End CAA Grandfathering Loophole-Neg

Josh Wilson End CAA grandfathering loophole-Neg Page 1 of 18
End CAA grandfathering loophole-Neg, Index

END CAA GRANDFATHERING LOOPHOLE-NEG, INDEX.......................................................................................................1
STRATEGY NOTES:............................................................................................................................................................................2
If you can’t decide which side is right then we should vote negative on ‘presumption’ ...............................................................3
POSSIBLE CROSS EX QUESTIONS.................................................................................................................................................3
INHERENCY/SQ SOLVES..................................................................................................................................................................3
Definitions from the Clean Air act:................................................................................................................................................3
Explanation of grandfathering and the rational behind it.............................................................................................................4
Grandfathering is logical...............................................................................................................................................................4
Background on grandfathering and New Source Review..............................................................................................................4
New Source Review will phase out the old grandfathered plants as they upgrade........................................................................4
TORT LAW SOLVES...................................................................................................................................................................................5
Tort law solves...............................................................................................................................................................................5
OLD GRANDFATHERED PLANTS ARE SHUTTING DOWN/LEAVING COAL.................................................................................................................5
Progress Energy to shut four N.C. coal plants..............................................................................................................................5
Exelon to shut coal plants in Pennsylvania....................................................................................................................................5
Portland General electric is closing of it’s grandfathered plant...................................................................................................5
Coal plants are moving toward natural gas...................................................................................................................................5
Coal plants are moving toward natural gas and wood chips........................................................................................................6
NEW NSR ENFORCEMENT SOLVES..............................................................................................................................................................6
NSR solves for the grandfathering clause......................................................................................................................................6
New source review provisions solve...............................................................................................................................................6
Clean air act requirements are now being enforced on old plants that make renovations...........................................................6
Court challenges to old power plants............................................................................................................................................7
Courts solve by upholding NSR......................................................................................................................................................7
Courts solve by upholding NSR......................................................................................................................................................7
AT: “BUSH RELAXED NSR”....................................................................................................................................................................7
Relaxing of NSR won’t stand up in court, EPA will be forced to enforce......................................................................................7
EPA has been forced to enforce the CCAA and NSR better...........................................................................................................8
The EPA has been forced to enforce NSR better; the Bush administration’s amendments were struck down in court................8
The EPA has been forced to enforce the Clean Air Act better; the Bush administration’s amendments were struck down in
court...............................................................................................................................................................................................8
NSR change challenged..................................................................................................................................................................9
Courts are ruling that EPA must enforce the original intent of NSR.............................................................................................9
CAIR/1990 CAA AMENDMENTS SOLVE....................................................................................................................................................9
The Clean Air Interstate Rule will solve pollution deaths and health costs...................................................................................9
Since 1990 the most dangerous power-plant emissions are now being regulated and enforced even against grandfathered
plants through national air quality standards................................................................................................................................9
plants through national air quality standards..............................................................................................................................10
plants through national air quality standards..............................................................................................................................10
DISADVANTAGES.............................................................................................................................................................................11
CO2 DA LINKS.....................................................................................................................................................................................11
Link 1) The EPA has labeled Co2 a danger to human health and is regulating it......................................................................11
Link 2) The EPA endangerment finding for Co2 means that power plants must restrict co2 emissions.....................................11
Link 3) Since the Affirmative is removing the grandfather clause all power plants would be subject to this new regulation (text
only)..............................................................................................................................................................................................11
Link 4) The only way to control co2 emissions is either CCS and/or clean coal, or shutting down all coal consumption.........11
PSD permitting requirements.......................................................................................................................................................11
Coal plants are definitely large enough to be regulated by the EPA...........................................................................................12
CCS....................................................................................................................................................................................................12
Link: Mandating Best Available Control Technology would require Carbon Capture and Storage..........................................12
CO2 Capture significantly decreases plant efficiency, increases water use, and is horribly expensive.....................................12
Stored Co2 leakage kills people...................................................................................................................................................12
Page 1 of 18
It is extremely likely that Co2 will leak........................................................................................................................................13
Co2 storage is horribly expensive................................................................................................................................................13
Carbon capture and storage is not ready for commercial use, it would take at least 15 years...................................................13
AT: “Carbon storage already working.” That’s no where near enough.....................................................................................13
COAL COLLAPSE.....................................................................................................................................................................................13
According to the courts, no new power plants may be permitted without Best Available Control Technology for Co2, this may
not be possible to meet.................................................................................................................................................................13
According to the courts, no new power plants may be permitted without Best Available Control Technology for Co2.............14
There is currently no BACT for Co2, so all coal plants will be frozen........................................................................................14
Impact: Lots of Jobs lost..............................................................................................................................................................14
Impact: $1 lost to the Coal industry=over $3 lost to the economy..............................................................................................14
Coal provides good jobs and sustains whole communities..........................................................................................................14
Switching to natural gas won’t be satisfactory............................................................................................................................15
Switching to natural gas wouldn’t count as best available control technology...........................................................................15
SCRUBBERS...........................................................................................................................................................................................15
Link: Regulating air pollution shifts it to the water.....................................................................................................................15
Link: Regulating air pollution shifts it to the water.....................................................................................................................15
Example........................................................................................................................................................................................15
Impact: All the Aff’s Pollution harms come down on their own head since the pollution will simply be transferred to a
different sector. (Text only)..........................................................................................................................................................16
Impact: These emissions cause health problems..........................................................................................................................16
Impact: death of wildlife, cancer and reproductive problems.....................................................................................................16
Impact: Extinction .......................................................................................................................................................................16
Water pollution is very harmfull: ................................................................................................................................................16
Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated................................................................................................................17
Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated................................................................................................................17
Minimal enforcement for water pollution....................................................................................................................................17
Water is the planets top environmental problem.........................................................................................................................17
STATES MISC.....................................................................................................................................................................................18
States are starting to regulate harmful emissions from old power plants...................................................................................18
States regulate existing sources of pollution i.e. Grandfathered plants......................................................................................18
States currently regulate old plants, Aff plan would be taking authority from the states............................................................18
AT: “States incompetent” States are the main enforcement agency under the Clean Air Act....................................................18
Strategy notes:
This is a cool case but from my research I’m sure it is beatable, the basic strategy is to argue
1) New enforcement by the EPA under New Source Review, national air quality standard etc. is dealing with the
harmful pollution and old coal plants will shut down anyway but gradually in the SQ
2) The tech doesn’t solve the problem (that’s what the Scrubber DA is about, basically the Tech of choice to
reduce hazardous air pollutants just shifts it to the water, no advantage) The states stuff could come into play
here too.
3) Removing the Grandfather clause would screw things up because it would force an immediate shift that
companies might not be able to deal with (cue energy collapse), under here come the CCS and coal/energy
collapse DAs, while you might could run both simultaneously, as in the Aff will get one or the other, I wouldn’t
suggest it. I would pick whichever you thought you could vilify more and run with it. The point is that the Co2
has been found to be a danger so (If there was no exemption for preexisting plants) all plants would have to
install “Best Available Control Technology (BAST) for C02” the question is whether CCS counts as BAST or
not. You decide, I have provided ev. on both sides so you can run what you want.
BTW, In the CX notes I mention a Vagueness/Presumption argument, that would be basically saying “The aff has not
shown us what all their plan would do/ cost etc, (You could then use fairness and education impacts here too) this could
be a big problem so vote Negative on presumption. Here is a card for your use should you choose to argue presumption:
Page 2 of 18
If you can’t decide which side is right then we should vote negative on ‘presumption’
Christy Shipe (The Founder of NCFCA) In her book “An Introduction to Argumentation and Debate” (The first debate
theory book specifically for NCFCA debate) Copyright 1998 by Christy Shipe, published by the Home School Legal Defense
Association P.O box 3000, Purcellville, Virginia 20134.
When the negative defends the status quo, it is generally held that the negative maintains presumption in the debate. In
other words, it is the job of the affirmative to justify why we should make a change in the present system. If the judge
cannot decide whether or not a change is warranted many argue that he or she should vote negative “on presumption.”
The rational for presumption is simply that we know what we have right now and change brings uncertainty and risk.
Possible Cross ex questions

