(02-08) 09:41 PST WASHINGTON (AP) —

A federal appeals court struck down Bush administration policy allowing some power plants to exceed mercury emission levels, ruling Friday that the government failed to consider the effect on public health and the environment.

More than a dozen states sued to block the regulation, saying it would allow dangerous levels of mercury into the environment. The toxic metal is known to contaminate seafood that can damage the developing brains of fetuses and young children.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit negated a rule known as cap-and-trade. That policy allows power plants that fail to meet emission targets to buy credits from plants that did, rather than having to install their own mercury emissions controls. The rule was to go into effect in 2010.

“This three-judge panel has done the world a favor and helped save lives,” said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, one of many attorneys general who joined a lawsuit originally brought by New Jersey.

The three-judge court unanimously struck down the cap-and-trade policy and the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to exempt coal- and oil-fired power plants from regulations requiring strict emissions control technology to block emissions. Before instituting the new regulation, the court held, the government was required to show that emissions from any power plant would not harm the environment or “exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety.”

The EPA argued it was not required to follow that rule, a stance the court held was “not persuasive.”

The agency defended the rule, saying it represented the nation’s first attempt to control such emissions and that it would reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent.

“Keep in mind, the U.S. now has no national mercury emissions regulation for these plants,” EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said, adding that the EPA would consider whether the cap-and-trade policy could be resurrected under a different regulation. “It’s good for America and it’s good for the environment. We want to be a global leader on this issue,” he said.

Industry organizations strongly supported the plan.

“The court’s decision represents an major setback for federal efforts to establish clear mercury regulations for coal-fired power plants,” said Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for Edison Electric Institute, an association of power companies. “Now EPA has to go back to the drawing board, pushing mercury regulations far off into the future.”

Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60,000 newborns a year could be at risk of learning disabilities because of mercury their mothers absorbed during pregnancy. About 8 percent of U.S. women of childbearing age have enough mercury in their blood to cause concern for a future pregnancy.

New Jersey Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson applauded the ruling as “a tremendous victory that will result in a healthier environment for New Jersey’s residents Д especially our children.

The states argued that the cap-and-trade system would endanger children near some power plants that pollute but use credits to do it legally.

“This means the EPA is going to have to go back and do a real job of regulating all the toxics coming out of these plants,” said attorney James S. Pew, who argued the case on behalf of several environmental organizations that filed documents in the case.

Joining New Jersey in the lawsuit were: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

__

Associated Press writers Cara Rubinsky in Hartford, Conn., and Rebecca Santana in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.

It’s barely February as I write this, but already 2008 is making brows sweat in Magazineland. Paper prices are skyrocketing, advertising is sluggish, and recessionary fears loom. Wal-Mart («www.businessweek.com») booted hundreds of magazines out of its stores, which won’t help newsstand sales. Nor will magazine wholesalers’ ongoing campaign to reduce the volume of copies they distribute, so that they can increase the percentage of copies they actually sell. “Everything that’s going up is not supposed to be going up, and everything that’s going down is not supposed to be going down,” cracks a mordant senior executive. Plus, oh yeah, that Internet thing. Virtually all publishers are racing to invent or buy digital strategies after previously neglecting that part of the business.

This year’s stresses are likely to hit the independent, midsize companies of the sector first. These guys are not huge enough to spread challenges across a business notching north of a billion in revenues, nor can they hide within a parent company’s multiple companies, as Hearst Magazines or Time Warner’s («www.businessweek.com») Time Inc. can. But they rely on titles big enough to be exposed to macro advertising trends, to which small, niche companies are relatively immune. Rodale and American Media, which post annual revenues around $625 million and $475 million, respectively, are very different companies in very different situations. But they’re both still likely to feel the changes in this year’s barometric pressures earlier than their bigger brethren. LITTLE ROOM FOR ERROR

