<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sightline InstituteCoal Cuts: Oregon vs. Washington - Sightline Institute</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.sightline.org/2010/01/08/curbing-coal-pollution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.sightline.org/2010/01/08/curbing-coal-pollution/</link>
	<description>News and Views for a Sustainable Northwest</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:54:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>daily</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3</generator>
	
		<item>
		<title>Coal Cuts: Oregon vs. Washington</title>
		<link><![CDATA[https://www.sightline.org/2010/01/08/curbing-coal-pollution/]]></link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Who's setting the bar lower? | There&#8217;s little disagreement that pollution from coal plants is bad: unsightly at best and toxic at worst. That&#8217;s why state regulators are trying to cut emissions from the two coal plants operating in Centralia, Washington and Boardman, Oregon. But the two states do have different expectations for how effectively the coal plants can curb their pollution. Some (admittedly back-of-the-napkin) math reveals that&#8212;once the plants meet their final goals&#8212;Washington&#8217;s proposed agreement...]]></description>
					</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
