Assignment 4 - Part 1

Summary of Article:
The Subject: The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld a state air quality permit for a power plant

The Debate: The Sierra Club and the Powder River Basin Resource Council challenged an air quality permit the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) issued for the power plant in 2007. The groups claimed the power plant would unacceptably degrade air quality on a Cheyenne Indian Reservation 60 miles north of the power plant site.

The justices ruled that state regulators granted the permit correctly.

The Issues: One issue was whether the state could justify a permit even though worst-case computer modeling showed that the plan’s emissions, combined with maximum allowable emissions from power plants much closer to the reservation could cause unacceptably high levels of pollution and they argued that a permit couldn’t be issued under those circumstances.

The Power Plant argued that the plant’s contribution to that pollution would be extremely small and granting the permit would be consistent with long-standing department practice and U.S. EPA interpretation of laws.

The Supreme Court questioned some of the state’s methodology but ruled that awarding the permit was acceptable because the agency had “some discretion”. The justices also ruled that the state correctly applied the rules for using best available technology and didn’t have to require best technologies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The group to question the construction of the power plant stated, “Coal plants are significant, long-term investments and should be heavily scrutinized at the front end. Otherwise, Wyoming communities will be left with the pollution for decades to come.”

The power plant will generate and transmit electricity to 2.8 million people in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Analysis of Article:
The data used to identify this case as an environmental justice issue include the location of the power plant so close to an Indian Reservation and future generations which could be left with the pollution created from this power plant. The placement of the power plant was a determination which could leave a minority group at a disadvantage. The power plant also didn’t take into account the impact the amount of pollution dispersed may have on the future, which may represent a negligence of due diligence and research.

The groups of people affected by this case include the Cheyenne Indian Reservation, the power plant designers and employees, the persons buying the electricity from this power plant, The Sierra Club, the Powder River Basin Resource Council, the constituents of Wyoming and Montana. I found it interesting that the power plant chose to place the plant so close to the state border, and I wonder if this was intentional or not. It would also be interesting to note the wind patterns of the area, because the intention was to pollute more of Montana than of Wyoming.

This article illustrates the on-going conflict between the recent debate about the two ways companies reach environmental goals, through laws and regulations and voluntary undertakings by organizations themselves. This article reflected on the Argandona article regarding ethics, social, and environmental management systems. This article is closely related to the ethics portion of the article because although the company is meeting the minimum governmental regulations, it is not exemplifying ethics. According to the article, there are many other pollutant protectors which can be installed at a cost to the power plant company. Incorporating these objects into the planning phase of a project will be much cheaper in the long-run than being required to retrofit the plant with pollution protectors at a later date, due to a new government regulation.

The proximity of the power point to the Indian Reservation also seems to parallel the Campbell, Peck, and Tschudi article. This article claimed that there was empirical analysis that found evidence of environmental discrimination in the placement of risky facilities. It would be interesting to see what went into the planning portion of this project and whether this placement was intentional or not. It also would have been nice to read more about the parcel of land chosen for the project and the reasons for choosing that particular spot.

Another conclusion to draw (from previous readings) from the article is the impact the judicial system has on environmental policy. The Wyoming Supreme Court has now set a precedent for this type of situation. I think it also shows the importance of economic development and growth and the amount of power this plant would generate (to numerous persons across state lines) probably had something to do with the outcome.