• What kills the people, exposure to pollutants? (They will obviously say yes. Link this to the scrubbers DA, lives
won’t be saved cause people will still be exposed to the pollutants, just through a different medium)
• How many/what % of coal plants are ‘grandfathered’? (If they don’t know/say then link to
vagueness/presumption, if they do then link to a funding DA and/or Coal collapse)
• All coal plants would have to install “Best available pollution control technology”? (Link to Scrubbers, CCS,
and/or coal collapse DA’s)
• What Technology specifically? Scrubbers? (If you don’t see this link you don’t deserve to be debating ;) it’s to
scrubbers or, if they don’t now, then to vagueness/presumption)
• How much would it cost to upgrade per plant? (If they don’t know/say then link to vagueness/presumption, if
they do then link to a funding DA and/or Coal collapse)
• What if they didn’t upgrade? Would they be shut down? (If they don’t know/say then link to
vagueness/presumption, if they do then link to Coal collapse)
• What % could afford/would upgrade? (If they don’t know/say then link to vagueness/presumption, if they do
then link to a funding DA and/or Coal collapse)
• Is coal mining bad? How bad? Should we minimize it? (Only use this if you are going to argue that all plants
will have to use CCS which increases mining. (Link cards can be found in BB and BBA as referenced in the
CCS section of this brief.))
• Is coal important? How important? (You could use this as a way to decide whether to pursue the CCS or the
Coal collapse DA, granted, if they’re good they’ll just say “No ev has been brought up so I won’t speculate”)
Inherency/SQ solves
Definitions from the Clean Air act:
Section 7411 of The Clean Air Act “U.S. CODE, TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 85 >(AKA “The clean air act” SUBCHAPTER I >
Part A > § 7411 ‘Standards of performance for new stationary sources’” Accessed March 17 2010 last amended Jan. 8, 2008
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007411----000-.html
Definitions: For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “standard of performance” means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.
(2) The term “new source” means any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after
the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under this
section which will be applicable to such source.
(3) The term “stationary source” means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air
pollutant. Nothing in subchapter II of this chapter relating to nonroad engines shall be construed to apply to stationary
internal combustion engines.
(4) The term “modification” means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source
which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air
pollutant not previously emitted.
(5) The term “owner or operator” means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a stationary
source.
Page 3 of 18
(6) The term “existing source” means any stationary source other than a new source.
Explanation of grandfathering and the rational behind it

Sean Casten (President & CEO of Recycled Energy Development, LLC) February 4, 2009 “The coming legal fight, Co2
and the clean air act” http://www.grist.org/article/The-coming-legal-fight-
In essence, grandfathering says that if you get an air permit, you can always operate under that permit, regardless of
future environmental rules. Many of us have direct experience with this concept in practice: when cars were forced to no
longer burn leaded gasoline, we didn't have to scrap our old Dodge Darts and buy new cars; we simply had to come into
compliance once we bought a new car. Similarly, a coal plant permitted to release 200 parts-per-million of nitrogen
oxide pollution can emit at those levels in perpetuity, even though new plants must comply with standards that are 10-
times more stringent.
Seen from the perspective of the polluter, this makes a lot of sense. It would be hard to contemplate buying a car if you might
be forced to buy a new one a year later because of tightening environmental regulations. [He goes on to say in the
same context]
The Act has a built in trap-door in the form of "New Source Review." NSR says, in essence, that your permit is revoked
the moment you do a "major modification." This line is not nearly as sharp as one might hope, but it has generally been
interpreted to mean that while regular maintenance won't jeopardize your permit, plant upgrades will.
Grandfathering is logical
SHI-LING HSU, (University of British Columbia Faculty of Law), Spring 2006 “What's old is new: the problem with new
source review: grandfathering has become an invitation to rent-seeking”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb262/is_1_29/ai_n29262364/
When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 and imposed new pollution-control requirements under the New
Source Review program, it took the seemingly common-sense step of exempting existing facilities. The rationale for the
exemption was that a dramatic and sudden regulatory change frustrated the expectations of owners of existing facilities
and would discourage investment. Democratically accountable governments do not change the rules in the middle of the
game, it was argued. Besides, it was reasoned, installing pollution-control equipment was much more efficiently done at
the new construction stage, rather than patching on the equipment at some point in the middle of a plant's life. This
concept of exempting certain existing investments has become known as "grandfathering."
Background on grandfathering and New Source Review

Law professors Victor B. Flatt (Professor of Environmental law at the University of North Carolina) and Kim Diana Connolly
(Professor of law at the University of South Carolina), March 2005 “‘Grandfathered’ Air Pollution Sources and Pollution
Control: New Source Review Under the Clean Air Act” http://www.progressiveregulation.org/articles/NSR_504.pdf
The modern Clean Air Act, which was enacted in 1970, established performance standards for newly constructed
sources of air pollution. However, recognizing that companies had already invested capital in existing sources and
aware of the cost of retrofitting these sources with modern pollution controls, Congress did not require owners of
existing stationary sources to install air pollution control technology until they are modified or upgraded. The process of
determining when a change in a plant is sufficiently extensive to subject it to modern pollution controls is one aspect of
a broader function known as “new source review” (NSR). When Congress established this system, it expected that these
“grandfathered” sources would eventually either upgrade and install the technologies that the CAA prescribes for new
sources or shut down due to old age.
New Source Review will phase out the old grandfathered plants as they upgrade.
The Sierra Club, March 2003 “Bush Chips Away at Clean Air Act” http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200302/clean_air_act.asp
When the Clean Air Act became law, compromises were made in order to get it passed. One of these was grandfathering
in thousands of the oldest and dirtiest power plants and refineries, which were allowed to pollute up to ten times more
than modern plants. Under a provision called New Source Review (NSR), however, if these dirty facilities expand, they
have to upgrade to new anti-pollution technologies and modern pollution-control equipment.
Page 4 of 18
Tort law solves
Tort law solves
The Sierra club, October 2006 “Making a just transition”
//www.sierraclub.org/planet/200605/planet_septemberoctober2006.pdf
In 1998, the Sierra Club, with the Grand Canyon Trust and the National Parks Conservation Association, filed a Clean
Air Act lawsuit to force Mohave to install pollution controls. According to the EPA, the plant emitted up to 40,000 tons
of sulfur dioxide each year, making it the dirtiest coal-fired power plant in the West. In 1999, Mohave’s owners agreed
to either upgrade the plant by December 31, 2005, or shut it down. Six years later, the owners closed the plant rather
than pay for improvements.
Old grandfathered plants are shutting down/leaving coal

