{
  "id": "RL30432",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30432",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 347680,
      "date": "2000-01-31",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:39:22.409941",
      "title": "Air Quality and Electricity: Enforcing New Source Review",
      "summary": "On November 3, 1999, the Justice Department filed seven lawsuits against electric utilities in the Midwest and South charging them with violations of the New Source Review (NSR) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an administrative order against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), alleging similar violations. Through a \u201cpreconstruction\u201d permitting process, NSR is designed to ensure that newly constructed facilities, or substantially modified existing facilities, do not result in violation of applicable air quality standards.\nThe suits represent a continuing effort by EPA to reduce pollution from existing sources, particularly coal-fired electric generating facilities. The primary pollutants of concern have been nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The question the EPA lawsuits raise is whether the specified facilities have engaged in rehabilitation actions that represent \u201cmajor modifications\u201d of the plants, in which case the CAA would require the installation of best available pollution control equipment. The crucial definition of \u201cmajor modification\u201d derives from an EPA ruling that a life extension project by Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) triggered NSR requirements. Since 1992, after considerable litigation and congressional debate, the \u201ctest\u201d to determine the applicability of NSR compares whether a facility\u2019s projected actual emissions after the modification are more than its actual emissions before the modification. Utilities argue that the \u201cmodifications\u201d that EPA cites in the suits were just routine maintenance, which do not trigger NSR.\nNSR is an attractive enforcement tool because EPA can ask the court to impose substantial monetary penalties, and to require a violating source to install best available control technology. Thus EPA states that these facilities could be required to reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 85 to 95%.\nBecause the CAA is a complex piece of legislation built up over time, however, the reductions that might result from successful prosecution of the NSR suits may not be completely realized. In the case of SO2, any reduction achieved under NSR would interact with a cap on emissions set under title IV of the CAA; because of the system of tradable allowances established under title IV, reductions from NSR compliance might be shifted to unaffected facilities. The situation with respect to NOx is also confused, largely because of inconsistencies in EPA\u2019s new and existing source NOx regulations as a result of a partial remand of regulations by a court.\nBy seeking to enforce NSR requirements, EPA exploits an existing authority that holds the potential for reducing emissions. EPA clearly believes that some sources have been evading NSR requirements. However, the action appears to raise the classic enforcement issue: will the outcome be reduced emissions, or just costly litigation? The suits expose the complex interactions of NSR with other provisions of the CAA \u2013 complexities that might compromise air pollution reductions sought through the NSR suits. Knowledge gained through 30 years of CAA implementation suggests options for updating the Act\u2019s approach to regulating the utility industry\u2019s emissions; however, many of these require Congressional action to amend the Act.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL30432",
          "sha1": "57d7fb1aeb047b5cf467e5b2530e909c8ace0af2",
          "filename": "files/20000131_RL30432_57d7fb1aeb047b5cf467e5b2530e909c8ace0af2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30432",
          "sha1": "655fa88212787c57f28d37784e2ba80458d342d1",
          "filename": "files/20000131_RL30432_655fa88212787c57f28d37784e2ba80458d342d1.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}