The administration seems to be re-working air pollution regulations:
The Bush administration has drafted regulations that would ease pollution controls on older, dirtier power plants and could allow those that modernize to emit more pollution, rather than less.
The language could undercut dozens of pending state and federal lawsuits aimed at forcing coal-fired plants to cut back emissions of harmful pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, said lawyers who worked on the cases.
The draft rules, obtained by The Washington Post from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, contradict the position taken by federal lawyers who have prosecuted polluting facilities in the past, and parallel the industry’s line of defense against those suits. The utilities, and the proposed new rules, take the position that decisions on whether a plant complies with the regulations after modernization should be based on how much pollution it could potentially emit per hour, rather than the current standard of how much it pollutes annually.
Under the new standard, a modernized plant’s total emissions could rise if the upgrade allowed it to operate longer hours. In court filings, the EPA estimated in 2002 that an hourly standard would allow eight plants in five states — including Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia — to generate legally as much as 100,000 tons a year of pollutants that would be illegal under the existing New Source Review rule. That equals about a third of their total emissions.
EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the administration believes the existing power plant rule is no longer necessary because of other regulatory initiatives. She said a newer and different regulation designed to cut pollution from eastern power plants, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, would achieve greater pollution reductions than the New Source Review modernization guidelines.
As this story is written, it seems like a no-brainer to oppose it. However, it might actually be an improvement in the efficiency in the plant (the upgrades mean less pollutants per unit of power, but they will be producing more units of power, hence a net gain in pollutants). Be interesting to see what comes of this.
And because nothing is clear to my left-leaning Kommentariat, I am against air pollution, but I would like to know what is going on before I commit to a position. In other words, I am being your typical lickspittle apologist sychophant.
Veeshir
First let me say, I don’t trust the Wash Post. They hate Bush and do everything they can to bash him. They even have a staff writer whose job it is to bash him, Dana Milbank.
But I also feel that I have to disprove what they say if I’m going to say they’re idiots, so here goes.
Quotes just from above:
take the position that decisions on whether a plant complies with the regulations after modernization should be based on how much pollution it could potentially emit per hour, rather than the current standard of how much it pollutes annually.
and
Under the new standard, a modernized plant’s total emissions could rise if the upgrade allowed it to operate longer hours.
So in other words, if you allow the plant to work longer hours it can pollute more.
Hmmm, let’s study that proposition.
Let’s see, I own a car. I drive it 10 hours this week and it pollutes X.
I drive it 20 hours next week and it pollutes 2X.
But, I fix the catalytic converter and drive it 30 hours the week after and it pollutes 2.5X.
Now, I’m polluting two and a half times as much. Question, is my car more polluting after the third week?
Yes and no. Yes, there is more pollution because I use it more. No, because it’s polluting less per hour.
So a greenie would most likely say I’m polluting more and demand that I drive my car 10 hours (cough*Kyoto*cough).
I have to say, I’m fer it. We need more electricity and building new plants is nearly impossible so this would increase energy production without increasing pollution per/unit time, and possibly decreasing it per unit time as upgrading power generation plants built in the 70s would seem very likely to make them more efficient, hence, less pollution per unit produced.
This looks like the Wash Post counting on people’s mathematical and statistical illiteracy to bash Bush.
I give them a 6.5 on the effort.
SRN
“And because nothing is clear to my left-leaning Kommentariat”
Ahhh, enlightened, civil discourse.
Shygetz
Veeshir- A strawman mathmatical analysis. How novel.
The rules being changed here were meant to force older power plants to slowly come into compliance with new air quality standards. That way, we wouldn’t have to rebuild all of the power plants at once, just upgrade them slowly over time. The rule stated that, whenever the power plant underwent a significant modification, they had to install scrubbers to reduce pollution. Now, they are wanting to change that rule to say that if after the modification, the power plant does not produce more pollution per hour than it did before, then it does not need to upgrade to reduce pollution. Under this new proposed rule, old, dirty power plants would effectively NEVER have to add scrubbers to reduce pollution, so long as the upgrade did not make them produce more pollution per hour (which it never would).
