EPA's controversial power plant rules
The EPA is changing the way it measures pollution from power plants and making it easier for older facilities to upgrade without installing new emission control equipment. Sarah Gardner has the story.
A Con Edison power plant in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
More on The Economy, Sustainability, Politics, Science, Copenhagen
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: There is something like three months left in the Bush administration. Plenty of time to move the levers of power. A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed today that agency's going to do just that. From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Sarah Gardner explains.Sarah Gardner: Aging power plants that want to upgrade and run more efficiently have to pass a pollution test first. If their dirty emissions exceeds a certain yearly output, the plant has to install expensive pollution controls. Under the EPA's rule change, those emissions would be judged on an hourly basis instead. Critics say this effectively allows these pepped-up plants that can now run more hours to keep doing business as usual. John Walke is with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
John Walke: So in the real world, harmful pollution from power plants goes up. The Bush administration pretends like the pollution is not going up, on paper. And therefore power plants don't have to install controls to protect the public.
Defenders of the rule change say the current law triggers time-consuming reviews for relatively minor plant upgrades. They also point to another EPA rule that helps keep overall emissions in check. But a federal appeals court this summer unexpectedly rejected the so-called Clean Air Interstate Rule. Dan Reidinger speaks for the electric power industry.
Dan Reidinger: We've cut pollution in half since 1980 and there's absolutely no question that something will replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule and obviously we're looking at greenhouse gas regulation just around the corner.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, who's tussled with the EPA over other issues, has threatened to investigate the agency if it finalizes the new rule.
I'm Sarah Gardner for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From riviear beach, FL, 11/11/2008
These plants have long paided for themselves long ago. The continuing operation of these plants is pure profit. I believe that power companies will close these plants only to delivier a more expensive power source to the public i.e. nuclear or biomass.
A fair play for these matters would be to lease powersystems to local resisdents for installation on their property. This would accomplish two things.
first : the power company would have to run their system at a lower output which is expensive to operate.
second : point is the personnel relationship the residents will have with the responsiblity of generating their own energy.
From Keokuk, IA, 10/28/2008
After Bush gutted the Clinton Administrations plans to sue to get power plants to comply with the Clean Air Act, this is really no surprise. Toxic heavy metals, acid rain, greenhouse gases- when will we EVER learn?
From Houston, 10/27/2008
Upgrading these plants will create jobs for countless workers AND help improve the environment 4 our children.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.