cheferson
12-02-2008, 08:10 AM
High court weighs power plant costs vs. protecting fish
7:35 AM Tue, Dec 02, 2008 | Permalink
Maria Armental Email
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Environmentalists and electricity producers square off this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court over the use of billions of gallons of water to cool power plants and whether enough is being done to protect fish and aquatic organisms.
Rhode Island is among six states that have joined environmental groups in the case.
At the heart of the fight is whether a federal law protecting fish, their eggs and larvae from water intake systems allows the government to exempt 554 older power plants from installing the same safeguards as new plants because of the cost.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argues that the Clean Water Act allows it to balance the cost of the technology with the value of the fishery.
Environmental groups, joined by the states, won the first round in January 2007 when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Clean Water Act does not allow cost to be used when deciding what technology would best minimize environmental impacts.
The Bush administration and power plant operators, which lost before the New York-based appeals court, want the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
-- With staff reports
Lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency and the power companies argue that the law doesn't specifically require that the government select technology based solely on the benefits to the environment.
"It is not a job for EPA to rewrite the Clean Water Act based on the lame-duck policies of an outgoing President, and to engage in acts of corporate welfare in the process," said Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, whose state is part of the coalition fighting the case. "It is EPA's job to protect the environment according to the directives of Congress and for the benefit of all Americans."
The outcome could determine whether existing power plants need to make costly upgrades to reduce the number of fish and aquatic organisms trapped in their cooling systems.
The nation's power plants draw billions of gallons of water from rivers and other waterways each year to cool their facilities. But the flow of water can smash fish against grills and screens and smaller aquatic organisms can get sucked into the system itself.
All new power plants are required to use closed-cycle cooling systems, a technology that uses less water and results in fewer fish being killed.
In July 2004, citing the cost of the equipment, the EPA decided not to require existing power plants that draw 50 million gallons per day or more to use the same technology.
Instead, the older power plants can choose from a range of less expensive options to reduce the number of fish and other organisms trapped by the cooling systems.
Following the oral arguments, Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy organization, and the six states -- Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York -- will hold a press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court. The conference has been scheduled for 11:15 a.m.
Speakers will include Rhode Island Special Assistant Attorney General Tricia O'Hare Jedele, who is counsel of record for the states, and noted appellate lawyer Richard Lazarus, who is arguing the case for the six attorneys general and Riverkeeper.
7:35 AM Tue, Dec 02, 2008 | Permalink
Maria Armental Email
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Environmentalists and electricity producers square off this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court over the use of billions of gallons of water to cool power plants and whether enough is being done to protect fish and aquatic organisms.
Rhode Island is among six states that have joined environmental groups in the case.
At the heart of the fight is whether a federal law protecting fish, their eggs and larvae from water intake systems allows the government to exempt 554 older power plants from installing the same safeguards as new plants because of the cost.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argues that the Clean Water Act allows it to balance the cost of the technology with the value of the fishery.
Environmental groups, joined by the states, won the first round in January 2007 when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Clean Water Act does not allow cost to be used when deciding what technology would best minimize environmental impacts.
The Bush administration and power plant operators, which lost before the New York-based appeals court, want the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
-- With staff reports
Lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency and the power companies argue that the law doesn't specifically require that the government select technology based solely on the benefits to the environment.
"It is not a job for EPA to rewrite the Clean Water Act based on the lame-duck policies of an outgoing President, and to engage in acts of corporate welfare in the process," said Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, whose state is part of the coalition fighting the case. "It is EPA's job to protect the environment according to the directives of Congress and for the benefit of all Americans."
The outcome could determine whether existing power plants need to make costly upgrades to reduce the number of fish and aquatic organisms trapped in their cooling systems.
The nation's power plants draw billions of gallons of water from rivers and other waterways each year to cool their facilities. But the flow of water can smash fish against grills and screens and smaller aquatic organisms can get sucked into the system itself.
All new power plants are required to use closed-cycle cooling systems, a technology that uses less water and results in fewer fish being killed.
In July 2004, citing the cost of the equipment, the EPA decided not to require existing power plants that draw 50 million gallons per day or more to use the same technology.
Instead, the older power plants can choose from a range of less expensive options to reduce the number of fish and other organisms trapped by the cooling systems.
Following the oral arguments, Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy organization, and the six states -- Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York -- will hold a press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court. The conference has been scheduled for 11:15 a.m.
Speakers will include Rhode Island Special Assistant Attorney General Tricia O'Hare Jedele, who is counsel of record for the states, and noted appellate lawyer Richard Lazarus, who is arguing the case for the six attorneys general and Riverkeeper.