Lawyers at E.P.A. Say It Will Drop Pollution Cases

[Snellius]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A change in enforcement policy will lead the Environmental Protection Agency to drop investigations into 50 power plants for past violations of the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the agency who were briefed on the decision this week said.

The lawyers said in interviews on Wednesday that the decision meant the cases would be judged under new, less stringent rules set to take effect next month, rather than the stricter rules in effect at the time the investigations began.

The lawyers said the new rules include exemptions that would make it almost impossible to sustain the investigations into the plants, which are scattered around the country and owned by 10 utilities.

The lawyers said the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which urged the government two years ago to study industry complaints about its enforcement actions. The Bush administration has said its goal is to ensure cost-effective improvements to air quality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06EPA.html?hp

[kysrsoze]

1. It figures this ultimately came from Big Dick.

Sheesh. What's next? It's like a bad movie.

[alapolitical]

2. The Southern Company gets away with EPA violations frequently.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi alapolitical!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[alapolitical]

24. Thank you.

[leesa]

3. What a surprise. Is there anything done by this misadministration

that is not PURE EVIL. Satan is having a field day with this slime. Where are those energy papers?? And why are the lawyers who are charged with the protection of the environment by enforcing existing law heeding the recommendation of Sleazbag Cheney. THAT is not their job! Over and over again it has been proved that more regulation reduces costs.

[baby_bear]

7. Because, Leesa, those lawyers are overriden by politcal appointees

EPA career attorneys - who have the public health and protection of the environment at heart-- have no hope to prevail, when EPA political appointees are taking marching orders directly from the White House.

It's never been like this in the history of EPA (i.e.,since 1970).

Outrageous. The press should be all over this. It's even worse than the Reagan days when Rita Lavelle, head of the Superfund program, went to prison for corruption, and Anne Gorsuch, administrator of EPA, was forced to resign. Of course back then, Congress stepped in and made things right. Won't happen now...

s_m


on edit, a snip from the same article:

In referring to the scope of the changes, the career E.P.A. enforcement lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: "I don't know of anything like this in 30 years." He also questioned whether the administration had followed appropriate procedures in making the change.

"If you say, `I'm not going to enforce the law at all,' that is doing rule-making without a rule-making process," he said.

[dusty64]

19. It seems like this is happening

all over government. The total corruption of the purpose of these departments creation, the foxes are in charge of them all. They now take their orders from the very corporations they were supposed to oversee and keep in line often helping them screw the People and the Planet. Until citizens wake up and demand change I see little chance this will change and the corporate media will hardly inform the public because it goes against their interests.

[baby_bear]

25. It WILL change...

...with regime change in 2004.

Yes!

In the meantime, we have to encourage the Dems to filibuster the most egregious bills and nominations.

s_m

[hatrack]

4. Environmental "Protection" Agency?

Is anyone on this board familiar with this bizarre, arcane designation?

Can someone explain the meaning of this odd three-word phrase?

Gosh, I'm just stumped here - the title would seem to indicate some sort of protective role.

Yet daily headlines have rendered this simple title meaningless

[SomeAreSalt]

5. Perhaps we should ask the rate payers in the local area?

How many would be willing to pay double their rates in exchange for nothing more than a .001% reduction in emissions. Not too many I'm sure of.

The EPA has bigger fish to fry than this minnow. This herring is only good for rallying the donations for environmental groups. The locals that pay the bills will appreciate the break from yet another utility increase.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SomeAreSalt]

8. Suck my thumb?

Does your benchley mark star allow you to make such attacks against new members without reprise? Your insults suck too BTW.

Not all newbies are morans.

[hatrack]

9. OK - simple version

Riddle me this, Batman - where - exactly WHERE - in the article did it mention a .001% reduction in emissions in exchange for a 50% rate increase?

What state, what utility district, what utility company?

WHERE?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RapidCreek]

14. Not all newbies are morans?

Did you mean to say morons?

RC

[TahitiNut]

11. Please note ...

PERSONAL ATTACKS, CIVILITY, AND RESPECT

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, many of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules don't forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar."

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here. Please do not take these differences of opinion personally. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to lash out and break the rules of this message board. A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board.

Please note that, strictly speaking, sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not considered personal attacks. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

There is a difference between forceful advocacy for a particular issue (which is allowed), and personally attacking people (which is forbidden). If you can't tell the difference, you are likely to get into trouble here.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not start a new discussion thread with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

If you just don't like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click on the appropriate icon on one of that person's posts.

We do not typically delete threads which many members may consider to be "flamebait." However, the administrators will occasionally remove threads which we arbitrarily consider too rhetorically hot or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

If you are the type of person who just can't get along with other people, and if you seem to repeatedly cause trouble, eventually we will decide that your presence is a disruption and we will ban you. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive or a long-term member of this board.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

For detailed information about how we enforce our personal attacks rule, please read "What is a Personal Attack?"

(It might help to check a user profile, as well.) :think:

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator

[Bridget Burke]

15. Please, tell us more....

Specifically, I'd like to see a link or 2 to the source for your figures. Double energy rates versus such a small improvement?

Being from Texas, I'm experienced with lawmakers who bend the rules to help their business cronies at the expense of the environment. Rates will go up anyway & the air keeps getting worse.

So, please enlighten us!