Progress Energy to shut four N.C. coal plants
Source watch, March 8 2010 “Existing U.S. Coal Plants” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants
On December 1, 2009, Progress Energy Carolinas announced that by the end of 2017 it would permanently close all of
its North Carolina coal plants without sulfur dioxide scrubbers. The 11 units at L.V. Sutton, Cape Fear, Weatherspoon, and Lee
total almost 1,500 megawatts and represent about a third of the utility's coal-fired power generation in N.C. The retirement plan
includes the following:
• Lee is scheduled for retirement in 2013.
• Sutton is slated for closure in 2014. Progress hopes to replace it with a natural gas-fired power plant.
• Cape Fear and Weatherspoon will be shut down between 2013 and 2017. The company is considering converting 50 to 150MW of the
total capacity to burn wood waste.
The closure plan was filed in response to a request by the N.C. Utilities Commission, which ordered Progress to provide
its retirement schedule for "unscrubbed" coal-fired units in North Carolina. The request was a condition of the commission's
approval of Progress' plan to close Lee and build a 950-MW natural gas plant at the site.
Exelon to shut coal plants in Pennsylvania

Source watch, March 8 2010 “Existing U.S. Coal Plants” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants
On December 2, 2009, Exelon announced that it would retire Cromby Generating Station and two units at
Eddystone Generating Station in 2011. The closures include 144 MW of coal-fired power at Cromby and
another 588 MW at Eddystone. Eddystone will continue to operate 820 MW of natural gas- and oil-fired generation. Exelon senior
vice president Doyle Beneby said the retirements were due to "decreased power demand, over supply of natural gas and increasing
operating costs," adding that, "these aging units are no longer efficient enough to compete with newer resources."
Portland General electric is closing of it’s grandfathered plant

Oregon business (newspaper) 15 January 2010 “PGE moves to close Boardman by 2020”
http://www.oregonbusiness.com/high-five/10-high-five/2876-boardman-plant-to-close-sooner
Portland General Electric is proposing to close its Boardman plant - the state's only coal-fired power plant - 20
years earlier than planned.
PGE sees its new plan as a low-cost, least-risk route for the plant, which has come under significant scrutiny
for its clean air violations
Coal plants are moving toward natural gas

Chattanooga times free press Aug. 24, 2009 “TVA may shutter aging coal-fired plants”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/aug/24/tva-may-shutter-aging-coal-fired-plants/?local
Progress Energy Corp. announced last week it will shut down three coal-fired power units near Goldsboro, N.C., and
apply for regulatory approval to replace the coal generation with natural gas-fired units.
Page 5 of 18
Coal plants are moving toward natural gas and wood chips
Georgia Power Co. is moving ahead with plans to replace its coal-fired Plant Jack McDonough in Smyrna, Ga., with a
natural gas-fired plant and switch its Mitchell plant near Albany, Ga., from coal to wood chips.
New NSR enforcement solves

NSR solves for the grandfathering clause
Thomas l. Sansonetti, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States for the Environment and Natural
Resources Division (ENRD) of the Department of Justice, July 16, 2002 “Statement Before the Committee on environment
and public works And Committee on the judiciary United states senate Concerning New source review policy, regulations, and
enforcement activities” http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Sansonetti_071602.htm
In 1977, Congress amended the federal Clean Air Act to add certain provisions which have come to be known as the
New Source Review or ANSR provisions. The NSR provisions actually have two parts -- the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration provisions, which apply to areas in attainment status for national ambient air quality standards, and the New Source Review
provisions proper, which apply to areas that are in non-attainment status. See 42 U.S.C. ' 7470 et seq. and '7501 et seq. Both sets of provisions
require that both newly-constructed sources of air pollution and existing sources that undergo ‘modification’ obtain an
NSR permit and install state-of-the-art pollution control technology. The Act defines a ‘modification’ as any physical
change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant
emitted by such source or results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. 42 U.S.C. '' 7411(a)(4), 7479(2)
(C), 7501(4). If the source is in an attainment area, it must use the best available pollution control technology, but if it is
in a non-attainment area, it must use the more stringent lowest achievable emissions reduction technology. 42 U.S.C. ''
7475(a)(4), 7503(a)(2).
In the late 1980's, the Department of Justice began bringing enforcement actions for NSR violations against facilities
that made modifications without obtaining a permit or installing state-of-the-art pollution controls.
New source review provisions solve

The Canary Coalition (A Grassroots non-profit organization that has Received the Clean Air Excellence Award from the EPA, led
by Avram Friedman (CEO of Friedman & Sun Design, Inc.) and Larry Nestler (Attorney at Law)) April 25, 2005 “New source
review: The Bush administration's decision and its effect on clean air” www.canarycoalition.org/factsheets/NSR.doc
The so-called "new source" review (NSR) provisions are a central part of the nation's clean air laws. In simple terms,
these provisions set a limit on how long more than 17,000 older industrial facilities such as power plants, refineries and
industrial factories can operate without adopting modern air pollution control technology. The law requires that when
these plants make "major modifications" that would result in an increase in total emissions, they must install state of the
art pollution control technology. Without such a provision, the nation's industrial base would be forever "grandfathered", or excused, from
having to meet modern clean air requirements.
Clean air act requirements are now being enforced on old plants that make renovations
During the 1980's and 1990's, a substantial number of these large industrial facilities began to make major investments
in existing plants to extend their lives and expand capacity. In many cases, however, these industrial emitters did not
make upgrades to their air pollution controls as required by law. In the late 1980’s, the federal EPA and Department of
Justice began to file lawsuits challenging this behavior and seeking to get state of the art controls installed. [They go on
in the same context to say] As of this date, lawsuits have been filed against 43 power plants in 13 states. Two
companies -- Tampa Electric and PSE&G – have entered into settlements with the Department of Justice, and two other
settlements -- by Cinergy (Indiana) and Virginia Power -- were announced in principle nearly two years ago but have stalled.
These 51 power plants, while representing only 11% of the nation's fossil fuel electricity, represent about 25% of the nation's
harmful power plant emissions.
Page 6 of 18
Court challenges to old power plants
The attorney general of Connecticut, November 3 2005 “Office of the attorney general, Environment”
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2095&Q=296650
United States v. Cinergy – The State of Connecticut, along with the States of New Jersey and New York, and the
United States, have joined in prosecuting claims that Cinergy Corporation violated the Clean Air Act by modifying its
electric generating plants in Indiana and Ohio without obtaining required permits and without installing appropriate
technology to control emissions of nitrogen oxides (Nox), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). The illegal
changes to Cinergy’s plants have increased the emissions of these substances, which are carried by prevailing weather
patterns to Connecticut, where they contribute to unhealthy air quality. Nox, (SO2), and PM contribute to the formation
of smog and acid rain, and to the depletion of the ozone layer. They result in increased incidence of respiratory distress
among children, people with heart ailments, and those suffering from asthma. Connecticut is seeking a permanent
injunction requiring Cinergy to operate in accordance with the Clean Air Act and to remedy its past violations by
installing appropriate air pollution control technology at its plants.
United States v. Ohio Edison – Connecticut, along with New York, New Jersey, and the United States, sued Ohio
Edison for Clean Air Act violations at its Sammis plant in Stratton, Ohio. At the liability phase of the trial, the court
ruled that Ohio Edison violated the Clean Air Act by making modifications at its facility without obtaining the
necessary permits, which would have required Ohio Edison to install pollution controls. The remedy phase of the case
will be tried in Ohio beginning on July 18, 2004.
United States v. American Electric Power – Connecticut, the United States, seven other States, and citizen groups
have sued American Electric Power for illegally modifying eleven plants in Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and Virginia
without obtaining required permits that would have necessitated the defendant’s installing air pollution controls. Trial is
expected to begin in late 2005.
Courts solve by upholding NSR

