EPA best advised to honor Wyoming regional haze plan

2013-07-26T05:00:00Z 2013-07-27T15:22:11Z EPA best advised to honor Wyoming regional haze planCASPER STAR-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD Casper Star-Tribune Online

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to step up Wyoming’s regional haze management plan fails to balance real-world economics with sound clean-air strategies.

The state of Wyoming, utilities and the energy industry support reasonable air pollution control measures. And they have been, and are willing to continue, investing in such measures. However, during a recent public hearing in Cheyenne conducted by EPA officials, Gov. Matt Mead said the agency’s plan would additionally cost utilities more than $1 billion to improve and retrofit coal-fired power plants with pollution control devices, and an additional

$100 million a year after that to maintain clean air standards that only marginally improve on what Wyoming’s proposal would do.

The EPA plan adopts some Wyoming strategies but rejects parts as inadequate. It has proposed changes while seeking to reduce haze in national parks and wilderness areas by further limiting air pollution from the coal-fired plants in the state.

Trouble is, state officials and power company executives were correct when they pointed out during the Cheyenne hearing that much of Wyoming’s visibility problems in such areas can be attributed to forest fires.

Everyone wants to see less air pollution. As a result, ratepayers face a hike no matter what. The question is, why not a gradual increase instead of a pocketbook-busting spike?

One detail best sums up the feds’ inability to act in a sensible manner: Wyoming’s plan, among other things, requires PacifiCorp to install nitrogen oxide controls on four units at its Jim Bridger plant near Rock Springs in 2015, 2016, 2021 and 2022. The EPA is calling for the process to be completed by the fall of 2017.

“I can’t think of a worse way to hurt those who are lower income or middle income and to make no difference,” Mead said during his testimony. “We are not talking about a health standard here, we’re talking about a visibility standard.”

Wyoming’s strategy was based on studies using scientific formulas provided by the EPA, federal pressure on several states to address the Clean Air Act and the need to implement pollution-control measures that wouldn’t rock an already fragile coal economy. The state produces 40 percent of the nation’s coal.

In addition to the quicker Jim Bridger timeline, the EPA wants PacifiCorp to install additional emissions control equipment at its Wyodak plant near Gillette and its Dave Johnston plant near Glenrock.

Last year, though, the utility installed emissions controls at its Naughton power plant near Kemmerer and has agreed to convert one Naughton unit to natural gas, as requested by the state.

Meanwhile, state officials recently announced Wyoming is one of 12 states that will sue the EPA to force the release of agency records related to some lawsuits by environmental groups, according to The Associated Press.

The suits seek to show the EPA cooperated with environmental groups through a process known as “sue and settle” to impose new or tougher environmental regulations.

Sue and settle reportedly occurs when an organization files a lawsuit against an agency for missing a deadline for issuing a rule or properly administering a regulation. Agencies can choose to defend themselves or settle with the petitioner.

Interestingly, the EPA adopted its more stringent Wyoming haze management plan after entering a consent decree with WildEarth Guardians, which had filed a lawsuit in Colorado.

In other words, the EPA didn’t initially do its job, Wyoming took action on its own, then the agency became heavy-handed.

That is not only unsound policy, it’s reckless.

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(1) Comments

  1. Cody Coyote
    Report Abuse
    Cody Coyote - July 28, 2013 4:03 pm
    Respectfully, the Federal Appeals Court just handed your your gluteus max on this, the day after you posted it. The three judge panel in D.C. shot down Wyoming and Texas's suit to allow states to supersede the EPA in controlling greenhouse gas emissions , basically saying the states must enforce emission standards set by EPA. So there.

    Wyoming and Texas attempted the ludicrous assertion that they weren't given enough time to comply with the Supreme Court decision during Bush-Cheney that upheld the EPA's right to set standards. This aint state's rights ever. Never mind the Clean air act dates to 1973, Wyoming and Texas had no intention of complying. So now Matt Mead, his counterpart in Texas, and the shortminded carbon belching members of the CST editorial board can now grasp their own glutes while reality slowly sinks in...

    We who do not live in the ( formerly ) Oil City of Casper get mighty tired of the drone out of the CST that all there is to Life is carbon-based moneygrubbing.
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at editors@trib.com, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Activate subscription button gif

Featured Businesses

Deals, Offers and Events