Court stays EPA haze plan for Wyo.

by Environment & Energy News September 10, 2014September 22, 2021

Court stays EPA haze plan for Wyo.

By Amanda Peterka, E&E reporter
— September 10, 2014

(Contact E&E for republication permissions.)

Steam rises from smokestacks at the Wyodak power complex outside Gillette, Wyoming. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

A federal court has halted U.S. EPA’s plan to curb haze-causing pollution in Wyoming until legal challenges by the state and industry are resolved.

Wyoming had proposed less stringent and cheaper pollution control technologies at five coal-fired power units in a plan to reduce nitrogen oxides linked to regional haze. In its lawsuit, the state argues that EPA acted arbitrarily when the agency earlier this year rejected the 2011 plan for those five units because of technical errors and replaced it with a more expensive federal plan (Greenwire, Sept. 5).

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday granted the state’s request to stay the federal plan over opposition by environmental groups.

The court said it based its decision on the likelihood that the challenges to EPA’s plan will be successful and that the parties in the lawsuit would be harmed absent a stay. The court also granted requests by Basin Electric Power Cooperative and PacifiCorp to extend the deadline for compliance at four of the units for the duration of the stay.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) applauded the court’s decision in a statement yesterday.

“Wyoming has a solid and effective plan. The rejection of Wyoming’s plan by the EPA was wrong,” Mead said. “This decision sends a message to the federal government and affirms Wyoming’s leadership in these important areas.”

Although nitrogen oxides contribute less to haze pollution than sulfur dioxide and particulate matter in Wyoming, they are ingredients in the formation of haze at Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.

Environmental groups have argued that EPA’s plan is too weak and have asked the court to compel the agency to write a plan requiring more stringent emissions controls.

“Under the final rule, Wyoming will not make reasonable progress toward eliminating its contribution to human-caused haze pollution,” said the Powder River Basin Resource Council, National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club in an August court filing.

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for:

Your real name — first and last.
Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
No more than three comments per story, including replies.

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
Comments that are not directly relevant to the article.
Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know:

Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement.
We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance.
Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you.