Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt is asking a federal appeals court to block new EPA regulations that are expected to increase the cost of electricity for Kansas consumers as soon as next year.

Schmidt filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to reject new Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The new regs will require Kansas utilities to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in new emissions control equipment before January 1, 2012 – a timeline the state’s utilities say is impossible to meet.

“The EPA gave Kansas only five months to make major changes to the way electricity is generated in our state,” Schmidt said. “It will be physically impossible for all of our utilities to comply, which means that either Kansans will be paying higher rates or there simply will not be enough electricity to meet Kansas demand”

Kansas is challenging the so-called Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was published by EPA in August. The EPA claims the rule is intended to prevent air pollution from states like Kansas from contributing to air-quality problems in downwind states in the northeast.

Schmidt said Kansas disputes the EPA’s analysis of Kansas emissions levels, overestimating the state’s contribution to downwind air quality. He says the rushed implementation of the new rule will needlessly add millions of dollars of costs to Kansas utilities. Those costs will be passed through to Kansas consumers in the form of higher electricity rates and also will divert resources from investments in the utilities’ existing long-term pollution control plans.

“This is an example of the EPA imposing its will on the states rather than working cooperatively with Kansas toward the shared goal of cleaner air,” Schmidt said. “The major problem with that approach is that it’s contrary to federal law – Congress anticipated that the Clean Air Act would be implemented cooperatively between the states and the federal government. This EPA attempt to short-circuit that proven cooperative approach is unwise and, in our view, unlawful.”