Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
The EPA doles out some major goodies today and the headlines read:
EPA Exempts Old Plants from Key Rule -San Jose Mercury-News
New Federal Air Rule Draws Sharp Criticism -Washington Times
New EPA Rule Draws Flak, Smog -Christian Science Monitor
EPA Eases Pollution Rule at Power Plants -Reuters
EPA Sets Clean Air Act Exemptions -MSNBC
and...
New Rule Encourages Plant Modernization??
Huh? That can't be the same sto... Oh.
From our inimitable friends at Fox News.
Afraid of Bias?
Go here to read the rule in full or summary form in PDF for yourself. In the meantime let's look behind the media to who is fighting this out.
From Natural Resources Defense Council, a regular plaintiff in these suits:
NRDC obtained a leaked copy of the final rule, which essentially repeals the "new source review" provision of the Clean Air Act. That provision requires industrial facilities to install modern pollution controls when they make upgrades to plants that increase air pollution. The new final rule would allow facilities to avoid installing pollution controls when they replace equipment -- even if the upgrade increases pollution -- as long as the cost of the replacement did not exceed 20 percent of the cost of what the EPA broadly defines as a "process unit."
[...]
At the same time that the Bush administration has been preparing this new rule, the Department of Justice, state attorneys general, NRDC and other organizations have successfully prosecuted or settled new source review lawsuits that the Clinton administration brought against the 12 owners of the country's oldest, largest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. [...] EPA officials have estimated that if it won all of the enforcement cases involving the 51 plants, it would cut nearly 7 million tons of harmful air pollution annually. That would amount to a 50 percent reduction of air pollution generated by U.S. electric utilities.
[...]
The same companies that are currently being prosecuted for new source review violations are major contributors to the Republican Party and had easy access to Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force. For example, the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group comprising the power plant defendants in the Justice Department new source review cases, had at least 14 contacts with the Cheney task force and contributed nearly $600,000 to the Republican Party from 1999 to 2002.
From Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Trust, also a (less-frequent) plaintiff, via Tom Paine:
The Bush proposal triggered a firestorm of criticism, including from (Froz: soon to be the new EPA Administrator, pending confirmation) Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt's director of air quality, Rich Sprott. At an April 1 EPA hearing on the proposal, Sprott called it a "disastrous approach to managing air quality" and said it would create a "train wreck" that would be virtually impossible to enforce. (Sprott may not have understood that's exactly what the Bush White House and its power company friends want.)
From The American Lung Association, who I don't know if have ever taken part in a CAA suit, but who I know are advocates and lobbyists:
The American Lung Association strongly opposes the rule issued today by the Environmental Protection Agency that will roll back key provisions of the Clean Air Act, called New Source Review. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision is the latest in a series of steps that undermine large parts of the most effective environmental law in the United States.
And from the other side, for fairness and balance, of course.
From EPA
The changes we are making in this rule will provide industrial facilities and power plants with the regulatory certainty they need,” said Acting Administrator Marianne Horinko. “This rule will result in safer, more efficient operation of these facilities and, in the case of power plants, more reliable operations that are environmentally sound and provide more affordable energy.
[...]
In today’s action EPA is finalizing changes to the definition of “equipment replacement” under NSR. These changes were proposed in December 2002. EPA opened a 120 day comment period and held five public hearings across the country to ensure ample opportunity for public comment on the proposed changes. EPA received over 150,000 written comments and heard from over 450 individuals who participated in the public hearings. After reviewing the comments, EPA decided to move forward to finalize part of the proposed rule.
Froz: ", Anyway!"
Hey, maybe I could do Bill O'Reilly's job.
From Edison Electric Institute (The Electric Utility Trade Group) not on their website, however, even under press releases; Only as a Yahoo news bit (from which they're the submitter and the source). Like Yahoo has reporters...Puh-leeze. Cut the crap and quit hiding your PR as journalism.
Kuhn (Thomas R., President of EEI) noted that for the past several years, power companies have faced an uncertain and sometimes hostile regulatory environment in which even the most routine power plant maintenance practices or efficiency improvements are called into question. "We are pleased that electric companies will be able to get on with doing the job they do best -- generating the electricity that powers our economy and way of life," Kuhn said.
Froz: Mnmn, An amazing story. Wait. No, It isn't. You stank then and you stink now and you'll always stink.
Hey! I'm getting better at this! Bill, buddy, let me intern.
Ahh, back to the, um, "journalists":
From Fox News
"We're going to really, I think, create certainty going forward for industrial facilities, by spelling out what specific replacement is exempt," Horinko said. Supporters of the rule add that efficiency gains from plant upgrades will benefit the environment while also ensuring that electricity gets to its end. [...] The new rule, supported by the electricity utilities and oil industries, allows manufacturers, chemical plants and pulp and paper mills to modernize a fifth at a time.
Who needs a "Ministry of Information" when you have guys like this?
TrackBack