Interview
R.I. Attorney General Patrick Lynch
As Rhode Island’s Attorney General, what is your top environmental priority? To
be sure, fighting major polluters is crucial, but now it’s really just
a fraction of our biggest challenge. What we’re faced with today is
much harder to address: a culture of excess, a culture of
disposability.
Therefore, my top priority is, with the help of
major stakeholders like Environment Rhode Island, to develop a
comprehensive and progressive environmental agenda that recognizes the
interconnectedness between how we “grow” our cities, suburbs and
economy, and how we protect our natural resources.
I prioritize
cases based on the significance of the environmental issue, the need
for action, the intent of the law that might be compromised without
enforcement and the availability of evidence to support my claims.
This
approach has guided the decisions I have made with respect to Brayton
Point, global warming, fuel economy, clean air and local zoning, and is
incorporated into the legislation that I draft and support each year in
the Rhode Island General Assembly.
How do organizations like Environment Rhode Island affect the work you do to protect our environment? Environment
Rhode Island and other groups fill vital roles in raising public
awareness about problems that must be solved, inspiring citizens to
become more active stewards of the environment and influencing
decision-makers to make the right decisions.
I rely on groups
like Environment Rhode Island, Clean Water Action, People Power and
Light, and others to assist in the myriad of cases I’ve brought on
behalf of the people of Rhode Island—to reduce global warming, to
uphold the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, to ensure the public’s
access to natural resources and others.
Under your leadership, Rhode Island is pursuing litigation against Brayton Point power plant. Where does that case stand? We’re
right in the middle of what will be a long battle. We are defending the
Clean Water Act permit, issued by EPA, that requires the plant to
reduce the amount of water it uses from Mount Hope Bay and limits the
temperature of the water it returns to the bay. The plant’s owner
opposed the permit because it argues that to meet these limits, it
would have to use a technology known as closed-cycle cooling, which it
claims is too expensive to install and not necessary to prevent harm to
the Bay. The owner challenged the permit before the EPA’s Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB).
In February of 2006, the EAB ruled mostly
in favor of the permit, but also asked EPA to further explain certain
aspects of the permit. EPA provided an explanation to the EAB and we
are waiting for a final ruling. If the EAB rules in favor of the
permit, we expect that the company will appeal the decision to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
