Bush hands enviroweenies a defeat

[MKSheppard]

WASHINGTON (Aug. 27) - The Bush administration on Wednesday exempted thousands of older power plants, refineries and factories from having to install costly clean air controls when they modernize with new equipment that improves efficiency but increases pollution.

In a major new revision to its air pollution rules, the Environmental Protection Agency will allow up to 20 percent of the costs of replacing each plant's production system to be considered ``routine maintenance'' that doesn't require costly antipollution controls, according to agency documents obtained by The Associated Press.

A typical power plant has more than one ``process unit'' containing a boiler, generator, turbine and other equipment. In the case of a 1,500-megawatt plant with two 750-megawatt units that cost $1 billion to replace, each could be upgraded $200 million at a time, agency officials and outside experts say.

The new rule signed Wednesday by EPA's acting administrator, Marianne L. Horinko, represents a fundamental shift away from a long-problematic 1971 maintenance standard.

``We're going to really, I think, create certainty going forward for industrial facilities, by spelling out what specific replacement is exempt,'' Horinko told the AP.

Until now, operators have been required to add more pollution-cutting devices if they do anything more than ``routine maintenance'' on a plant that causes emissions to increase significantly. The electric utility and oil industries have been lobbying the administration for the changes, saying the costs prohibit them from making energy-efficiency improvements.

The White House-led reworking of the maintenance standard essentially allows industries including manufacturers, chemical plants and pulp and paper mills to modernize a fifth at a time each of a facility's essential production systems.

They can do so even if the upgrades increase pollution, with no apparent restrictions on time intervals between modernization, though Horinko and other top EPA officials insist the plants still must comply with overall permit limits and other state and federal programs for pollutants.

Congress put the Clean Air Act's ``new source review'' program into law in 1977. Since then the agency has had mixed success in enforcing the maintenance provision.

``We can say categorically that pollution will not increase as a result of this rule,'' said Jeff Holmstead, EPA's assistant administrator in charge of air quality.

Environmentalists said that was untrue, however, since emissions can increase within a plant's permitted limits, and most plants are not now operating near those limits. They described the new changes as disastrous for people's health, especially those living near or downwind of some 17,000 industrial plants affected. And they said EPA ignored concerns expressed by hundreds of thousands of Americans opposed to the new regulations.

``It's an accounting gimmick that eliminates any possibility of pollution controls,'' said John Walke, director of Natural Resources Defense Council's clean air program. ``It's a total disaster. It's the effective repeal of this clean air program, through illegal administrative means.''

Last November the administration proposed an annual allowance for power plants, factories and refineries. The allowance would have let plant operators treat as maintenance any replaced equipment or other capital investment that cost up to 20 percent of a plant's total value. That proposal was dropped, agency officials say, because it was considered unworkable and cumbersome.

The new rule adopted Wednesday is based on another proposal from November to create an equipment replacement exemption. White House and EPA officials initially considered letting businesses replace up to 50 percent of a ``process unit'' before settling on the 20 percent figure.

08/27/03 14:25 EDT

*********

This means that many plants and refineries that have been taken out of service, because repairs would be so extensive that they would no longer be covered under the grandfather clause, can now be repaired and put back into service.

[Darth Wong]

You're cheering because plants are allowed to INCREASE pollution?

[Joe]

I can tell this could get ugly. Better go to sleep or stay away from this thread.

[MKSheppard]

Considering I just went for 24 hours with no light no power, no air, I say HELL YES

[Alyrium Denryle]

*watches the temperatureclmb and has difficulty filtering toxins out of the atmosphere... eopens an umbrella in preparation for acid rain*

[Joe]

Speak of the devil...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why hello

[Darth Wong]

Considering I just went for 24 hours with no light no power, no air, I say HELL YES

I went through that before you did; it does not mean I want to increase air pollution. What we need is to rethink design strategies and power industry regulations, not to give industries a blank cheque to INCREASE pollution.

[HemlockGrey]

Alyrium will come in here with hate burning in his eyes and begin proclaiming a new revolution.

Hamel will come in here and attack Bush ruthlessly.

Four other semi-conservatives(possibly Stravo, Skimmer, Stormbringer, and Knife) will begin to argue with Hamel and spin off into a completely unrelated discussion.

Marina will confuse everyone.

RedImp and Durandel will discuss the socio-political influences of this decision while keeping their backs to the wall. We might hear from Degan, as well.

Durran's out, and Shep will simply laugh maniacally for the duration of the thread.

[HemlockGrey]

Hmm...and I wrote all that directly after Wong's reply, too..

[Alyrium Denryle]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium will come in here with hate burning in his eyes and begin proclaiming a new revolution.

Maybe not something that extreme... hatred yes, revolution no...

[neoolong]

Hmm...and I wrote all that directly after Wong's reply, too..

Well, sure. It sounds predictable when you put it that way.

But seriously, this shit just sucks. We have pollution laws for a reason. And it isn't to circumvent them.

[Darth Wong]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

The principal problem was not so much supply as a predilection for purchasing long-distance power in bulk, which overtaxed a distribution grid that was not really meant for such activity. The grid has to be redesigned for improved safety and the manner in which electricity purchases are prioritized must be rethought (for example, a transmission tariff which sharply penalizes long-distance transmission would create a natural preference for more localized power).

