And China is a Most Favored Nation. Are they not on the same planet as we are?
BEIJING!
Posted on 07/07/2011 6:36:17 PM PDT by Jean S
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday finalized stronger regulations for Wisconsin and 26 other states aimed at curbing air pollution from long-distance sources.
The rules will help those states fight ozone and particle pollution caused by power plants in Illinois, Indiana and other states.
But Wisconsin utilities - whose pollution can contribute to air-quality problems elsewhere - will also need to find ways to reduce their own emissions.
The likely result: Higher electric bills in the coming years.
A group of power companies known as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity called the action one of the most costly crackdowns on coal ever.
Nationwide, the EPA estimated utilities will spend $1.2 billion next year and $800 million in 2014 to comply with the rule.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
History happens over the heads of rural people. They rarely do anything but react. Cities are what creates civilizations as the name implies.
Well, then shame on the Founding Fathers. Good grief saltus.
And China is a Most Favored Nation. Are they not on the same planet as we are?
BEIJING!
“CONGRESS passes these laws not the EPA. The American people WANTED the EPA and it is probably the most popular government agency.”
You write like an eco-fascist moonbat.
Tell everyone about the EPA’s migratory molecule rule and how the EPA’s fascists tried to apply it.
When did Congress pass the migratory molecule rule?
Who sponsored the legislation?
How is the rule applied to tile drainage ditches? And at what distance is it applicable to navigable waters? And who in Congress determined that?
How does the migratory molecule rule fair when it butts up against SWANCC v. US Army?
Just imagine all the permit fees (fee raises every month, at lease) for a retro tent city....just hose it down and delouse it once a week...get peelousee to shave her pits if she can fit that in...
I guess this is the punishment for WI getting rid of the unions.
S’OK. Soon they’ll be freezing in the dark.
Congress sets up the laws and allows the agencies to develop the means of implementing those laws. That is the FACT you seem to want to ignore.
If the agency subsequently exceeds its authority or Congressional wishes Congress can easily rule it in. The fact that it does not seems to indicate that Congress supports the EPA. And there is no real opposition to most of its actions in the people at large either. Only a fool would conclude otherwise. Do you think 40 years of propagandizing has had no effect of how people think, especially younger people, about the environment and man’s role within it?
Insulting those who tell you the truth won’t help you get to the bottom of things either. But I am sure vomiting out inflammatory (and completely useless) rhetoric is more to your liking.
I'm guessing none attended the public hearings that were held, either.
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, eco-fascist.
You ignored every question I asked, which is typical of leftists like you. You come on here humping the skunk, telling everyone how much you know about the EPA and congress passing laws. Yet you can’t answer a single question posed to you. Well, go rub obuma’s back, DU troll.
And you’re the bed-wetter who started hurling insults, goosestepper, so expect return fire.
You’re on the wrong website, little SOB. Head back to DU before the kitties are called and you’re zapped.
Yes. President George H.W. Bush signed the law requiring this.
Though actually, it was the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered it be implemented by the EPA after the EPA tried to exempt the power plants (note also the interstate aspects of the broader topic [CSAPR], as familyop has pointed out, where downwind states want implementation that upwind states don't want). The SCOTUS also denied appeals regarding the decision.
If we want the law overturned, then Congress is the place to do it. What kind of conservatives call for laws to be blatantly ignored, suggesting elimination of an implementing agency rather than getting the law amended? [I had composed this comment earlier today but didn't hit "Post"...now I see that arrogantsob has made this point, too. :-) ]
Logical me> Wisconsin should ignore the EPA and warn any attempt at force closing their plants will be the end of the EPA in this State.
Note that this headline focuses on Wisconsin only because that's the location of the source of the article.
In any case, though, Wisconsin's CAMR proposal was even stricter than the EPA's! I'm no fan of the Feds, but it's not like Wisconsin is some innocent victim here.
Also, what part of the EPA's technical basis do people think is flawed, if they do? Is it the studies from the from the medical literature that the EPA referenced? Is it the air/deposition model? Is it some component of the economic analysis? Complaints about the MACTs? Or is the technical basis valid and we're just saying a few birth defects are fine, and it should be legal for power companies to deposit teratogens onto neighbors' property to ensure their product doesn't cost us consumers too much?
