billvon 2,476 #26 April 2, 2006 > Googling the "Clear Skies Act" took me to information from the EPA >that says it would result in 70% reductions in sulfur oxides, nitrogen > oxides and mercury . . . . Compared to not holding any companies to the New Source Review laws. Compared to doing nothing, and not enforcing current environmental laws, it will decrease pollution overall. Compared to enforcing the original Clean Air act, it will increase pollution overall. >how is that "operating at high emissions levels" if there's a 70% reduction? This new law allows companies to operate dirty plants without any pollution controls as long as they have another "offsetting" plant that's cleaner. It's basically a way to trade polluting and clean plants on a 'pollution market' if you will. >Since the new source review has been around as long as the Clean Air >Act, responsibility would fall equally on all the prior administrations for not > gutting that language... It wasn't until the Clear Skies act that the Clean Air act really lost though. Up until then, it was a pretty even fight between the courts (trying to enforce the original Clean Air act) and the power companies (trying to get around New Source Review requirements by using language arguments.) But it is definitely true that where we are now is the result of all previous administrations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 April 2, 2006 I wasn't able to dig THAT deeply into it... thanks for clearing that up. Using a cleaner running plant to offset a dirtier running plant is BS... if they're going to set standards, they need to be across the board. Of course, it's easy for me to say that, since my job isn't tied to one of those plants...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #28 April 4, 2006 > if they're going to set standards, they need to be across the board. I agree, but I also think market-based incentives have a place. For example, set minimum pollution standards for public safety, then provide market-based incentives for reductions (in SOx, NOx, particulates, even CO2) beyond that. That way operators who are considering putting in very clean equipment have an incentive to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 April 4, 2006 That's a VERY good point!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
