Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act

By R. Shep Melnick | Go to book overview
Save to active project

CHAPTER FIVE
Dispersion: Collusion or Contempt?

Dilution is not the solution to pollution.--An old EPA proverb

IN LATE 1973 and early 1974 the Environmental Protection Agency found itself locked in battle with the White House, the Federal Energy Administration (FEA), and the electric utility industry. The EPA insisted that coal-burning power plants comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act either by switching to low-sulfur fuel or by installing flue gas desulfurization scrubbers, which the EPA considered available technology. The opponents of this policy claimed that scrubbers were unreliable, that the EPA's policy would lead to very high compliance costs, and that it would discourage substitution of American coal for Middle Eastern oil. They recommended that power plants be allowed to meet national air quality standards by dispersing pollutants more widely, rather than by reducing total emissions. Dispersion can be increased either by building taller smokestacks or by varying emissions according to meteorological conditions. The EPA had two objections to substituting these "dispersion enhancement" techniques for controls that reduce total emissions: they are hard to enforce, and they do nothing to reduce the loading of the atmosphere with sulfur compounds that are harmful to human health and contribute to acid rain.

The Muskie and Rogers committees were even more strongly opposed to use of dispersion enhancement techniques than was the EPA, but the 1973 Arab oil embargo put the EPA and these committees on the defensive on energy-versus-environment issues. In late 1973 the House approved an amendment to pending emergency energy legislation (which eventually became the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination

-113-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 404

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?