[Carry_Okie]

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin -- and legal officers for New York City, Washington, San Francisco, New Haven and a host of other cities in Connecticut.

It is absolutely laughable that San Francisco would be involved since the prevailing winds there come off the Pacific Ocean. They thus do not get downwind pollution from a plant that would require new source review. Virtually all of the electrical power it uses comes from either natural gas or hydro. Neither is the Bay Area in a state of non attainment. I cannot fathom how the city could therefore demonstrate irreparable harm from the proposed change in rules.

My understanding is that areas in non-attainment would still be subject to new source review. So who gets harmed when a plant installs cleaner equipment without upgrading its emissions abatement equipment?

[snopercod]

...would undercut air-quality protections by allowing increased pollution

How does not upgrading a plant's pollution control equipment "increase" pollution? Is this the same logic whereby a 5% increase in spending becomes a "cut"?

One other thing. When courts stike down what the EPA is doing, the EPA only honors the decision in the district in which the decision was made.