[BeFree]

18. Locals?

Did you know electricity produced in Virginia is sold in California? No, of course you don't.

Did you know air pollution created in California can travel all the way to Virginia? No, of course you don't.

Did you know the little guy still gets hammered by regulations, but once again the big boys get a free pass and are allowed to continue polluting? No, I don't think you do.

Did you know that air in cities has been trending cleaner because cars are creating less air pollution these days, but in our National Parks Air quality is getting worse? No, I didn't think you did. Otherwise you wouldn't make such statements, now would you?

[aquart]

27. What about their MEDICAL bills?

What about soil cleanup bills? What about acid in the air and rain eating the paint off your car? Priced that?

A corporation that declares a profit that debits a nation or its people will eventually destroy that nation and its people.

What you are saying is that a gift of a few cents will bribe populations ("locals")into assuming the cost burden of the problems caused by the pollution.

The company will act as a parasite until it can leech no more. Or until we protect ourselves against it by strict enforcement of our laws.

[lfairban]

12. You got it WRONG!

E.P.A.= Endustrial Protection Agency

(a.k.a. Every Polluters Advocate )

[aquart]

28. Environment Prostitution Agency.

[baby_bear]

13. Yes, hatrack, but don't forget...

When regime change occurs, the career scientists/engineers/lawyers will still be there and will be able to re-establish the mission and vision we had under Clinton/Carol Browner.

We are just hanging in there in the meantime, doing our level best to ward off morale implosion, still trying to protect human health and the environment. Believe me, it ain't easy at times.

So, please don't throw the bath water out with the baby, as it were.

:-)

s_m

[hatrack]

21. Yeah, I don't doubt you for a minute, Sierra

I'm just wondering (as you certainly are) how much morale, how much expertise, how much committment is going to be left in EPA after another year or (God forbid) five of Bush.

I know there are good people there trying to keep the facts about our environment out there. It's just that none of them are the people at EPA who set policy.

Incidentally, how did Leavitt as Administrator go over with long-time staffers & scientists?

[baby_bear]

29. Everyone is hoping. hatrack..

1) That Leavitt will be not have time to be worse than Whitman, because...

2) He will be out of a job come 1/2005 after Bush is run out of office in the 11/2004 election.

We all have all our hopes on it, and some of us are pretty active in making sure that Anyone But Bush gets elected next year. We can't even contemplate another four years of what these last three have been like.

I'd like to throttle ANYone who asserted that Bush and Gore would be one and the same. I have a few in mind.

I'm hangin' in there, for now. DUers like yourself help, seriously.

s_m

[SoCalDem]

16. Well..of COURSE they would..

Would we really expect them to "harass" their friends for MONEY?? They will however be more than happy to accept a campaign contribution :)

[BillyBlastoff]

17. The Sky is Crying...

Perspective?

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
Lee Iacocca

[baby_bear]

30. more....

"The effects of ozone are not all that serious ... a temporary loss in lung function of 20 to 30 percent. That's not really a health effect." (R. Klimisch, American Auto. Manufacturers Assoc., 1996)

"People exposed to ozone actually adapt to it" (P. Bailey, 1996)

And, as you quoted, BillyBlastoff,

"How much clean air do we need?" (Iacocca, 1974)

s_m

[kayell]

22. Hard days for mother earth

Combine that story with this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=202115 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10660-2003Oct10 and http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/10-10-2003/20031010134506_66.html and http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1046363,00.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-01-epa-usat_x.htm and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61598-2003Aug28.html and http://www.ammagazine.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/news/news_item/0,2610,106400,00.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34334-2003Aug22.html and http://www.msnbc.com/news/956255.asp and it's obvious that when * says we are fighting a war against terra, it isn't just a texas mispronunciation.

and this is just since July!

[tom_paine]

23. Grotesque and disgusting. The Busheviks keep kicking back

to their Imperial Allies.

Disgraceful, yet par for the course in Bushevik-occupied Amerika.

[54anickel]

26. There is a lawsuit trying to block this....

Following taken from:
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/editorial/60448.php

Thirteen states, as well as several cities and a large number of environmental groups, are suing to block a new Environmental Protection Agency regulation that weakens the federal Clean Air Act. The rule exempts older coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities from requirements to install new pollution controls when the facilities are modernized.

The lawsuit, filed last week, argues that only Congress has the authority to change the Clean Air Act. But the state attorneys general also expressly pointed out that the new regulation destroys a provision that states and the EPA itself have used successfully in court to force dirty power plants and oil refineries to reduce air pollution. In fact, an EPA settlement with WE Energies earlier this year is making the company spend $600 million to install emissions-reducing equipment at four Wisconsin coal-fired power plants.


Now WE Energies just go the go ahead for more coal burning plants here in WI against many protests. Does this article imply that the $600 million settlement they were to spend on the old plants gets dropped?

On edit...think I found my answer here:
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/2589195/detail.html

"Based on the agreements we've recently made with the Environmental Protection Agency as well and what we're proposing here at the Oak Creek Center here, we're going to be reducing emissions from our existing power plants by over 65 percent over the next 10 years. Here at Oak Creek, specifically after adding the three new units, we'll reduce emissions by over 50 percent," said Thad Nation, of We Energies.

[theHandpuppet]

31. A friendly bump...

... to leapfrog this thread over the troll and back to the front page.