The important quest to protect health and the environment from interstate air pollution

EM: Air and Waste Management Association's Magazine for Environmental Managers

Volumn , Issue DEC., 2008, Pages 14-16

  Patton, Vickie ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149386294     PISSN: 10889981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Trade Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 2 into Georgia).
2. See Clean Air Act, Pub. L. No. 88-206, §5, 77 Stat. 392, 396-99 (1963);
3. Hon. Edmund S. Muskie, Role of the Federal Government in Air Pollution Control, 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 17, 18 (1968);
4. Sidney Edelman, Air Pollution Abatement Procedures Under the Clean Air Act, 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 30 (1968).
5. See Vickie Patton, The New Air Quality Standards, Regional Haze, and Interstate Air Pollution Transport, 28 ELR 10155 (April 1998) (tracing the history of interstate air pollution abatement requirements under federal law).
6. See Richard L. Revesz, Federalism and Interstate Environmental Externalities, 144 U. PA. L. REV. 2341 (1996).
7. See, for example, New York vs. U.S. EPA, 852 F.2d 574, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (R.B. Ginsburg, J., concurring) ("As counsel for the EPA acknowledged at oral argument, the EPA has taken no action against sources of interstate air pollution under either §126(b) or §110(a) (2) (E) in the decade-plus since those provisions were enacted."), cert. denied;
8. Maine vs. U.S. EPA, 489 U.S. 1065 (1989).
9. See also, for example, New York vs. U.S. EPA, 716 F.2d 440 (7th Cir. 1983) (rejecting New York's challenge to EPA's approval of Illinois SIP revision relaxing SO2 emission limitation for Kincaid power plant);
10. 2 emission limitation for Kinston power plant);
11. Connecticut Fund for the Env't, Inc. vs. U.S. EPA, 696 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1982) (rejecting challenge to Connecticut SIP revision relaxing the limit on the sulfur content in fuel oil);
12. Connecticut vs. U.S. EPA, 696 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1982) (rejecting Connecticut's challenge to EPA's approval of New York SIP revision allowing five units at two power plants to burn high sulfur fuel);
13. Connecticut vs. U.S. EPA, 656 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1981) (rejecting Connecticut and New Jersey's challenge to EPA's approval of New York SIP revision allowing one year test burn of higher sulfur fuel at tow power plants);
14. 2 emissions from the Gallagher power plant in southern Indiana);
15. 2 emissions from Midwestern power plants).
16. North Carolina vs. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, n. 1 (D.C. Cir. July 11, 2008).
17. See Letter from Sens. Carper, Alexander, Sanders and Gregg, to Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn (August 12, 2008).