[Joe]

(for example, a transmission tariff which sharply penalizes long-distance transmission would create a natural preference for more localized power).

A tax, you mean? Such a tariff would actually probably be illegal in America.

[Alyrium Denryle]

hmmm acid rain...

sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides arise from emissions from coal power pa\lants, they then may react with other chemicals and form guess what? Nitric acid and sufuric acid. This then disolves in water and rains down to earth... awfully pleasnt isnt it?

Global warming

Carbon dioxide and other chemicals like HFCs, insulate heat from the sun, trapping it... warming up the earth.

I would remind you that an increase in temperature of 10 degrees worldwide is what probably caused the permian extinction... wiping out IICR 98% of all life on earth...

Not a pleasant prospect in my opinion

[RedImperator]

Alyrium will come in here with hate burning in his eyes and begin proclaiming a new revolution.

Hamel will come in here and attack Bush ruthlessly.

Four other semi-conservatives(possibly Stravo, Skimmer, Stormbringer, and Knife) will begin to argue with Hamel and spin off into a completely unrelated discussion.

Marina will confuse everyone.

RedImp and Durandel will discuss the socio-political influences of this decision while keeping their backs to the wall. We might hear from Degan, as well.

Durran's out, and Shep will simply laugh maniacally for the duration of the thread.

And Hemlock will make smartass remarks.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

The principal problem was not so much supply as a predilection for purchasing long-distance power in bulk, which overtaxed a distribution grid that was not really meant for such activity. The grid has to be redesigned for improved safety and the manner in which electricity purchases are prioritized must be rethought (for example, a transmission tariff which sharply penalizes long-distance transmission would create a natural preference for more localized power).

With this I would agree. Though I was refering to a solution for the problems of polution.

[Sea Skimmer]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

So that we can spend twice the money as result of having to buy an equal amount of backup generation capacity for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining? Not to mention all the extra transmission capacity needed since such plants can only be built in a few areas andh ave quite large footprints.

Keep the nukes, dump the wind and solar idea.

[Joe]

Global warming
Carbon dioxide and other chemicals like HFCs, insulate heat from the sun, trapping it... warming up the earth.
I would remind you that an increase in temperature of 10 degrees worldwide is what probably caused the permian extinction... wiping out IICR 98% of all life on earth...
Not a pleasant prospect in my opinion

Aly, please. You know that humanity doesn't have the power to cause that kind of global warming (you may as well argue that we could make the Earth shake if we all jumped up and down at the same time).

[Iceberg]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

The principal problem was not so much supply as a predilection for purchasing long-distance power in bulk, which overtaxed a distribution grid that was not really meant for such activity. The grid has to be redesigned for improved safety and the manner in which electricity purchases are prioritized must be rethought (for example, a transmission tariff which sharply penalizes long-distance transmission would create a natural preference for more localized power).

Interstate tariffs within the U.S. are unconstitutional, unfortunately. Otherwise, that would be a good idea.

[Joe]

Interstate tariffs within the U.S. are unconstitutional, unfortunately.

Unfortunately!? The prohibition on interstate tariffs in the Constitution is one of the best ideas of the Founding Fathers! America wouldn't have lasted long at all without it.

[Dark Hellion]

Go with nukes, they're clean and efficient.
The new regulations themselves actually say nothing about allowing them to increase pollution, although some plants obviously will. It simply allows plants to uprade to a point without having to install new anti-pollution systems. It will increase the efficiency of the electical generators, and, in theory (the same theory that says communism works), decrease pollution. The decrease pollution line is bullshit, but it won't really increase pollution by massive leaps and bounds like enviromentalists make it out.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

So that we can spend twice the money as result of having to buy an equal amount of backup generation capacity for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining? Not to mention all the extra transmission capacity needed since such plants can only be built in a few areas andh ave quite large footprints.

Keep the nukes, dump the wind and solar idea.

Why not use wind and solar in areas in which they could be used? Energy can easily be stored, and in places like Arizona the sun puts out a lot of energy. Sure you would need backup generators, but these would not always be in production... and you would only need these if you didnt use a combination of nuclear power and solar/wind.

It is completely possible to run a house on a few solar panels here, and I have seen homes doing so.

Wind is equally usable in areas that recieve a lot of wind, IICR some of the midwestern states Iowa comes to mind which IIRC has 5 times its energy needs in wind power.

Hydrothermal power I am sure with a few technological advances could eventually be used in some areas.

[Darth Wong]

Go with nukes, they're clean and efficient.
The new regulations themselves actually say nothing about allowing them to increase pollution, although some plants obviously will. It simply allows plants to uprade to a point without having to install new anti-pollution systems. It will increase the efficiency of the electical generators, and, in theory (the same theory that says communism works), decrease pollution. The decrease pollution line is bullshit, but it won't really increase pollution by massive leaps and bounds like enviromentalists make it out.

The regulations allow them to upgrade in order to increase output even if it also increases pollution, and they don't have to ameliorate this situation.