements.

Welcome to the Hamilton Blog, a new blog hosted by The Hamilton Consulting Group, a government relations firm in Madison, Wisconsin.

The Hamilton Blog will provide up-to-date information regarding Wisconsin legislation, regulations, politics, legal cases, and news. Because policies that affect Wisconsin citizens do not just occur in Madison, the Hamilton Blog will also provide timely information regarding regulations and laws that are enacted and promulgated in Washington, D.C.

Thanks for your interest in the Hamilton Blog. We look forward to providing insightful analysis of the policies, regulations, and news taking place in Wisconsin and the nation’s capital.