Bloomberg news May 29 2009 “Duke Energy Ordered to Shut Indiana Coal-Fired Units”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awcG5uWwJwOA&refer=us
Cinergy Corp., now part of Duke Energy Corp., was ordered by a U.S. judge to shut three units of an Indiana power
plant for federal Clean Air Act violations incurred during renovations more than 17 years ago.
U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney in Indianapolis issued the directive today, ending the second phase of a 2008
trial at which a jury found Cinergy modified the coal-fired facilities without installing best-available pollution controls.
Courts solve by upholding NSR

TVA President Tom Kilgore said last week that the utility is studying whether it should close its John Sevier Fossil
Plant near Rogersville, Tenn., and the oldest six units of the Widows Creek Fossil Plant near Stevenson, Ala.
A federal judge has ordered TVA to install more than $1 billion in pollution upgrades on the plants by the end of 2013.
But TVA has yet to budget any money for the improvements.
AT: “Bush relaxed NSR”

Relaxing of NSR won’t stand up in court, EPA will be forced to enforce.
On October 24, 2002 EPA announced changes to NSR that reflect more than ten years of concerted lobbying by the energy
industry for relief from its requirements, and especially from lawsuits that have been filed. Following a year of intense pressure
and lobbying by industry, the EPA is now relaxing NSR as described below. [They go on in the same context to say]
But, ironically, the new rules are unlikely to deliver much relief in the next several years if ever. The companies
targeted by NSR actions -- including Cinergy, AEP, Virginia Power and TVA -- should take no comfort from EPA’s
rule changes. The rules are patently illegal and environmental groups and many states will challenge them in court.
Those companies in settlement discussions would be wise to settle and not rely on this illegal gambit by the
Administration for relief.
Page 7 of 18
EPA has been forced to enforce the CCAA and NSR better
The Sierra Club, March 2003 “Bush Chips Away at Clean Air Act” http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200302/clean_air_act.asp
Clean-air advocates can also take heart from three separate Circuit Court of Appeal rulings in 2002 that found the EPA
had illegally approved extensions to cleanup deadlines.
The EPA has been forced to enforce NSR better; the Bush administration’s amendments were struck
down in court
The Miami Herald, August 20, 2003 “A Boost For Clean Air Act - Old Power Plants Must Clean Emissions”
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0820-05.htm [Ellipses in original]
A recent U.S. District Court ruling against the operator of an aging coal-fired power plant in Ohio deserves more
attention than it initially received. The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the attorneys general of Connecticut, New
Jersey and New York, brought this Clean Air Act lawsuit against the Ohio Edison Company during the Clinton administration's
tenure.
The Clean Air Act requires aging power plants to install pollution-control devices whenever they upgrade equipment
that increases generating capacity. The only exemption is when upgrading qualifies as routine maintenance. Ohio
Edison, like many other power producers, contended that its upgrades were just maintenance. Ohio Edison wanted the
definition of ''routine maintenance'' to be very broad.
The three Northeastern states, which suffer from the wind-driven pollution of Midwestern plant emissions (and as was shown last
week, the states also share their vulnerability to blackouts), and the EPA claimed that the improvements were, in fact, substantial
modifications that lengthened the life of the plant and increased emissions. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus agreed.
As noteworthy as the ruling itself, which affirmed the original intent of the Clean Air Act, is the judge's criticism of the
EPA: ``[V]arious electric utilities and industry organizations have sought within legal bounds to influence the conduct
of the EPA. Given the enormous cost of retrofitting an older electric power plant with new pollution control devices,
this strategy should not be unexpected. . . . What should be unexpected and condemned, however, is an agency
unwilling to enforce a clear statutory mandate set forth in an act of Congress.''
The judge was referring to policy changes at the EPA under President Bush. While the the EPA was allowed to pursue
environmental lawsuits begun during the Clinton era when President Bush entered the White House, his administration viewed
actual environmental policy much differently. Under Mr. Bush, the EPA now is engaged in an effort to weaken the very rule that it
is fighting to uphold in the Ohio plant case and others like it. The EPA is moving closer to the broad definitions of plant
maintenance that the judge rebuffed in the Ohio case.
Thus the EPA effort received this rebuke from Judge Sargus: ''This case highlights an abysmal breakdown in the
administrative process.'' He's right. New-source review isn't fundamentally complicated: Old, dirty power plants must
eventually be cleaned up. The law can work, and administrative rules aren't broken. It's just that the EPA, under pressure
from the industry it is supposed to regulate and an administration that is siding with the industry, has failed to enforce them
adequately and now hopes to weaken them considerably. But the judge reiterated the intent of Congress when it passed the
Clean Air Act, which was to ensure that these old plants eventually cut back on polluting the air.
The EPA has been forced to enforce the Clean Air Act better; the Bush administration’s amendments
were struck down in court
The Natural Resources Defense Council (A national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists
with 1.3 million members and associates.) October 23, 2009 “EPA to Issue Strict Rules for U.S. Power Plant Air Toxics”
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2009/091023.asp
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to adopt rules reducing toxic air pollution from the nation’s coal-
and oil-burning power plants by November 2011, according to a settlement agreement reached in a federal lawsuit
brought against the Agency by a coalition of public health and environmental groups. The settlement has been lodged in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. [They go on in the same context to say] Under the Clean
Air Act, EPA was required to control power plants’ toxic air emissions by December 2002. Instead, the Bush
administration asked Congress to eliminate that requirement. Unable to win Congressional support for that request, the
Bush EPA tried to declare that the required pollution controls were simply not necessary or appropriate. The federal
appeals court in D.C. unanimously rejected that attempt in February 2008, saying that the power industry remained
subject to the requirement to control the air toxics it emits, and EPA remains responsible for issuing rules governing
those emissions. Following that court victory, the environmental and public health groups above filed a lawsuit to
compel EPA to issue its long overdue toxic air regulations.
That lawsuit was resolved with the consent decree committing EPA to enforceable schedules for proposing and
adopting the required rules.
Page 8 of 18
NSR change challenged
The attorney general of Connecticut, November 3 2005 “Office of the attorney general, Environment”
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2095&Q=296650
The State of Connecticut has joined other States in challenging changes to the federal new source review rules published
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that would allow power plants to avoid installing pollution
controls in perpetuity. This challenge is pending in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
Courts are ruling that EPA must enforce the original intent of NSR
Law professors Victor B. Flatt (Professor of Environmental law at the University of North Carolina) and Kim Diana Connolly
(Professor of law at the University of South Carolina), March 2005 “‘Grandfathered’ Air Pollution Sources and Pollution
Control: New Source Review Under the Clean Air Act” http://www.progressiveregulation.org/articles/NSR_504.pdf
Under the Supreme Court’s Chevron Doctrine, when determining whether a regulatory definition violates its enabling
statute, a court is first to determine if Congress has directly spoken on the issue. “If the intent of Congress is clear, that
is the end of the matter because the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent
of Congress.” The terms of the CAA could not be clearer. Other courts considering the modification provisions of NSPS
and PSD have assumed that “any physical change [that] increases the amount of air pollutant emitted by a source”
means precisely that.
CAIR/1990 CAA amendments solve

