Archive for Monday, September 19, 2011

Kansas attorney general sues to stop EPA air pollution rule

September 19, 2011


— Attorney General Derek Schmidt on Monday filed a federal lawsuit to block new EPA air pollution regulations.

Schmidt said the regulations will require Kansas utilities to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in new emissions control equipment by Jan. 1.

“It will be physically impossible for all of our utilities to comply, which means that either Kansans will be paying higher rates to buy out-of-state electricity or there simply will not be enough electricity to meet Kansas demand after the first of the year,” he said.

EPA says the Cross-State Air Pollution rule is needed to prevent air pollution from power plants from contributing to air-quality and health problems in other states.


Crazy_Larry 6 years, 9 months ago

Has anyone told that dipstick Derek Schmidt about this: Sept. 2, 2011 Obama Administration Abandons Stricter Air-Quality Rules.

Free Speech for the Dumb

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 9 months ago

Should be an easy case to win, Derek. Congratulations, you got your name in the newspaper.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 9 months ago

Really earning that government paycheck aren't you, Derek.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 9 months ago

We've obviously got the cream of the crop working for us...not!

Herbert3rd 6 years, 9 months ago

Didn't the Kansas Legislature just approve KCPL Rate increases????

Brock Masters 6 years, 9 months ago

Is responding to one's own posts like talking to yourself? Just asking :)

Uhjh 6 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

IceBlue 6 years, 9 months ago

Crazy_Larry: Perhaps Mr. Schmidt learned how to research while earning his law degree. It is apparent that you have not. I'll show you an article from your own source, the NYTimes, from just 1 day later:

ralphralph 6 years, 9 months ago

You mean the part where is says,

"But the controversial “cross-state air pollution” rule, which aims at reducing emissions from power plants in Texas and 26 other states, remains scheduled to go into effect in January."


Crazy_Larry 6 years, 9 months ago

Well, that's just dickered...I poligize.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) deals with particulate, NOx and SOx. The power companies have been 'controlling' these pollutants for years and years. The rule will reduce fine particle and ozone air pollution, saving lives, preventing illnesses, creating jobs, and protecting communities. But, we the state of kansas doesn't care about that...we just need to corporation to make a profit and the CEO to receive a bonus on top of his/her outrageous salary...because, corporations are people too. Special people. People who live on forever...people who have no concious...people who take no responsibility....people who have no emotion....people who're psychotic... You go Derek. Waste our taxes on protecting these special people.

"This rule replaces EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). A December 2008 court decision kept the requirements of CAIR in place temporarily but directed EPA to issue a new rule to implement Clean Air Act requirements concerning the transport of air pollution across state boundaries. This action responds to the court's concerns."

The Cross-State Air-Pollution Rule has been in the works for 15 years. It's nothing new. Just like tree trimming, the power companies shoulda, coulda, woulda, been prepared for it. Go to Westar's web-site and see if you can report or request a tree be cut near a powerline. It's the power companies who should be suing the EPA and not the state wasting our tax dollars on beahalf of the power companies. Seems that the KAG cares more for the corporation than the health of Kansasans. Imagine that.
Nationalize the power companies and the problem will be solved.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 9 months ago

Bunch of balderdash, Derek. Should change his name to Richard.

easyliving 6 years, 9 months ago

I thought this kind of stuff only happened to abortion clinics in Kansas?

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

Why in the middle of this sluggish economy the Obama administration would put additional impediments in the way of economic growth in the manufacturing sector is beyond comprehension. Remember the greenhouse gas emissions from this nation have already been reduced substantially by reduced economic output one can only wonder whether Obama is planning to make that permanent!~ we need some new leadership!

Joseph Jarvis 6 years, 9 months ago

@kansanjayhawk: The cross-state rule isn't about CO2. It's aimed at pollutants such as particulate matter (soot), ozone, and NOx. These injure directly, not indirectly through climate change.

And the rule doesn't come from the Obama administration. It comes from EPA's duties under the Clean Air Act, which are congressionally mandated.

There are legitimate cost-benefit concerns about environmental regulations. But I get frustrated when critics ignore the public health benefits. What good is a job to someone who dies prematurely?

jayhawxrok 6 years, 9 months ago

They knew this was coming and had time to prepare, they make enough money to afford to build cleaner plants. It's crazy and irresponsible to want to turn back the clock so our air looks like Bejing's.

Peacemaker452 6 years, 9 months ago

Wow, you managed to cram three completely ignorant, baseless statements into one. Great job.

blogme 6 years, 9 months ago

In case you don't know anything about China, our air quality as it exists today with company's following the existing EPA regs doesn't look anything like China's. Remember the Olympics in 2008? Beijing restricted routes vehicles could drive and forced vacations of workers to lower demand and output of power plants polluting:

When was the last time the Lawrence power plant ( supposed to be one of the most polluting ) shutdown for a KU football / baseball game because it was soooooo bad? Wise up. Just because the screw isn't being turned every year doesn't mean that we haven't made progress in cleaning up the air. I'll take what we have instead of rolling blackouts or ridiculous energy prices.

