考研阅读精选：空气质量监管 不会很快见效

考研网

『关于发电厂空气排放的新规定引来了一系列法律诉讼。』

Air-quality regulations：Don’t hold your breath
空气质量监管：不会很快见效
Oct 15, 2011 | From The Economist

  THERE is nothing like a broad new federal regulation to make Jarndyce  and Jarndyce seem like a simple dispute over a traffic ticket. As of  October 11th no fewer than 36 separate entities—states, cities, power  companies, trade associations—had petitioned the United States Court of  Appeals for the DC Circuit to review or stop the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing the Cross-State Air Pollution  Rule (CSAPR). Eight entities have intervened on the EPA’s behalf. More  could jump into the fray in the next month.
The rule at the  centre of this scrum requires power plants in 28 states—everything from  Texas eastwards, except Delaware and the six New England states, and  including Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas—to reduce emissions that  contribute to ozone and fine-particle pollution in other states. (Other  states’ emissions do not have enough of an effect on air-quality in  neighbouring states to trigger a reduction.) The rule is scheduled to  take effect from January 1st 2012. By 2014 these states’ sulphur-dioxide  emissions must be 27% of what they were in 2005, while nitrogen-oxide  levels must fall to 46% of their 2005 levels.
CSAPR replaces  the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), issued in March 2005, and also the  subject of lengthy litigation before the same court, which found in it  “more than several fatal flaws”. The court left CAIR’s provisions in  place, but ordered the EPA to come up with a better rule: hence CSAPR.  The EPA claims that by 2014 CSAPR will prevent 13,000-34,000  pollution-related premature deaths, and yield between $120 billion and  $280 billion in health and environmental benefits annually. Those  benefits, the EPA insists, outweigh the costs of implementation; though  there may be rate changes for consumers, these should be “well within  the range of normal electricity price fluctuations”.
Others  take a less sanguine view. Sam Olens, Georgia’s attorney-general, says  that by setting up federal implementation plans for states to follow,  rather than simply setting pollution targets and letting states come up  with their own plans, CSAPR usurps state authority. Georgia’s petition  also claims the EPA’s models contain errors that exaggerate the state’s  emissions and force it to cut too much. Mr Olens also worries that  customers’ electricity bills could jump by up to 20%, and that the  regulation could cost jobs if utilities are forced to close power  plants.
Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, shares that last  concern, telling Barack Obama in a letter that CSAPR “will have an  immediate and devastating effect on Texas jobs, our economy and our  ability to supply the electricity our citizens, schools and employers  need.” Texas filed its suit on September 21st, 12 days after Luminant, a  Dallas-based power company, did the same, saying that it will have to  idle some of its coal-fired units and may stop mining lignite coal in  the state.
In all, 15 states have so far petitioned for  review of CSAPR in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. All of them  have Republican governors. Such partisanship is not unusual. In 2008, 18  states sued George Bush’s EPA for failing adequately to regulate carbon  dioxide; all but five of those states were governed by Democrats.
  Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the states’ worries as partisan  sniping; CSAPR is not cost-free. Sometime, several months from now, the  states will get their day in court. Several months after that will come a  ruling that may settle the matter. Or it may set in motion another even  more lengthy process of federal rule-making. Unfortunately, lawyers’  breath is not yet an EPA-regulated pollutant. (592 words)
文章地址：http://www.economist.com.hk/node/21532309