American Media is heavily dependent on supermarket tabloids like the National Enquirer and Star. Rodale bet early on what we now call “wellness,” in a move that proved fortuitous, and has hit big with the magazines Men’s Health and Prevention, which it founded in 1950; it’s also had the fortune to publish The South Beach Diet book. Rodale is a family-owned company, run by President and CEO Steven Murphy. American Media, backed by Thomas H. Lee and Evercore Partners («www.businessweek.com»), has been run since 1999 by magazine veteran David Pecker. American Media’s financial results are solid on the surface, but it’s been rocked by earnings restatements. It has also, quite simply, not delivered for its investors, and underperformed many of Pecker’s promises of revenue and profit levels, even while its fiscal year, which ends March 31, looks notably better than the previous one. Rodale’s profit was less than $25 million in 2007, according to two executives who viewed financial data, a low figure for a company whose overall ad pages last year surged around 15%. They are thus two companies without much apparent margin for additional spending at a time when competitive vicissitudes require just that.

Murphy disputes this, saying ‘08 will be a year in which newish, in-the-red magazines Women’s Health and Best Life will turn toward profitability. “I would be more worried if our investments were not working,” he says. That three high-level executives have departed since December—one remains a part-time adviser—has raised concerns about cost cuts. But Murphy denies the moves were motivated by such concerns, and a spokeswoman says new hires are imminent. (Pecker’s spokesman declined an interview request.)

American Media and Rodale both sought buyers in 2007, although Rodale truncated the process abruptly, say executives who were involved. A long-discussed deal between American Media and Source Interlink («www.businessweek.com»), a Ron Burkle concern that owns a major distribution arm and a set of enthusiast magazines, appears dormant. Pecker’s five-year contract, which expires in April, will be extended a year, says a spokesman, a vote of confidence that, given industry chatter, may surprise observers. (Two senior executives employed elsewhere report knowledge of conversations in which American Media’s owners discussed replacing Pecker around a year ago.)

These observers may search for other clues from these companies that the outlook for magazines is souring faster in ‘08. Look for a quick, quiet round of layoffs. Look for small-bore magazine or asset sales. Look for sudden ad dips at cornerstones such as American Media’s Shape or Rodale’s Men’s Health. Look, in sum, for 2008 to decide whether the midsize, privately held players can still thrive as standalones in a stagnant or shrinking world.

For Jon Fine’s blog on media and advertising, go to «www.businessweek.com»

(02-06) 04:00 PST New York —

High oil prices and growing concerns about the environment may drive more than $7 trillion of new investment in clean energy technologies by 2030, an energy research group says.

Public pressure and private investment dollars are combining to bring clean energy technologies - defined as energy sources that are low in carbon emissions - from the fringes of the energy industry to its center, said Cambridge Energy Research Associates, or CERA, in a new report.

“We are seeing a major shift in public opinion,” said Daniel Yergin, CERA’s chairman. “This is providing a vital impetus that is moving clean technology across the great divide of cost, proven results, scale and maturity that has separated it from markets served by mainstream technologies.”

Among renewable sources, wind power is poised to make the greatest gains, followed by solar power and biofuels, CERA said. But nuclear and hydroelectric generation will attract almost half of the $7 trillion, CERA said.

In the United States, renewable energy sources currently account for about 6.5 percent of total energy consumed, according to the Energy Department. Nuclear power itself makes up only an additional 8 percent of overall consumption, which is dominated by fossil fuels such as petroleum, coal and natural gas.

But worldwide, there is a “bubbling” of clean energy clusters, CERA said, including Brazil, where biofuel technologies are growing, Germany, where a solar energy process called photovoltaic technology is growing, and Spain, which has become a center of wind energy development.

The biggest driver behind clean energy may be increased oil and natural gas prices, which are making expensive clean technologies economically viable. But government policies that subsidize clean energy, put a price on carbon emissions or mandate reductions in pollutants or the use of renewable energy are also key drivers, CERA said.

The research firm identified a number of new clean energy technologies that show promise. They include geothermal plants, which would generate energy by tapping heat from deep in the earth, ocean generation plants, which would use wave or tidal power to generate electricity, and concentrating solar power, where the sun’s rays are focused to create steam-powered electricity.