The Clean Air Interstate Rule will solve pollution deaths and health costs
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 26 2010 “Clean Air Interstate Rule”
http://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/
On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), a rule that will achieve the largest reduction in
air pollution in more than a decade. CAIR will ensure that Americans continue to breathe cleaner air by dramatically
reducing air pollution that moves across state boundaries. In 2015, CAIR will provide health and environmental benefits
valued at more than 25 times the cost of compliance.
CAIR will permanently cap emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the eastern United States.
CAIR achieves large reductions of SO2 and/or NOx emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia.
When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in these states by over 70 percent and NOx emissions by
over 60 percent from 2003 levels. This will result in $85 to $100 billion in health benefits and nearly $2 billion in
visibility benefits per year by 2015 and will substantially reduce premature mortality in the eastern United States. The
benefits will continue to grow each year with further implementation.
A closely related action is the EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule, the first ever federally-mandated requirements that coal-
fired electric utilities reduce their emissions of mercury. Together the Clean Air Mercury Rule and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule create a multi-pollutant strategy to reduce emissions throughout the United States.
Since 1990 the most dangerous power-plant emissions are now being regulated and enforced even
against grandfathered plants through national air quality standards.
Environmental News Network, March 18 2010 “Air Quality is improving in much of the US”
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/41116
Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants: ground-level ozone,
particle pollution, lead, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. Emissions of toxic air pollutants, such as
benzene, have declined about 40 percent nationwide between 1990 and 2005.
These reductions are helping to improve public health by decreasing the number of emergency room visits, respiratory
illnesses, and premature deaths. Positive impacts can also be seen in the environment, with regional haze decreasing.
Despite this progress, about 127 million Americans live in counties violating at least one of the national air quality
standards. The agency has taken recent actions to tighten air quality standards to help ensure improvements in air
quality for everyone.
Page 9 of 18
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 26, 2009 “CAA National Enforcement Programs”
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/caa/caaenfprog.html
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990 to require EPA to issue emission standards and requirements for
189 toxic air pollutants to curb the emission of cancer causing air toxins. This was a massive undertaking, which has
resulted in over 100 new rules for industrial and commercial sources of air pollution, from neighborhood dry cleaners to
petrochemical complexes. These new rules, called NESHAPs or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
apply mostly to larger sources, but also some smaller sources of air pollution. The rules require existing and new
sources to install controls that are the Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT and install certain monitors,
keep records and report to the agency that is overseeing them.
For the first several years that these new rules were in place, EPA mostly conducted outreach and compliance assistance
to the regulated community, but now has begun a standard enforcement process of identifying priority violators and
taking enforcement actions, including seeking penalties. Since 1997, EPA has brought enforcement actions for Section
112 air toxics violations in over 500 administrative penalty cases and nearly 100 judicial enforcement cases, some
involving penalties and environmental projects over $1 million each.
In December 2008 the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (PDF) (21 pp, 65K), issued a decision vacating the provisions in 40
C.F.R. Sections 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1), which exempt emissions that occur during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction from the
emission standards that must otherwise be met for a given hazardous air pollutant.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 19, 2008 “Overview - The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990” http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caaa_overview.html
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 create a new, balanced strategy for the Nation to attack the problem of urban
smog. Overall, the new law reveals the Congress's high expectations of the states and the Federal government. While it
gives states more time to meet the air quality standard - up to 20 years for ozone in Los Angeles -, it also requires states to make constant
formidable progress in reducing emissions. [They go on to say in the same context to note that]
The new law also establishes similar programs for areas that do not meet the federal health standards for the pollutants
carbon monoxide and particulate matter. Areas exceeding the standards for these pollutants will be divided into "moderate" and "serious"
classifications. Depending upon the degree to which they exceed the carbon monoxide standard, areas will be required to
implement programs introducing oxygenated fuels and/or enhanced emission inspection programs, among other
measures. Depending upon their classification, areas exceeding the particulate matter standard will have to implement
either reasonably available control measures (RACM) or best available control measures (BACM), among other
requirements. [They go on in the same context to note that]
The new Clean Air Act will result in a permanent 10 million ton reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from 1980
levels. To achieve this, EPA will allocate allowances in two phases permitting utilities to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide. The first
phase, effective January 1, 1995, requires 110 powerplants to reduce their emissions to a level equivalent to the product
of an emissions rate of 2.5 lbs of SO2/mmBtu x an average of their 1985-1987 fuel use. Plants that use certain control technologies to
meet their Phase I reduction requirements may receive a two year extension of compliance until 1997. The new law also allows for a special
allocation of 200,000 annual allowances per year each of the 5 years of Phase I to power plants in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
The second phase, becoming effective January 1, 2000, will require approximately 2000 utilities to reduce their
emissions to a level equivalent to the product of an emissions rate of 1.2 lbs of SO2/mm Btu x the average of their 1985-1987
fuel use. In both phases, affected sources will be required to install systems that continuously monitor emissions in order
to track progress and assure compliance. [And they go on to further note that]
The new law also includes specific requirements for reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides
(Note: According to the last piece of evidence the states have already been mandated to do something about it, C-
apply point under Federalism DA about states as the main enforcement: Their plan won’t solve cause if the states
don’t do it now then they won’t under aff plan either)
(Note These inherency points can still be run alongside the CCS/Coal collapse DA because CAIR and 1990 CAA
amendments only allow the EPA to regulate certain Hazardous air pollutants such as ground-level ozone, particle
pollution, lead, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. Not Co2)
Page 10 of 18
Disadvantages
Co2 DA links
Link 1) The EPA has labeled Co2 a danger to human health and is regulating it
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, September 30 2009 “Fact Sheet -- Proposed Rule: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” http://www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20090930action.html
On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that GHGs, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants covered by the
CAA. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
The Supreme Court found that EPA was required to determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to
air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned
decision. In April 2009, EPA responded to the Court by proposing a finding that greenhouse gases contribute to air
pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. EPA expects soon to take final action on the finding.
Link 2) The EPA endangerment finding for Co2 means that power plants must restrict co2 emissions
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, September 30 2009 “Fact Sheet – Proposed Rule: Prevention of
New or modified facilities with [Greenhouse gas, or] GHG emissions that trigger PSD permitting requirements would need
to apply for a revision to their operating permits to incorporate the best available control technologies and energy
efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions.
Link 3) Since the Affirmative is removing the grandfather clause all power plants would be subject to
this new regulation (text only)
Link 4) The only way to control co2 emissions is either CCS and/or clean coal, or shutting down all coal
consumption.
Grist news, February 2009 “What is the ‘best available control technology’ for CO2 from coal plants?”
http://www.grist.org/article/BACT-to-the-future [Ellipses in original] As things stand, regulating CO2 at power plants
under the Clean Air Act would require that such plants install "best available control technology" (BACT) for reducing
or eliminating CO2 emissions. Here's my question: for a coal-fired power plant, what is the best available technology
for limiting CO2 emissions?
Carbon sequestration might be "best," but it's not "available," despite all the hype. It hasn't been tested; there are no
clear regulations governing it; it's horribly expensive; etc.
Far as I know, though, that's basically the only way to reduce CO2 emissions at a coal plant. So if that's not available,
and nothing else is available, what can a coal plant do but ... stop burning coal?
Does that mean a BACT requirement under the Clean Air Act would effectively shut down every coal plant in the
country in one fell swoop, thereby eliminating 50 percent of the country's electricity generation? Will it force all coal plants
to switch to natural gas, causing natural gas prices to skyrocket? If not, what does it mean?
(Note: If you Have a good Natural gas=Bad brief and have the inclination, you could entertain the argument that we
would have to switch to natural gas using the previous card and examples under the Inherency, power plants leaving
coal section, then argue Natural gas=Horrible)
PSD permitting requirements

