This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The ongoing pollution from these power plants is an affront to public health and wildly incompatible with every climate ambition this country —and this world—has. Which means the consequences of these polluters unabashedly continuing to pollute aren’t just severe—they’re compounding.
EPA’s latest proposed rule targeting NOx emissions from fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) is a classic study of diminishing returns. It marks the seventh round of NOx controls for the EGU sector since 1990. enjoyed ozone reductions of 3 to 5 ppb or more. Ozone concentrations in over 70 percent (i.e.,
Emissions reductions will take effect quickly, starting January 1, 2012 for SO2 and annual NOx reductions, and May 1, 2012 for ozone season (May-September) NOx reductions. Texas power plants must meet the January 1, 2012 deadline for SO2 and annual NOx emissions, and the May 1 deadline for ozone season NOx emissions.
This is part of an occasional series of posts about the evolution of pollution standards. Today’s subject is pollutioncontrol for new vehicles, which have been known to cause smog since the 1960s. The history of these pollution standards is quite distinctive. Congress adjusted the standards twice. gpm NOx standard.
States and local air quality regulators have the legal authority to set particulate matter (PM), ozone, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions standards and adopt regulations for these pollutants when they are already in attainment of the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS ) set by the U.S.
12.5, prohibits any state agency from requiring electric utilities to participate in a cap and trade program for CO2 emissions. electric utilities to participate in a multi-state cap and trade program (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) to reduce CO2 emissions. Prohibit cap and trade programs for CO2 emissions.
One good example of the nexus between global warming and local pollution is ground-level ozone. To make matters worse, NOx contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and secondary PM2.5, Therefore, controlling for NOx and SOx helps reduce PM2.5 which is formed in the atmosphere from precursor gases such as NOx.
Congress toyed with water pollutioncontrol since 1948, but 2 years after Earth Day it passed the first comprehensive federal law, ever, to control water pollution, the 1972 Clean Water Act. Through this law, water pollution is managed by controlling wastewater discharges. Sponsored Content. Clean Water Act.
In an unpublished judgment, the court rejected the petitioners’ other NEPA arguments regarding project design and capacity and cumulative ozone impacts. Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , No. 20-1045 (D.C. 3, 2021); Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera v.
However, Petitioners have argued that the new standards exceed EPA’s authority, were adopted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and are otherwise barred by an expansive reading of the developing “major questions doctrine” because they may have nebulous effects on national security and electric grid reliability.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content