Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety held a hearing on Utility MACT regulations, specifically focused on the oversight of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMIR).

The Committee heard from Ms. Barbara Walz, the Senior Vice President for Policy and Environment at Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., based in Westminster Colorado.  Her testimony focused on the concerns a major utility provider, such as Tri-State has with the aggressive regulations the EPA has proposed.

Ms. Walz highlighted that these regulations are unachievable, and would raise the cost of energy for consumers and manufacturers. She stated:

Although the economy is still recovering, Tri-State member system demand for energy continues to increase about 3-4% per year. Therefore, Tri-State needs to plan for new generation stations and continues to look at all fuel options with a focus on affordable, reliable electricity that is environmentally sound. Under the proposed MACT rule, new coal units can NOT be constructed to meet the MACT standards due to the fact that technology does not exist to meet limits, vendors will not give guarantees to meet limits, and financial institutions will not support new projects that are not able to ensure compliance with environmental rules.

While Tri-State continues to make advancements in renewable energy, such as solar, wind, natural gas and hydro-power, the company points to coal as the most cost effective and reliable source to meet their customers’ needs.

Ms. Walz concluded:

Tri-State supports good environmental regulations, but, firmly believes that the MACT rule goes beyond EPA authority and over-regulates coal fired power plants. Existing Tri-State stations generally meet the mercury emission limits in the MACT rule through co-benefits of existing controls. We believe that the proposed rules for the Utility MACT are not reasonable, are not based on sound practices of data quality and are not readily achievable using generally available emission control technologies, especially for new units.

To view the entirety of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association’s testimony, please click here.

The Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy has released another in its series of reports on the litigation industry, “Trial Lawyers Inc., K Street.” From the Message for the Director, James R. Copland:

With business groups now fighting back against Trial Lawyers, Inc.’s longtime grip on state judiciaries, the litigation lobby has turned its attention to state legislatures, where it is not only blocking tort reforms but working to expand its portfolio of litigation opportunities. Among other things, state legislators are authorizing new kinds of lawsuits, raising damage caps, and giving private lawyers authority to sue on behalf of the state.

Of course, the growth in federal regulation and law has made it necessary for Trial Lawyers, Inc. to lobby Congress as well. Thanks to large contributions, both to the Democratic Party and to individual legislators, lawyers have not only blocked most federal efforts at tort reform but are also working to coax goodies from Congress that pad their bottom line. Such efforts include:

• Lengthening statutes of limitations in employment law to make it easier to file discrimination suits;
• Spurring securities litigation by allowing suits to be filed against the vendors of corporations accused of fraud;
• Cutting contingent-fee lawyers a tax break worth over a billion dollars;
• Gutting arbitration contracts designed to encourage resolution of disputes that are too expensive to take to trial; and
• Allowing state juries to override federal regulations.

The full report is available here as a .pdf file (3MB). The Center’s “Trial Lawyers, Inc.” series is especially valuable as a thorough introduction to the political power and economic clout wielded by the trial bar — and the harm it does. The authors provide history, big picture, footnotes and economic analysis.

In a Feb. 8 op ed in The Wall Street Journal, “How the Plaintiffs Bar Bought the Senate,” Copland also put the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC in the context, explaining why the trial lawyers were so incensed by the decision upholding First Amendment rights.

[For] those, like me, who view factions as inherent in democracy, the decision was welcome. Labyrinthine campaign-finance laws serve mainly to entrench incumbents and empower those special interests either exempted from regulation (i.e., the institutional media) or best able to navigate the maze of rules. Among the latter group, no lobby has been more empowered than the legal profession—specifically the trial lawyers.

More: John O’Brien, Legal NewsLine, Blog of Legal Times.

From The Star-Tribune, Pittsylvania County, Virginia:

Danville Community College and Luna Innovations Inc. have entered into a partnership to provide nanotechnology technician training to Southside Virginia residents.

The partnership is being funded through a three-year, $638,000 grant from the National Science Foundation.

“This funding will help develop a curriculum that will not only provide students with technical skills, but includes hands-on experience in using scientific instruments,” said Dr. Kent Murphy, chairman and chief executive officer of Luna Innovations. “The new program will aid in building a workforce that will be ready to work in this promising new technology field.”

Headquartered in Roanoke, Luna opened its nanoWorks division in Danville in 2005 in a former tobacco warehouse that has been renovated into an ultramodern 24,000-square-foot manufacturing and research development facility.

Here’s the joint Danville Community College/Luna news release.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit often posts links about this or that breakthrough in nanotechnology, all interesting and encouraging.

But when you get to the point of training technicians, well, that tells you the technology has definitely advanced beyond theory and R&D to the practical,  commercial level.

P.S. Some of those Instapundit links:

• MAKING HYDROGEN FUEL with nanotechnology…….
• MORE TARGETED CANCER TREATMENT using nanotechnology…….
• CONTRASTING U.S. AND EUROPEAN APPROACHES to nanotechnology and related issues. I have some related thoughts here…….
• HARVESTING SOLAR ENERGY with nanotechnology…….
• TREATING CANCER WITH NANOTECHNOLOGY: “In a study with breast cancer in mice, a nanotech cancer therapy suppresses tumor growth with minimal side effects. Taking advantage of the fact that the blood vessels in tumor tissue are leakier than in normal……
• TURNING WASTE INTO ETHANOL, using nanotechnology…….
• KILLING DEADLY HOSPITAL BACTERIA with nanotechnology…….
• THE PUBLIC WEIGHS IN on nanotechnology for human enhancement. I say, bring it on. I need all the enhancing I can get…….
• NANOTECHNOLOGY UPDATE: Optimizing drug delivery with shaped nanoparticles…….

From our Legal Beagle search engine:

On January 30, the NAM and other business groups filed an amicus brief urging the Rhode Island Supreme Court to reverse the verdict because the trial court improperly rewrote the law of public nuisance. Our brief argues that public nuisance law should never be used to replace product liability law. Traditional standards of public nuisance law require that there be an injury to a common public right, that there must be some conduct by the defendants that created a public nuisance, and not merely injury, and that the defendants must have some control over the nuisance, both for imposing liability and for providing a remedy of abatement. The lower court also ignored the need to show proximate cause between a particular manufacturer’s actions and an injury.

Allowing this suit would create unpredictable liability for manufacturers in situtations where they have no control over the ultimate use and/or maintenance of their products,a nd constitutes regulation by litigation. The NAM has been very active in opposing the attempted expansion of the public nuisance theory of liability by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are attempting to avoid the straightforward requirements of product liability law. Similar cases have been brought against manufacturers of firearms, cigarettes, automobiles, gasoline additives, chemicals and electricity. Many of these have been rejected.

Related Documents:
NAM brief (1/30/2008)
Press release (1/30/2008)

The other amici were the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation, the American Chemistry Council, the American Insurance Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and American Tort Reform Association.