In a month-long trial in June of 2003, Illinois Power’s lawyers tried to convince U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan that the Baldwin plant’s upgrades didn’t trigger the more stringent air quality standards. They also argued that the company had significantly reduced emissions at the Baldwin plant since the case was filed in 1999 by switching to low-sulfur coal.
I added the bold.
The administration tries to sell Clear Skies as a way to avoid expensive command and control mandates, but then says the same expensive technology will be incorporated. There’s a problem there.
The other thing the administration is trying to sell is that a tradeable permit system will allow older plants to be free to not introduce new technology, but stay in operation reducing overall energy costs.
The notion is that old plants can’t be regulated under current law so just give them an incentive. The other option is to hold them accountable for current standards by removing the grandfather clause from the 1970s and simply insisting that all plants meet current levels. One can avoid the ‘costly litigation’ by simply making that law which would be far easier than introducing an entire new regulatory scheme.
The issue in intertwined with the system suggested by the Administration for tradeable permits. Under the SO2 permit system in 1990, plants not only had to fit in under the cap, but their local effects were monitored by local authorities who are accountable for ambient air quality. So even if a plant could stay under the large cap, if local air quality is deemed substandard, local and state governments could require stricter rules.
This would not be true under Clear Skies which removes the ability of local and state governments to interfere with the permit market. The perverse nature of the initiative is you could reach the goals in Clear Skies (already less restrictive than other potential initiatives) and yet local areas’ air quality could be decreased.
This Dynegy plant is a perfect example of if Dynegy had enough permits and its other plants were relatively low emitting, then the local air quality could still suffer and the state would not be able to interfere with the market.
UPDATE: Spelling fix
It’s a great example just as you say.
Minor correction: Dynegy (No ‘r’).