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, September 30 2009 “Fact Sheet – Proposed Rule: Prevention of
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) portion of NSR—which is a permit program designed to
minimize emissions from new sources and existing sources making major modifications—EPA is proposing a:
1. Major stationary source threshold of 25,000 tpy CO2e. This threshold level would be used to determine
if a new facility or a major modification at an existing facility would trigger PSD permitting requirements.
Page 11 of 18
Coal plants are definitely large enough to be regulated by the EPA
The Energy Justice Network (a 501c3 nonprofit organization Energy Justice has become the world's leading information source
on energy sources, with a global network consisting of multiple community groups on each of three continents involved in
community organizing for over 15 years, and has a strong background in addressing waste, toxics, energy, and nuclear issues.) Apr
2007 “Fact Sheet: “Clean Coal” Power Plants” http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdf
There are 492 coal-fired power plants in the U.S., with an average size of 667 megawatts (MW) and an average age of
40 years. One 500 MW coal-fired power plant produces about 3 million tons/year of CO2
Note/impact: Average life of a plant is 40 years, It’s only been 33 years since plants were grandfathered, give it time
and they’ll phase out.
CCS
Link: Mandating Best Available Control Technology would require Carbon Capture and Storage
According to a study by The EPA founded RTP Environmental Associates (RTP was founded in 1978 by a group of
scientists and engineers working for the US EPA and private firms in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; hence our name,
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.. The firm was organized to assist industrial and governmental clients, identify and control
environmentally hazardous substances, and to prepare and submit environmental permits and impact statements.) March 2009
“Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Analysis for Emissions of Carbon Dioxide”
http://www.hyperionec.com/files/HEC_CO2_BACT_Analysis.pdf
The only identified strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions from the acid gas removal process at the HEC is carbon
capture and storage (“CCS,” also referred to as “carbon capture and sequestration”). As indicated by the name, this
technique involves capturing CO2, transporting it
as necessary, and permanently storing it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The process
involves three main steps:
• Capturing CO2 at its source by separating it from other gases produced by an industrial process;
• Transporting the captured CO2 to a suitable storage location (typically in compressed form); and
• Storing the CO2 away from the atmosphere for a long period of time, for instance in underground geological formations, in the
deep ocean, or within certain mineral formations.
CO2 Capture significantly decreases plant efficiency, increases water use, and is horribly expensive
Studies show that capturing CO2 reduces plant efficiency and increases water use. According to the Electric Power
Research Institute, installation of CO2 capture equipment has been found to decrease plant output by at least 25%;26
while installation of CO2 capture equipment increases water consumption by approximately 23%.27 Additional
“capture” costs beyond the plant gate, plus transportation and storage costs, are not factored into the efficiency loss or
cost increase. A July 2006 EPA report estimated CO2 capture costs at $24/ton, and says that “widespread introduction” of carbon
capture and sequestration technology into the commercial market is “highly uncertain.”28
(Note: When you take into account that power plants emit 3 mil tons Co2 per year on average that’s $72mil a year
per plant)
Stored Co2 leakage kills people

If stored CO2 leaks out, the concentrated CO2 can cause suffocation because it is heavier than air.30 In 1986, a large
release of CO2 from a volcanic crater, Lake Nyos in West Africa, suffocated and killed 1,700 people. A similar event
happened at Lake Monoun in Cameroon. Researchers continue to work on degassing the lakes to prevent another
tragedy.31 Further research is needed on CO2 migration and seismic shifts from storing large amounts of CO2
underground.
Page 12 of 18
It is extremely likely that Co2 will leak
We have been unable to safely store solid and liquid radioactive wastes for 50-60 years without leakage. It’s unlikely
that we’ll be able to store a significant part of the world’s 28 billion metric tons of CO2 gas emitted every year without
leakage problems.
Co2 storage is horribly expensive

The Minnesota Department of Commerce estimated CO2 sequestration costs for Mesaba at roughly $1.107 billion in
2011; and pipeline costs at $635.4 million.34 Carbon sequestration costs are highly uncertain. The National Energy
Technology Laboratory states, “The economics of CO2 recovery are poor in all scenarios”
Carbon capture and storage is not ready for commercial use, it would take at least 15 years.
A December 2006 DOE Environmental Impact Statement reported that geologic sequestration of CO2 “is not a
reasonable option because [the] technology is not sufficiently mature to be implemented at production scale during the
demonstration period for the proposed facility;” and isn’t expected to be “technically practicable” for large scale
commercial development within the next 15 years.36
AT: “Carbon storage already working.” That’s no where near enough.

The largest CO2 sequestration project is in Sleipner, Norway, where, since 1996, Statoil has been pumping one million
tons of CO2/year into a reservoir beneath the North Sea for enhanced oil recovery, deploying one of the largest offshore
platforms in the world. But it would take 10 of these projects to store the CO2 emissions of a single large coal plant.
(Note: use BB p. 125-132 “Fat free donuts: The case for canceling futuregen” and BBA p. 77-80 “Con: Clean coal”
for additional evidence)
Coal collapse
According to the courts, no new power plants may be permitted without Best Available Control
Technology for Co2, this may not be possible to meet.
Climate progress news, November 13, 2008 “Breaking News: No new coal plants without “Best Available Control
Technology” for CO2” http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/13/breaking-news-no-new-coal-plants-without-best-available-control-
technology-for-co2/
A legal bombshell has been dropped that may well stop all new coal plant permitting: The Sierra Club has won the
Bonanza case at the EPA Environmental Appeals Board [They go on to say in the same context] The Sierra Club
argument was simple: In Massachusetts v. EPA, The Supreme Court ruled that CO2 an “air pollutant” under the Clean
Air Act, and the CAA [Clean Air Act] requires a BACT [Best Available Control Technology] for “each pollutant
subject to regulation under Act”
The single most important policy measure the rich nations must embrace as soon as possible is to stop building coal
plants that have no CO2 controls. This ruling may do that for the foreseeable future.
Page 13 of 18
According to the courts, no new power plants may be permitted without Best Available Control
Technology for Co2
Time News in partnership with CNN news, Nov. 13, 2008 “Environmentalists Win Big EPA Ruling”
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1859049,00.html
In detail, Thursday's decision means that any new air pollution permits for coal plants will require that Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) be used to reduce CO2 emissions, the same criteria currently used for other pollutants, like
sulfur dioxide or soot. BACT requires companies involved in power plants to use the best available technology to
control pollutants — it's a tool to keep pollution controls up to date as both safety technology and our understanding of
pollution impoves. In the past, CO2 wasn't affected by BACT because the EPA didn't recognize it as a pollutant. This
decision changes that.
(Note: The following card’s text immediately follows the previous card and may be read as one or card or separated)
There is currently no BACT for Co2, so all coal plants will be frozen
Time News in partnership with CNN news, Nov. 13, 2008 “Environmentalists Win Big EPA Ruling”
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1859049,00.html
Right now, however, there is no definition of BACT for CO2, and environmentalists estimate it will take six months to a year to
figure that out. In the meantime, all other coal plants in the permitting process, or stuck in the courts, will be frozen. Over
the longer term, it's possible that new coal plants may be impossible to certify at all until a technology exists to greatly
reduce or sequester carbon emissions from coal plants — and currently none has been proven.
Impact: Removing the grandfathering clause would subject all plants to this requirement, potentially shutting
down the entire coal industry
Impact: Lots of Jobs lost