I agree kansanjayhawk: We need new leadership. Anyone that can't see the correlation between regulation and it's impact on business should not be making public policy.

ralphralph 6 years, 9 months ago

The goal is to push even more manufacturing and energy production to Asia, where there are drastically fewer restrictions on emissions (not to mention child labor, oppressive dictatorship, and other little, non-environmental issues).

It's working.

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

The EPA doesn't exist in order to make businesses happy or make their lives easier.

It exists to protect the environment - hence the name - environmental protection agency.

Joseph Jarvis 6 years, 9 months ago

@jafs: Re. name, I've often thought EPA was misnamed. It's really the Human Health Protection Agency. And human health has a lot to do with business and making life easier, but that's lost on many...

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

That's a good point.

It's pretty sad, though, that people can't make the simple and obvious connection between a healthy environment and human health.

Also, I'm glad to protect the other species living on the planet as well.

Herbert3rd 6 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 9 months ago

Cough, cough! We don't need no stinking clean air regulations. I'm waiting for the pundits to tell us which regulations they really want to get rid of. Perhaps this is a place to start. The bug parts and mouse droppings in manufactured food are sterile. What are we worrying about? === "Adulteration of Food: 'Adulteration' is a legal term meaning that a food product fails to meet federal or state standards. Adulteration usually refers to noncompliance with health or safety standards as determined, in the United States, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Definition of Adulterated Food The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act (1938) provides that food is "adulterated" if it meets any one of the following criteria: (1) it bears or contains any "poisonous or deleterious substance" which may render it injurious to health; (2) it bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance (other than a pesticide residue, food additive, color additive, or new animal drug, which are covered by separate provisions) that is unsafe; (3) its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health; or (4) it bears or contains a pesticide chemical residue that is unsafe. (Note: The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in foods, which are enforced by the FDA.)

Food also meets the definition of adulteration if: (5) it is, or it bears or contains, an unsafe food additive; (6) it is, or it bears or contains, an unsafe new animal drug; (7) it is, or it bears or contains, an unsafe color additive; (8) it consists, in whole or in part, of "any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance" or is otherwise unfit for food; or (9) it has been prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions (insect, rodent, or bird infestation) whereby it may have become contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health."
Note the 1938 date, back when the gummint started paying attention.

tbaker 6 years, 9 months ago

Before the EPA, if you polluted something and harmed someone, you were held liable for the damages you caused. Now the EPA allows a certain amount of pollution, if you pollute, you cannot be held responsible. This has taken YOUR liberty away from you. The EPA enables pollution. It is one of many federal government agencies that need to be closed.

Joseph Jarvis 6 years, 9 months ago

@tbaker: Your proposal is unworkable because most environmental problems are epidemiological in nature.

Hypothetical: Air pollution causes you to have a heart attack at 55 instead of 60. How does your spouse know pollution was the cause? Which smokestack do they sue?

tolawdjk 6 years, 9 months ago

If the person you harmed had the resources to gather the evidence, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was -you- and not your neighbor that harmed him, and lived long enough to take you to court.

Please point to a pre-EPA court case where an individual was held responsible for pollution they created?

tbaker 6 years, 9 months ago

At issue is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a case filed by environmental groups and eight states against midwestern utility companies. Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin claimed the power companies’ contributions to climate change made them a public nuisance, and asked courts to cap their emissions.

The case was filed before the Environmental Protection Agency’s right to regulate greenhouse gases was established, and represents an attempt by citizens to control greenhouse gases in the absence of federal mandates. As described in a previous Climate Desk story on American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the case is grounded in a century-long tradition of communities holding big polluters responsible for damaging public health.

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

And, what was the outcome of the trial?

And, why is it a meaningful difference if the courts cap the emissions rather than the EPA?

MattyPro12 6 years, 9 months ago

So the state does this same thing to abortion clinics and they have no problems with it.

The Federal Goverment imposes new regulations and they get their panties in a bunch.

Go figure.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 9 months ago

tbaker: Perhaps, and there is some truth to what you say. Would you eliminate the Food and Drug Administration too? Just curious. After your kid dies from the polluted food or water, you can always sue the company who made it or the water plant.

blindrabbit 6 years, 9 months ago

The A.G.'s of the States in the "downwind" transport area ought to get ready to sue Kansas. The crap we generate affects Kansans but what about those States downwind; remember weather move primarily from West to East. As a precedence for this, didn't Kansas win a similar kind of lawsuit against Colorado for draining rivers flowing into Kansas

What is even more ironic about this whole story is the KW's generated at the Holcomb facility will not be consumed in Kansas, but Colorado and Oklahoma! Kansas gains the advantage of increasing our air pollutants, including SOX, CO2, Particulates and Mercury, as well as pumping down our already depleting aquifer. Seems like perfect Kansas logic to me!

Paul R Getto 6 years, 9 months ago

BR: By golly, I think you are starting to figure it out. "We don't need no stinking regulations." Just ask Muscular Sam and his weird little jesus. Wonder when the 'repealer' will build up a head of steam and what will be repealed?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.