ＥＥＥ会議（米国のエネルギー政策：裁判所がブッシュ政権に不利な決定）.......................031225


米国で、ニューヨーク、ニュージャージー、コネチカット州など１４州と環境保護Ｎ
ＧＯグループが、ブッシュ政権のエネルギー・環境政策（とくに排ガス規制）に異議
を唱え訴訟を提起していたことは、当ＥＥＥ会議で幾度かお伝えしてきたところ
（10/17, 11/2, 11/8付けメール）、昨日、ワシントンＤＣの連邦控訴裁判所は、連
邦政府（環境保護庁）の措置を停止する仮命令を出したとのことです。

つまり、発電所、製油所などの工場が、老朽化した施設を改良するに当って最新の排
ガス規制措置を講ずる必要はないとした連邦政府の決定は大気保全法(Clean Air
Act)を勝手に緩和するもので、環境を害する惧れがあり、かかる権限を政府は持たな
い、とする内容のようです。　もしこの控訴裁判所の仮命令が確定すると、ブッシュ
政権のエネルギー政策は、先般の包括的エネルギー法案の不成立に続いて、厳しい制
約を受けることとなるわけで、来年の大統領選挙戦とも絡んで、今後の法廷闘争の成
り行きが注目されます。

実は、これと似たような行動を日本の一部環境保護ＮＧＯも計画している模様であ
り、日本も米国の動きを「対岸の火事」視していると危険ではないかと感じます。

詳細は、New York Times（12/25)の記事をご覧下さい。やや長文なので、後半分を割
愛しましたが、関心のある方はご一報ください。
--KK

*******************************************

Court Blocks U.S. Effort to Relax Pollution Rule
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JENNIFER 8. LEE

Published: December 25, 2003


WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 - A federal appeals court on Wednesday at least
temporarily blocked a Bush administration rule, due to take effect on
Friday, that would have relaxed existing regulations and so allowed hundreds
of aging power and industrial plants to make upgrades without installing
modern pollution controls.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, indicates that the court has substantial
doubt about the White House's claims that it has authority to modify the
Clean Air Act by regulation and that its changes would not hurt the
environment.

In staying the new regulation, the court said it would expedite a case
brought against the rule by 14 states, among them New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut, as well as several cities and environmental groups; it will
then hear the case on its merits.

The ruling on Wednesday essentially places a burden on the administration to
justify a regulatory change that it has been unable to accomplish through
the legislative process. That change had been expected to help utilities,
refiners and other industries, which had long complained about the
government's environmental enforcement actions, to avoid installing billions
of dollars' worth of pollution controls.

Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council,
an industry group founded largely to advance the regulatory change,
described the ruling as a setback, and added, "This stay motion and
litigation undermine certainty for consumers and the regulated community."

The Environmental Protection Agency, which had proposed the new rule, said
in a statement that it was "disappointed with the court's decision" and that
neither the regulation nor the court's stay of it would have much effect on
emissions.

But plaintiffs were buoyant.

"This is an enormously important victory that halts the Bush administration
efforts to eviscerate the Clean Air Act," said Eliot Spitzer, attorney
general of New York. "Piece by piece, the Bush administration has been
undercutting meaningful enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The D.C. court has
said it can do so no longer."

"Not only does it freeze the regulation," Mr. Spitzer said of the ruling,
"but the court has also signaled that it may throw out the entire regulation
after further review."

Indeed, to win a stay, plaintiffs must typically demonstrate not only a
likelihood of irreparable harm if a proposed action is allowed to proceed,
but also a likelihood of success once the case is heard on the merits. The
order issued by the appeals court said these plaintiffs had met the two
criteria.

The members of the three-judge panel were Harry T. Edwards, Judith W. Rogers
and David S. Tatel. All were appointed by Democratic presidents but have
voted many times to uphold other actions of the Bush administration.

The fight currently being waged deals with an issue called "new source
review," and its roots can be traced back three decades, to adoption of the
Clean Air Act.

When the law was enacted, it exempted from its requirements for modern,
expensive pollution controls those plants that were already in operation.
Lawmakers assumed that these "grandfathered" plants would be replaced over
time by new ones.

Instead of building new plants, though, some utilities upgraded the existing
ones, avoiding the costs of the emissions controls while adding to capacity,
and to pollution.

In response, Congress modified the law, requiring that upgrades were to be
considered "new sources" of pollution and thus subject to the control
requirements. Industry subsequently objected that what environmentalists and
government frequently considered upgrades were in fact nothing more than
routine maintenance, which the requirements did not cover.

The battle has raged ever since, with industry claiming "maintenance," and
states and environmentalists protesting that it is "upgrades."


以下省略