US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Blog, November 19 2009 “Coal, Coal Jobs, and
Cap-and-Trade” http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0cd2f8fc-802a-23ad-
4fd1-441d56e65c21&Region_id=&Issue_id=
“As Carey recounted, Penn State found that "Every coal worker supports up to eleven other jobs in their community,
from shop keepers and barbers to restaurant workers to railroad employees."
Impact: $1 lost to the Coal industry=over $3 lost to the economy

“Every $1 billion in U.S. coal production stimulates a total production of $3.138 billion of production throughout the
economy." This means, according to Penn State, "that every dollar of net coal industry production translates into $3.14
of economy-wide output."”
Coal provides good jobs and sustains whole communities

Coal jobs are good jobs, as Carey explained, "Let me tell you what a ‘real' job - a coal mining job - means," he told the
committee, "It means a steady, above-average wage, benefits and a sense of community as mines last for decades in the
same location." Further, he said that, "Given the above average wages and benefits, coal miners enjoy the highest
standard of living in Appalachia." In Ohio, for example, coal workers make on average just over $64,000, nearly
$25,000 more than Ohio's average yearly income. "So these high paying jobs," Carey testified, "not only fuel our
nation's energy, but also our community's economy and the economy of the entire region.”
AT: “Those impacts came from a blog”

The blog is just for members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, so it’s a darn
credible blog. And furthermore, it’s quoting an actual economic study.
Page 14 of 18
Switching to natural gas won’t be satisfactory

Dow Jones Newswires, February 11, 2010, “Emission critical: EPA Ruling On CO2 Controls Could Boost Gas”
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100211-713458.html
"In the past, the EPA and the courts have always taken the position that the Clean Air Act cannot be used to force
someone to switch from a coal plant to a natural-gas plant, but Administrator Jackson seems to want to change that
rule," said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator who represents companies at law firm Bracewell &
Giuliani and who is a member of the EPA advisory committee. "It will certainly be litigated in court."
Switching to natural gas wouldn’t count as best available control technology

Dow Jones Newswires, February 11, 2010, “Emission critical: EPA Ruling On CO2 Controls Could Boost Gas”
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100211-713458.html
"We would not anticipate that states would require an existing coal-fired plant that is seeking a permit for a major
modification to switch to natural gas" since any analysis about what counts as the best available control technology
"requires that costs be taken into consideration as part of the decision-making process," McCabe [Principal deputy
assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation] said
(Note: use BBA p.349-352 “DA: Coal” for additional impacts to ending coal”
Scrubbers
Link: Regulating air pollution shifts it to the water
The New York Times September 15, 2009 “EPA to limit metal discharges from coal plants”
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/15/15greenwire-epa-to-limit-metal-discharges-from-coal-plants-62391.html
While EPA has focused on reducing air pollution from the power plants' smokestacks, the process often simply shifts
the pollution from the air to the water that is used to "scrub" the boiler exhaust.
Link: Regulating air pollution shifts it to the water

The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
Even as a growing number of coal-burning power plants around the nation have moved to reduce their air emissions,
many of them are creating another problem: water pollution. Power plants are the nation’s biggest producer of toxic waste,
surpassing industries like plastic and paint manufacturing and chemical plants, according to a New York Times analysis of
Environmental Protection Agency data. Much power plant waste once went into the sky, but because of toughened air
pollution laws, it now often goes into lakes and rivers, or into landfills that have leaked into nearby groundwater
Example
For years, residents here complained about the yellow smoke pouring from the tall chimneys of the nearby coal-fired power plant,
which left a film on their cars and pebbles of coal waste in their yards. Five states — including New York and New Jersey — sued
the plant’s owner, Allegheny Energy, claiming the air pollution was causing respiratory diseases and acid rain. So Three years
ago, when Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant’s air emissions, environmentalists were
overjoyed. The technology would spray water and chemicals through the plant’s chimneys, trapping more than 150,000
tons of pollutants each year before they escaped into the sky.
But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped
tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela
River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.
“It’s like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them instead,” said Philip Coleman,
who lives about 15 miles from the plant and has asked a state judge to toughen the facility’s pollution regulations. “We can’t
escape.”
Page 15 of 18
Impact: All the Aff’s Pollution harms come down on their own head since the pollution will simply be
transferred to a different sector. (Text only)
Impact: These emissions cause health problems

Only one in 43 power plants and other electric utilities across the nation must limit how much barium they dump into
nearby waterways, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. records. Barium, which is commonly found in power plant
waste and scrubber wastewater, has been linked to heart problems and diseases in other organs.
Impact: death of wildlife, cancer and reproductive problems

Post-Tribune October 22 2009 “Environmental report gives Northwest Indiana another bad mark” http://www.post-
trib.com/news/1839345,tri1022.article#
Among the most severe effects of water pollution is death of wildlife, but toxic chemicals also have the potential to
trigger cancer and reproductive and developmental problems in humans who eat contaminated fish, the report states
Impact: Extinction
CBS News [American News Source], November 3, 2006, “Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048 — Study By Ecologists,
Economists Predicts Collapse of World Ocean Ecology”,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml [JS]
“The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama --
was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world. The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even
to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise. "I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are --
beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release. "This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola
Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release. "If biodiversity continues to decline,
the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all,"
Beaumont adds. “Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these
fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines.
And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. "A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to
the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and
colleagues say. The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments. They then analyzed the
1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the
Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe. Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems. And finally, they
looked at the recovery of 48 protected ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity
of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest. But the loss of
species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say. Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries
management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an
investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more.
"It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right
now."”
Water pollution is very harmfull:

Dr. Ken Rubin, (Assistant Professor Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Hawaii) “Reply to ASK-AN-EARTH-
SCIENTIST” http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/waterpol3.html
I couldn’t find a date, but probably not necessary, Accessed January 7 2009
The effects of water pollution are varied. They include poisonous drinking water, poisionous food animals (due to these
organisms having bioaccumulated toxins from the environment over their life spans), unbalanced river and lake
ecosystems that can no longer support full biological diversity, deforestation from acid rain, and many other effects.
These effects are, of course, specific to the various contaminants.
Page 16 of 18
Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated

Last year, when Hatfield’s Ferry asked the state for permission to dump scrubber wastewater into the Monongahela River, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approved the request with proposed limits on some chemicals.
But state officials placed no limits on water discharges of arsenic, aluminum, boron, chromium, manganese, nickel or
other chemicals that have been linked to health risks, all of which have been detected in the plant’s wastewater samples,
according to state documents.
Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated

Yet no federal regulations specifically govern the disposal of power plant discharges into waterways or landfills. Some
regulators have used laws like the Clean Water Act to combat such pollution. But those laws can prove inadequate, say
regulators, because they do not mandate limits on the most dangerous chemicals in power plant waste, like arsenic and
lead.
Minimal enforcement for water pollution

Even when power plant emissions are regulated by the Clean Water Act, plants have often violated that law without
paying fines or facing other penalties. Ninety percent of 313 coal-fired power plants that have violated the Clean Water
Act since 2004 were not fined or otherwise sanctioned by federal or state regulators, according to a Times analysis of
Environmental Protection Agency records.
Other plants have paid only modest fines. For instance, Hatfield’s Ferry has violated the Clean Water Act 33 times since
2006. For those violations, the company paid less than $26,000. During that same period, the plant’s parent company
earned $1.1 billion.
Water is the planets top environmental problem

Globe-net News August 19, 2009 "Water issues are top environmental concern worldwide on Environmental Expert" Published by
Environmental Expert.com at http://www.environmental-expert.com/res ... 60541&lr=1. accessed December 22, 2009
“A public opinion survey on attitudes about fresh water sustainability, management and conservation finds that people around the
world view water issues as the planet’s top environmental problem, greater than air pollution, depletion of natural
resources, loss of habitat or climate change. The poll, conducted by GlobeScan, a global survey research firm on behalf of
Circle of Blue, a Michigan-based international network of leading journalists, scientists and communicators focused on global water
issues, surveyed 1,000 people in 15 countries.”
Page 17 of 18
States Misc
States are starting to regulate harmful emissions from old power plants
William G. Ross, Jr. May 13 2009 (Secretary of the NorthCarolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources) “North
Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act” http://daq.state.nc.us/news/leg/cleanstacks.shtml
North Carolina's General Assembly enacted legislation in 2002 that could provide a model for other states in controlling
multiple air pollutants from old coal-fired power plants. The Clean Smokestacks Act, signed by Governor Mike Easley in June,
requires power companies to reduce their smog- and haze-forming emissions by approximately three-fourths over the
next decade. We hope this landmark multi-pollutant legislation will set the standard for similar actions by the federal
government and other states. Under the act, coal-fired power plants must achieve a 77-percent cut in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions
by 2009 and a 73-percent cut in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 2013. NOx is the main cause of ozone, one of North Carolina's
biggest air quality problems, and it contributes to haze and acid rain. SO2 is the main cause of tiny particle pollution, haze and acid
rain. Although the act does not set caps on mercury, we estimate that the controls needed to meet the NOx and SO2 limits will
reduce mercury significantly -- perhaps as much as 60-90 percent. Reducing emissions of these pollutants will help control North
Carolina's biggest air pollution problems, thereby safe-guarding public health, improving visibility and protecting the environment.
States regulate existing sources of pollution i.e. Grandfathered plants

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Law firm, 2007 “Getting the deal through-oil regulation 2007”
http://www.pillsburylaw.com/siteFiles/Publications/F4DADA68562EDC26F439C0813234E6E2.pdf
Both federal and state environmental laws regulate new and existing sources of pollution.
States currently regulate old plants, Aff plan would be taking authority from the states.
Section 7411 of The Clean Air Act “U.S. CODE, TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 85 >(AKA “The clean air act” SUBCHAPTER I >
Part A > § 7411 ‘Standards of performance for new stationary sources’” Accessed March 17 2010 last amended Jan. 8, 2008
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007411----000-.html
Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining useful life of source:
(1) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by section
7410 of this title under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan which
(A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant
(i) for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 7408 (a)
of this title or emitted from a source category which is regulated under section 7412 of this title but
(ii) to which a standard of performance under this section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and
(B) provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance. Regulations of the
Administrator under this paragraph shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance to any particular source
under a plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other factors, the remaining useful life of
the existing source to which such standard applies.
(2) The Administrator shall have the same authority—
(A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as he would have under section 7410 (c)
of this title in the case of failure to submit an implementation plan, and
(B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce them as he would have under sections 7413 and
7414 of this title with respect to an implementation plan. In promulgating a standard of performance under a plan prescribed under
this paragraph, the Administrator shall take into consideration, among other factors, remaining useful lives of the sources in the
category of sources to which such standard applies.
AT: “States incompetent” States are the main enforcement agency under the Clean Air Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 26, 2009 “CAA National Enforcement Programs”
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/caa/caaenfprog.html
Under the Clean Air Act, the primary responsibility for planning for attainment and maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) rests with the state and local agencies. Accordingly, state and local air quality
agencies are also designated as the primary permitting and enforcement authorities for most Clean Air Act
requirements.
Impact: If the states don’t do it right now there’s no reason to think they’ll do better under the Aff plan since it
doesn’t change the states enforcement
(Note: See BBA p.27-30 “Kritik: Statism”, 31-34 “50 States counterplan”, 35-46, “2N evidence:50 states
counterplan”, and 353-356 “DA: Federalism” for additional impacts)
Page 18 of 18

End CAA Grandfathering Loophole-Neg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

End CAA Grandfathering Loophole-Neg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Josh Wilson End CAA grandfathering loophole-Neg Page 1 of 18

End CAA grandfathering loophole-Neg, Index

Possible Cross ex questions

Explanation of grandfathering and the rational behind it

Background on grandfathering and New Source Review

Old grandfathered plants are shutting down/leaving coal

Exelon to shut coal plants in Pennsylvania

Portland General electric is closing of it’s grandfathered plant

Coal plants are moving toward natural gas

New NSR enforcement solves

New source review provisions solve

Courts solve by upholding NSR

Courts solve by upholding NSR

AT: “Bush relaxed NSR”

CAIR/1990 CAA amendments solve

PSD permitting requirements

Stored Co2 leakage kills people

Co2 storage is horribly expensive

AT: “Carbon storage already working.” That’s no where near enough.

Impact: Lots of Jobs lost

Impact: $1 lost to the Coal industry=over $3 lost to the economy

Coal provides good jobs and sustains whole communities

AT: “Those impacts came from a blog”

Switching to natural gas won’t be satisfactory

Switching to natural gas wouldn’t count as best available control technology

Link: Regulating air pollution shifts it to the water

Impact: These emissions cause health problems

Impact: death of wildlife, cancer and reproductive problems

Water pollution is very harmfull:

Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated

Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated

Minimal enforcement for water pollution

Water is the planets top environmental problem

States regulate existing sources of pollution i.e. Grandfathered plants

You might also like