I personally don't know all of the details and haven't read all the TSDs, but if people are so sure it's a bad rule, I'd like to hear the basis for that claim.
There are so many flaws in your “logic,” that’s it’s tough to know where to begin.
I won’t go thru your post point by point, because there’s an easier way to destroy your post.
Let’s start with DQA. The Data Quality Act, passed by Congress and signed by George Bush, DEMANDS that any bureaucrat agency bases its rules on SCIENCE.
What DQA means is that ANY rule ginned up by eco-fascist bureaucrats MUST pass the DQA test that it is, indeed, the BEST science available.
But it goes beyond that. Any American, poor, dumb, interested, can challenge any bureaucratic rule in court. And the bureaucracy must present its best scientific facts to support its position.
If they fail, the rule is squashed. In addition, the courts MUST use only the best science when finding for or against a decision. If they don’t, they can be impeached and thrown in prison.
Semper fi, FRiend
Note that the cost given was just for next year. IIANM, most of the implementation costs come in the second phase, about 5 years down the line.
Congress doesn't pass "rules"...they pass laws that are implemented via rules.
In the case of the "Migratory Molecule Rule," it's the Clean Water Act. Without the CWA, there could be no "Migratory Molecule Rule." (Note that I'm interpreting your term "Migratory Molecule Rule" broadly.)
Who sponsored the legislation?
Edmund Muskie, I believe, was the primary sponsor...but you should be able to look up all the sponsors.
How is the rule applied to tile drainage ditches? And at what distance is it applicable to navigable waters? And who in Congress determined that?
Soon after the Clean Water Act was passed, it was determined in federal court that Congress intended it to apply to more than strictly navigable waters. IIRC, in one of the first portions of the law, it notes that the intent is to protect navigable waters--and that, of course, requires control of the inputs to navigable waters. There have been dozens of court cases confirming the CWA jurisdiction over these "Migratory Molecule" inputs. To get specific answers on how the rule (which was shot down in its original sense by a complex SCOTUS decision, but supported in a narrower sense) is applied in a modified way, you should contact an environmental attorney--I'm not qualified to answer those questions, despite having a couple of binders of MDEQ documents in my back seat at the moment. :-) But as stated above, Congress determined, and the SCOTUS agreed, that many inputs are regulated under the CWA.
And the important point: Congress has not amended the CWA to avoid including "significant nexus" or "permanent flow" inputs. Congress has left intact the interpretations of dozens of court cases, including the decision of the SCOTUS.
How does the migratory molecule rule fair when it butts up against SWANCC v. US Army?
The "Migratory Moleule Rule" came in response to SWANCC v. USACOE, so there's not an issue of "butting up against" it. See a case known as Rapanos v. United States (dealing with a case in your state) for more relevant and recent info.
As you highlight, the EPA and COE rules are subject to court decisions and may be overturned by Congressional amendments. I believe this is exactly what arrogantsob is pointing out: the laws are passed by Congress, and the agencies are Executive branch--i.e., implementing the laws, and subject to checks and balances of the Legislative and and Judicial branches.
So Congress is the appropriate root-cause target for reform.* Without the Clean Water Act being written the way it is, allowing these EPA/COE rules, the rules couldn't exist.
*unless we act like little anti-American lefties and push for ignoring the law.
Who needs clean air! SAY NO TO CLEAN AIR!!!
Don’t be an idiot, this has nothing to do with clean air.
They held public hearings that allowed "Any American, poor, dumb, interested," to attend (you can even download the recordings), and they've provided updates right into this week. For example, there's a TSD from July 1, 2011.
In fact, the public comment period for the proposed mercury and air toxic standards has been extended until August 4.
Sounds like punishment for Wisconsin’s electing a GOP governnor...
Naw, I’, probably just being paranoid.
Reading between the lines, it's pretty clear that this is part of the global warming nonsense that they are trying to pull off. Instead of saying, hey, we're raising your rates (in Wisconsin) because we don't think your winters are cold enough, they are yapping about sulfur dioxide or whatnot.
Nope very few do attend these things except those with an axe to grind over something particular, an enviro group, a consultant, a project manager and state officials.
Most of the others prefer bitching and moaning after the horse is out of the barn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.