I give you a 10 on your math (can’t argue with arithmetic) and a 2 for your analogy.
John Cole
SRN- Do you read the comments here? Nothing I say is debated civilly. Goldstein might be on to something:
SRN
And if everyone jumped off the brooklyn bridge, would you do it to?
BinkyBoy
Screw Goldstein, Defense guy. Darrell and Another Jeff.
The only thing they ever say is “the left hates America”.
But maybe you should keep shifting right and chase the rest of us America Haters out of here, John. I mean, hey, those three right there can carry on wonderful “shoot the looters” conversations while clapping their hands wildly so Peter Pan will be saved.
MI
Well if there’s one thing the Bush administration has earned, it’s the benefit of the doubt.
Nah, I agree, the prudent thing to due is to wait and see what’s up before forming an opinion, but you gotta know that this group has shredded people’s patience. But hey, who knows, maybe this will turn out to be better for the environment, I just won’t be holding my breath…or maybe I will.
Jeff G
Yeah, that’s all I ever say, BinkyBoy.
You fucking huge tool.
Veeshir
Shygetz,
Were my quotes not in the article?
As for your analysis, I disagree.
The rules being changed here were meant to force older power plants to slowly come into compliance with new air quality standards.
Only when they upgraded. It was incentive to not upgrade. Incentive to keep the power plants less efficient and more polluting.
The new rules will give them incentive to upgrade and make them less polluting.
New plants will still have to meet the more stringent rules.
BinkyBoy
hey Goldstein,
go back to your echo chamber where you can routinely bash the left, where you can ignore all the benefits of liberalism and get cheered on by the likes of Defense Guy, people that appreciate you for the complete Kool-Aid drinking Republican you know you want to be.
Maybe if you clap harder you can get an appointment in 2006.
Veeshir
Just in case you missed my point, they had to meet those new standards only when they upgraded so they weren’t upgrading their plants.
goonie bird
Just wait the eco-freaks will be screaming that bush is the freind of the poluters he is the buddy to big buinesses while these same buinesses conctribute to these eco-freaks all the time
Eric
Veeshir is right. The Washington Post article fails to mention that the Northern District of Alabama also ruled that the current lawsuits against power plants misinterpret decades of New Source Review guidance. See http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/Hopkins/Opinions/CV-01-HS-152/CV-01-HS-152%20USA%20v.%20AL%20Power%20Company.pdf. The truth is that the Bush Administration’s proposed rules would turn NSR back to what it used to be until EPA started filing lawsuits against utilities in 1999 — a program for REVIEWING NEW SOURCES.
Shygetz
Veeshir-Do you have any reason to think that power plants were not upgrading because of the regulations? Because the statistics on the Clean Air Act at the EPA suggest that there was a large amount of upgrading power plants, as well as major new power plants being built.
If a power plant did not upgrade, the people it serviced did not get enough power–rolling blackouts. That didn’t happen. When more power was needed, the power plant either upgraded (and therefore installed more pollution controls), or a new power plant was built with up-to-date pollution controls already established. The proposed new regulations work as I said they would; they prevent the upgrading of pollution controls for power plants that are sorely out of date.
Eric-The Clean Air Act specifically says in section 111a 2-4 that any modification (either physical or in method of operation) that increases the amount of any air pollutant or introduces a new air pollutant is covered under that act. I cannot speak to the facts of the North District case, and do not have the time to read through all 60-something pages. However, the rules of the Clean Air act speak directly to the amount of pollutant, not the rate of pollution, for each new plant and plant modification. If the North Alabama court has changed that wording, then that is the definition of activist judging.
worn
John’s phrase: “typical lickspittle apologist sychophant”
Man, I got to hand it to you. That would make a great t-shirt!