EL PASO, Texas – A coalition of conservation groups is taking the Environmental Protection Agency to court over changes to the Texas Regional Haze Plan.

The suit maintains that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt violated the agency's own regulations by replacing the plan with a new agreement that allows coal-fired power plants in Texas to emit higher levels of pollutants.

Michael Soules, a staff attorney with Earthjustice, says Pruitt's cap-and-trade program would allow the plants to continue to produce pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, known as SO2, at a high rate.

"We found out that under Mr. Pruitt, EPA did a complete about face and issued a plan that, instead of leading to credible reductions in SO2, would actually permit them to increase SO2 above the levels that they emitted in 2016,"

Soules says Earthjustice sued the EPA on behalf of the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and National Parks Conservation Association, challenging the revised plan.

He says the battle over pollution from more than a dozen coal-fired plants in Texas has been going on since the state missed a 2007 federal deadline for implementing a haze reduction plan.

EPA officials did not comment on the lawsuit.

After a decade-long battle, the EPA issued a final plan requiring Texas coal-fired power plants to install pollution control equipment, called scrubbers, to reduce emissions that affect national parks and other areas across the region.

But Soules says in October, the Trump administration made major changes to the plan without allowing the required period of public comment.

"The benefits of cleaning up literally the oldest and dirtiest coal plants in the country – it's not limited just to people that go and visit national parks like Big Bend or Guadalupe,” he states. “This is something that is impacting people in communities all across Texas and in other states that are downwind."

Soules says pollution from the plants particularly affects people suffering from asthma and other health problems and can cause premature death.

The suit aims to force the EPA to abide by the January 2017 version of the plan and to hold a public comment period before finalizing any rule.



get more stories like this via email

Oregon salmon populations had some significant wins in 2024, including a record number of sockeye salmon passing through the Columbia River's Bonneville Dam last summer. But there is still a long way to go to restore wild salmon populations.

Lauren Goldberg, executive director of the environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper, said they are focused on resisting new fossil-fuel infrastructure along the Columbia. She pointed out proposals include an unconventional diesel refinery from NXTClean Fuels and the expansion of an existing interstate gas pipeline, Gas Transmissions Northwest.

Goldberg argues the projects are dangerous for the fish and people in the area.

"We defend our nation's bedrock environmental laws to make sure that everybody can drink water without fear of getting sick, can eat locally caught fish," Goldberg explained.

Last week, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality approved a water quality certification for NXTClean Fuels' massive refinery along the Columbia River. Goldberg noted NXT still needs several more permits before it can begin construction and Columbia Riverkeeper will ask the department to reconsider its decision.

Despite challenges, Goldberg emphasized the Northwest is on track for significant salmon recovery, in part thanks to the 2023 Columbia River Basin agreement.

Signed by the Biden administration, local tribes, Oregon, Washington, and nonprofits, the agreement includes more than $1 billion in federal funding for wild fish restoration and clean-energy development for the next decade.

"There is so much momentum right now to restore abundant salmon and to support the cultures and the economies that rely on salmon," Goldberg stressed.

Goldberg added the group will continue working alongside Tribes and local communities this year, and has added four new board members to aid its efforts.

A Michigan expert weighs in on an historic shift in 2024 - wind and solar power surpassed coal on the U.S. grid.

According to research from Ember - a nonprofit focused on advancing the transition to clean energy - from January to November of last year, renewable energy sources in the country provided a record 17% of U.S. electricity, while coal supplied 15%.

In Michigan, several coal-fired power plants have closed, with more set to come.

Dan Scripps, who chairs the Michigan Public Service Commission, said he believes economics is the largest driver of the shift.

"Coal plants, starting in sort of 2010 era, needing to start adding pretty significant pollution abatement and reduction technologies, in order to continue operating," said Scripps, "that really did have pretty fundamental impact on their price parity."

Many of the nation's coal plants were built in the 1970s and 1980s, making them some of the oldest power plants in the country.

Looking ahead, utilities are set to retire nearly 30 gigawatts of coal capacity between 2025 and 2027, marking a 12% decrease from earlier projections.

Scripps said another major factor in the shift away from fossil fuels is growing customer interest - evident through Michigan's voluntary renewable energy plans, offered by the utility companies.

"I've seen really significant uptick in participation - including, I think, two of the largest deals in U.S. history of corporate customers," said Scripps, "Ford Motor Company being the largest one, purchasing renewables through their utility. But, also just regular homeowners."

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has committed to achieving carbon-free electricity by 2040, as part of Michigan's Healthy Climate Plan.




get more stories like this via email

Connecticut environmental groups are dissatisfied with Gov. Ned Lamont's energy strategy for the state.

In his State of the State address, the governor called for increasing nuclear energy and bolstering natural gas pipelines. His plan comes as energy company Enbridge plans to extend a gas pipeline running through the state.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said many people are disappointed by lawmakers' direction on fossil fuels.

"The mindset of the governor and some lawmakers is really moving away from investments in the future in clean energy and in renewable energy that will absolutely be better for our state," Brown asserted. "It's the long-term thinking but there are much more desirable ends."

Lamont's intentions come several months after pulling Connecticut out of a multistate offshore wind deal. A Sierra Club report found offshore wind would be an abundant renewable energy resource for the state, potentially cutting utility bills by $630 million a year.

The state also still has a "pipeline tax," through which ratepayers pick up a $6.6 billion tab for energy company infrastructure improvements.

With the State of the State Address kicking off the legislative session, many want some climate-related bills passed, since there has been almost no headway on climate legislation in the last two sessions.

Samantha Dynowski, state director of the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club, said this year, the General Assembly will see some bills coming back for another look, which could bolster the state's climate-friendly future beyond generating more clean energy.

"We are keenly aware of how heat impacts public health, and are looking to make sure we're doing more to protect vulnerable populations from high-heat days and the health impacts that those have," Dynowski explained.

For Connecticut, 2024 was the state's second-warmest year, with projections showing it will be a continuing trend. Other legislation being considered this year would ban certain pesticides harmful to people and wildlife.