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
One of the huge problems with these cases is that you practically have to devote your life to it. Tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pages of documents have to be read and understood involving several complex disciplines. Who has time for this?
However, I must say that much, if not most, of EPA’s scientific work is extremely questionable if not fraudulent. It has never impressed me. Generally what is done is a position is taken then studies are undertaken or referenced which support that conclusion.
Nor is any consideration given of what the threat the technology replaces would have done. Protesting coal fired plants is one thing but is there anyone who seriously maintains that using wood for energy would have caused fewer deaths.
I think if EPA safety standards were used for approval of new drugs we would see almost none approved.
As for flaws in the basis for the rule, it's ALL flawed -- the medical studies, the air/deposition model (whatever that is), the economic analysis, and the MACTs. And I say that with confidence, even without having seen any of it.
As for your Enviro-Com appeal to fear, it means as much to me as EPA's supporting data and analyses. After all, without the ludicrous appeals to fear there would be no EPA.
Thanks for the ping back to the thread. A very lively discussion indeed. Yes, I read every post...every word. I’ll repost my original...
Great post & thread. Thanks to all.
DEFUND/(DISMANTLE/DESTROY when necessary), socialist collectives, foreign and domestic.
...and add...
With that in mind (after funding for socialist collectives has stopped) legislatures (state and federal) could be part-time with 1/10th pay, NO benefits, NO retirement, NO perks.