• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Administration changes rules for older power plants and guess what?

P

Piano Man

Diamond Member
It gives them more flexibility in meeting the Clean Air Act. Nothing like giving the gift of Christmas to the polluters a little early. Sounds good to me...............NOT!!!


Article
 
To the contrary, I think this is a good thing. Imagine wanting to reduce the emissions on your 1970 car by getting a better computer system or switching to fuel injection. Instead of being allowed to just do that they would force you to upgrade to the equivilant of 2002 ULEV spec at significantly higher cost. Thus, if you can't afford it you wouldn't do anything at all.

There also appeasr to be some concern about maintenence not being done either as a result of the former policy.
 
Technology to significantly reduce emissions, the EPA estimates, would cost $1.8 billion a year for the industry, and eventually consumers. That?s 0.5% of the industry?s annual revenue of $400 billion.
Click to expand...
I want to kill someone over this.
 

Originally posted by: CaesarX
Technology to significantly reduce emissions, the EPA estimates, would cost $1.8 billion a year for the industry, and eventually consumers. That?s 0.5% of the industry?s annual revenue of $400 billion.
Click to expand...
I want to kill someone over this.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something? That wasn't in the article I dont think.
 
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: CaesarX
Technology to significantly reduce emissions, the EPA estimates, would cost $1.8 billion a year for the industry, and eventually consumers. That?s 0.5% of the industry?s annual revenue of $400 billion.
Click to expand...
I want to kill someone over this.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something? That wasn't in the article I dont think.
Click to expand...
Click those pictures for more info.
 
Originally posted by: Piano Man
It gives them more flexibility in meeting the Clean Air Act. Nothing like giving the gift of Christmas to the polluters a little early. Sounds good to me...............NOT!!!


Article
Click to expand...

Hmmm, a Republican president who was in the oil business giving a break to energy companies.

Yep sounds right to me!

 
Oh, I see. Still, that statistic isnt of much use without more information. A bit misleading- its talking solely of mercury emissions. I'm also curious what study estimated this, emissions from what kind of plants (just coal?), how much is "significant", etc.
 
Under the new rules, which do not require congressional approval, facilities would get ?greater flexibility? to modernize their operations without a New Resource Review as long as they don?t increase pollution and agree to emission caps that will be worked out in the future.
Click to expand...

I don't see what you are all upset about. They aren't being allowed to increase current emissions under this plan, they just have more time to adjust to the "new rules", even thought the time hasn't been set.

I can believe some of you think that all power companies are making a huge profit; most are still under the federal standard of 8% profit margin.
 
Do you people even READ these articles? Here is the key aspect:
Under the new rules, which do not require congressional approval, facilities would get ?greater flexibility? to modernize their operations without a New Resource Review as long as they don?t increase pollution and agree to emission caps that will be worked out in the future.
Click to expand...
I bolded the appropriate section for those with selective myopia.

Contrast that with the comments from Jeffords:
?This early Christmas gift to industry means more pollution and less protection,? said Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, a Republican turned independent and outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment Committee.
Click to expand...
He apparently missed that key section of the change, highlighted in bold above so don't feel bad if you did, too. He's just pissed off because he's losing his committee chairman position. Turncoat.

Anyway, sounds like a good, sensible plan to me, one that is being greeted with the usual hysteria and kneejerk emotional responses from eco-radicals who fail to actually examine the contents as opposed to just the cover.
 
No Andrew, they do not read nor comprehend. Their kneejerk response though works very very well.


MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM

(1) MYTH: EPA is finalizing changes to the NSR program without analyzing the impact of those changes on public health and the environment.
FACT: EPA has evaluated the impact of the changes to the NSR program and found that these improvements will reduce overall emissions by (1) eliminating unintentional regulatory barriers that stand in the way of environmentally beneficial projects at existing plants, (2) removing counterproductive incentives that encourage facilities to maintain their emissions as high as legally allowed, and (3) establishing regulatory incentives for sources to decrease emissions. The final rules are based on an enormous amount of public comment that EPA has gathered and evaluated over the last 10 years, and on EPA?s own legal, technical and policy review. In addition to reducing emissions, the changes will provide regulatory certainty, administrative flexibility and permit streamlining.

(6) MYTH: Because some of the final rule changes allow facilities to freeze their emission levels for 10 years, EPA?s changes to the NSR program will not lead to air quality improvements.
FACT: This claim is simply untrue. As noted above, EPA?s review shows that the changes made by the final rule will provide a net benefit to air quality by removing current NSR barriers to environmentally beneficial projects and by removing incentives in the current NSR rules to keep pollution at high levels.
It is important to understand that the NSR program was never designed to require facilities to reduce existing levels of pollution ? that is not its purpose. NSR review is designed to be triggered when a new facility is being built or when one is undergoing a major modification that could significantly increase emissions. NSR is a permitting process to review and control emissions increases, not a tool to require reductions. The best way to require reductions in emissions is through legislative action such as the President?s Clear Skies proposal.


Economic Analysis of a Multi-Emissions Strategy
 
Excellent point etech, most dem/libs just what to bash Bush without any responsiblity to the truth. That's why they lost so many seats this last election.
 
Originally posted by: etech
No Andrew, they do not read nor comprehend. Their kneejerk response though works very very well.


MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM

(1) MYTH: EPA is finalizing changes to the NSR program without analyzing the impact of those changes on public health and the environment.
FACT: EPA has evaluated the impact of the changes to the NSR program and found that these improvements will reduce overall emissions by (1) eliminating unintentional regulatory barriers that stand in the way of environmentally beneficial projects at existing plants, (2) removing counterproductive incentives that encourage facilities to maintain their emissions as high as legally allowed, and (3) establishing regulatory incentives for sources to decrease emissions. The final rules are based on an enormous amount of public comment that EPA has gathered and evaluated over the last 10 years, and on EPA?s own legal, technical and policy review. In addition to reducing emissions, the changes will provide regulatory certainty, administrative flexibility and permit streamlining.

(6) MYTH: Because some of the final rule changes allow facilities to freeze their emission levels for 10 years, EPA?s changes to the NSR program will not lead to air quality improvements.
FACT: This claim is simply untrue. As noted above, EPA?s review shows that the changes made by the final rule will provide a net benefit to air quality by removing current NSR barriers to environmentally beneficial projects and by removing incentives in the current NSR rules to keep pollution at high levels.
It is important to understand that the NSR program was never designed to require facilities to reduce existing levels of pollution ? that is not its purpose. NSR review is designed to be triggered when a new facility is being built or when one is undergoing a major modification that could significantly increase emissions. NSR is a permitting process to review and control emissions increases, not a tool to require reductions. The best way to require reductions in emissions is through legislative action such as the President?s Clear Skies proposal.


Economic Analysis of a Multi-Emissions Strategy
Click to expand...


Those would be excellent points if it came from outside the control of the Bush administration. Try looking at non government/corporate controlled environmental websites, and you might see a strikenly different take on the situation. 😉

 
Don't look at me.

The only President I ever felt had our best interests at heart in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. And nobody thought he was any good. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Piano Man
Originally posted by: etech
No Andrew, they do not read nor comprehend. Their kneejerk response though works very very well.


MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM

(1) MYTH: EPA is finalizing changes to the NSR program without analyzing the impact of those changes on public health and the environment.
FACT: EPA has evaluated the impact of the changes to the NSR program and found that these improvements will reduce overall emissions by (1) eliminating unintentional regulatory barriers that stand in the way of environmentally beneficial projects at existing plants, (2) removing counterproductive incentives that encourage facilities to maintain their emissions as high as legally allowed, and (3) establishing regulatory incentives for sources to decrease emissions. The final rules are based on an enormous amount of public comment that EPA has gathered and evaluated over the last 10 years, and on EPA?s own legal, technical and policy review. In addition to reducing emissions, the changes will provide regulatory certainty, administrative flexibility and permit streamlining.

(6) MYTH: Because some of the final rule changes allow facilities to freeze their emission levels for 10 years, EPA?s changes to the NSR program will not lead to air quality improvements.
FACT: This claim is simply untrue. As noted above, EPA?s review shows that the changes made by the final rule will provide a net benefit to air quality by removing current NSR barriers to environmentally beneficial projects and by removing incentives in the current NSR rules to keep pollution at high levels.
It is important to understand that the NSR program was never designed to require facilities to reduce existing levels of pollution ? that is not its purpose. NSR review is designed to be triggered when a new facility is being built or when one is undergoing a major modification that could significantly increase emissions. NSR is a permitting process to review and control emissions increases, not a tool to require reductions. The best way to require reductions in emissions is through legislative action such as the President?s Clear Skies proposal.


Economic Analysis of a Multi-Emissions Strategy
Click to expand...


Those would be excellent points if it came from outside the control of the Bush administration. Try looking at non government/corporate controlled environmental websites, and you might see a strikenly different take on the situation. 😉
Click to expand...



And that might be relevant if these changes were proposed during the Bush Administration, and not all the way back in 1996, or if, quoting the EPA, they had not been subject to "extensive public comment". State what exactly you disagree with in those statements.
 
Those would be excellent points if it came from outside the control of the Bush administration. Try looking at non government/corporate controlled environmental websites, and you might see a strikenly different take on the situation
_____________________________________________________________--

And I suppose the environmentalist websites don't have their own agenda?
 
Originally posted by: Piano Man
American Lung Association's Reaction

Environmental Defense Organization's Reaction

Natural Resources Defense Council's Reaction

U.S. Public Interest Research Group's Reaction

New Jersey Governer McGreevey's Response

Senator Jefford's Reaction

EarthJustice's Reaction (.pdf)

Report that shows how older coal burning plants will benefit from the changes to the NSR.


I'm starting to see a pattern here.........
Click to expand...
Would you look at that folks. Not one single objective source. "Environmental Defence Organization"? "Natural Resources Defence Council"? "EarthJustice"? What's the matter? Couldn't find an article about this done by EarthFirst? Damn left-wing nutjob organizations.

ZV

EDIT: I'll give that the GAO source is technically objective. But it's about as far from the proof he needs as one can get.
 
That makes me sick. He's just helping his oil companies make more money for a few more years. That type of stuff should be illegal....but alas...
 
Yea, you know those damn nonprofit environmental organizations are just trying to screw us out of every damn dime we have. 😕 Its not like they are trying to help us breathe or anything, its just a coverup so they can make money.
rolleye.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top