NEW YORK - The Supreme Court is to hear arguments today about whether the Environmental Protection Agency can require coal and oil power plants - including 19 utilities in New York state - to cut back on toxic emissions.

A coalition of states and fossil-fuels groups has asked the court to prevent the agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards from taking effect. Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew said thousands of lives could hang in the balance if the court scraps the rule.

"The impact is enormous - 4,000 to 11,000 lives every year if the rule is left in place," he said. "This would be the first year that the dirtiest coal plants would be cleaning up their pollution, and that many lives would be saved this year and next year and the year after that. If this rule gets thrown out, they won't be saved."

The coal industry and states such as Michigan that rely heavily on fossil fuels argue that the rule is too expensive to implement and that it could prevent some parts of the country from receiving the electricity they need. They also allege that the EPA should have considered the $9 billion price tag before issuing the rule.

Exposure to toxins from power plants is higher in communities of color - 71 percent for African-Americans compared with 56 percent for the general public, according to the NAACP. Jacqui Patterson, director of the NAACP's Environmental and Climate Justice Program, said New York is home to four coal-power plants that disproportionately affect communities of color. She said it's important that the state has intervened on behalf of the EPA in the lawsuit.

"New York really does need to take up the charge of making sure these regulations are in place, because it's the very communities in New York that are being polluted," she said, "not to mention the fact that New York neighbors other states, so they're also blowing that into other states as well, so the responsibility is there."

The EPA spent more than a decade developing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and finalized the rule in 2011. This is the first year power plants will have to comply with the standards.


get more stories like this via email

A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court protects Idaho rivers from what conservation groups say are harmful mining practices. The justices rejected a petition to review a case in which a California suction dredge miner conducted his operations without a Clean Water Act permit in Idaho.

The miner, Shannon Poe, was fined $150,000 in 2021 by a district court for polluting the South Fork of the Clearwater River. The Idaho Conservation League filed suit against Poe for failing to get a permit back in 2018.

Jonathan Oppenheimer, governmental relations director for the Idaho Conservation League, said the Supreme Court's decision is a victory for Idaho's rivers.

"We were concerned that it could go the other way and are pleased to see the outcome that really upholds what we see as the rule of law - that if you're going to discharge pollutants into waters of the United States, that you need to have appropriate permits and take actions to protect those waters for all Americans," he said.

Suction dredge mining uses an underwater hose to excavate gold from riverbeds. It can release dangerous metals like arsenic and mercury. Poe refused to get a permit for the mining. 21 states, including Idaho, signed on to a 'Friend of the Court' brief in support of Poe.

Dredge miners in Idaho must obtain a pollution discharge permit from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to comply with the Clean Water Act. Oppenheimer said this type of dredging is a highly disruptive practice that kicks up sediment and can harm endangered and protected species in the river, such as salmon and steelhead.

"It can impact fisheries habitat as well as the insects that grow and develop in the water and on the rocks that they are disturbing that then feed the fish and other aquatic species," he added.

Oppenheimer noted the justices' rejecting a review of this case means the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision requiring permits for suction dredge mining goes back into place, protecting waterways in the West.

Local fire crews across Oregon will be working to limit the number of manmade fires in the state on what looks to be the hottest weekend of the year so far.

Temperatures for the July 4th holiday are expected to be in the 90s across the state, and over 100 by the weekend. In a recent wildfire briefing, the Northwest Interagency Coordination Center said its immediate focus is the July Fourth holiday.

Carol Connolly, public information specialist with the Northwest Interagency Coordination Center, said they can't prevent naturally occurring wildfires, but that isn't always their biggest concern.

"Most of our fires in 2024 are human-caused. So, that's why we're really doing a big push to reduce the risk of starting those large, catastrophic fires that are preventable," she said.

People are being asked to check with their local communities for the most up-to-date information on fireworks regulations and limits, and also to take fire safety precautions when camping, off-roading and cooking outdoors.

Fireworks are illegal on public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Connolly says southeastern Oregon is at a high forest-fire risk this season. The recent lightning storms and increased foliage growth are a potentially deadly combination. She says if the public will help by limiting manmade fires, every resource will be available when a natural fire occurs.

"We're just starting to see some of that lightning on the landscape. We need our firefighters ready and poised for those fires we can't prevent," Connolly continued.

The National Weather Service says Northwest and West Central Oregon, including the Portland metro area, are under an Excessive Heat Watch from July 4th through 7th.


get more stories like this via email

Pennsylvania's budget is overdue, having missed its Sunday deadline and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is asking state lawmakers and the governor to ensure it includes dedicated funding for the Agriculture Conservation Assistance Program.

Since its launch in early 2023, the program has completed more than 280 projects statewide to reduce pollution from farming.

Julia Krall, Pennsylvania executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the historic investment made a few years ago needs to continue. She said the program and the Clean Streams Fund behind it protect every Pennsylvanian's right to clean air and water.

"The Clean Streams Fund helps to fund programs throughout the state that deal with agricultural
practices, acid mine drainage and stormwater runoff," Krall outlined. "Every single person in the state of Pennsylvania deals with those things around their homes, around their places of work, in their communities."

Krall pointed out the funding has also enabled conservation groups to develop workforce training programs, fostering a new sector of employment supporting farm conservation. At issue now is where the funding will come from.

Krall pointed out in the last state budget, the General Assembly used American Rescue Plan funding of $220 million to create the Clean Streams Fund, which helped the State Conservation Commission launch the program in early 2023 but the money is running out.

"Now it's time for the state to determine how do we make this part of the work that we're doing to protect the environment here in Pennsylvania and help to support farmers?" Krall asserted. "We know we can't wait until the funds run out. It's time for the state to act now to identify a dedicated source of funding, so that all of the work that's been done to create the program doesn't just go away."

Krall added the Clean Streams Fund offers the state's first-ever agricultural cost-share program. It allows farmers working through conservation districts to get funding to implement best management practices on the ground and receive technical assistance.