Colorado, environmentalists sue EPA over haze plan rejection
Amanda Pampuro
DENVER (CN) — In two separate petitions, environmental groups and Colorado’s attorney general both asked the 10th Circuit on Wednesday to review the federal government’s rejection of the state’s latest revision to its regional haze plan.
“Coloradans love the outdoors, yet the EPA is threatening to weaken protections necessary to safeguard some of our most sensitive ecosystems and scenic vistas from harmful pollution,” said Attorney General Phil Weiser in a statement.
This mark’s the Democrat’s 57th lawsuit against the Trump administration during the president’s second term.
The Denver Metro North Front Range area — which spans eight counties east of the Rocky Mountains — has failed to control ozone and meet national ambient air quality standards for more than 15 years. Under the Clean Air Act, Colorado is therefore required to submit plans to the EPA showing actions that will improve air quality for the 3.3 million people living in the area.
While state officials say they are making progress, environmentalists have contested many aspects of the state implementation plan — in recent years, notably when it comes to regulating oil and gas operators.
The National Park’s Conservancy and the Sierra Club filed their own objection to the EPA’s rejection of Colorado’s state implementation plan.
“Colorado chose clean air. The EPA chose pollution,” said Tracy Coppola, a program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association in a statement. “Communities, industry, and land managers were preparing for a promising future where our neighboring states would have also benefited. But now, for no justifiable reason, the EPA suddenly wants us to turn our backs on all this progress.
In the wake of state’s push to clean up its air, several energy providers with aging infrastructure have made plans to slowly cycle out old coal plants, including the Craig Station in Craig, Colorado.
In December, Trump signed an executive order requiring the coal plant operated by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association to remain in operation through the end of March.
Even though the closures were uncontested by utility providers, representatives for the EPA wrote in the Federal Register the move’s inclusion in the state implementation plan without just compensation could violate the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause.
In the Federal Register, representatives for the EPA also pointed to the nation’s increasing energy requirements “due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers,” to support the need to maintain the plants’ ability to provide power.
Weiser objected to the EPA’s rejection, particularly since the decisions to shut down the plants had been backed by the utility companies.
“Those decisions in turn were based on the utilities’ judgment that closure was the best and most cost-effective way to comply with a range of state and federal laws,” Weiser said in a statement.