EPA Gives Up on Effort Easing Controls on Power Plants: "Stunning"!

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/AP

Six weeks before leaving office, the Bush administration is giving up on an effort to ease restrictions on pollution from coal-burning power plants, a key plank of its original energy agenda and one that put the president at odds with environmentalists his entire eight years in the White House.

President George W. Bush had hoped to make both changes to air pollution regulations final before leaving office on Jan. 20. In the midst of a coal-fired power plant construction boom, the rules would have made it easier for energy companies to expand existing facilities and to erect new power plants in areas of the country that meet air quality standards. But the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday conceded that it didn't have enough time to complete the rules changes, which were undermined by a federal court decision earlier this year that scrapped a signature component of Bush's clean air policies....

Environmentalists...said the decision would leave intact for the incoming Obama administration the strongest tools under the law for dealing with power plant pollution. ''It's stunning. This is the most high profile prize sought by the utility industry,'' said John Walke, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council. ''It would have entangled the incoming administration up in a new rulemaking process while causing harm in many parts of the country.''...

The proposal, first unveiled in 2005, would have changed how existing coal-fired power plants calculate emissions increases to determine whether they need to install pollution control equipment. The Bush administration wanted to base the calculation on an hourly rate, rather than an annual average. Environmentalists and governors of Northeastern states said such a change would have resulted in more of the pollution that causes acid rain and smog problems in the region.

The second rule would have made it easier for power plants to be built in areas with some of the cleanest areas of the country, including national parks, by changing how states, the EPA and others assess how the new source of pollution would affect air quality. That proposal was opposed by the National Park Service and some of the agency's own regional air quality experts....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2008/12/10/washington/AP-Bush-Power-Plants.html

[annabanana]

1. Does this mean that the lame fuck BLINKED?

Did he back off of this bad thing because of the resistance he got? We have to do this with every single move he makes between now and Jan 20

[sofa king]

2. I doubt it had much to do with us.

I think it has a lot more to do with the institutional incompetence which is the hallmark of this administration.

While the Bush Administration has shown a certain cleverness when it comes to stacking the deck in pet areas like the defense and intelligence ends of the Executive Branch (and, of course, in criminal activity of all stripes), the rest of the government has been adrift at sea for eight years. They paid very little attention to the areas they don't give a damn about, except when they were exacting revenge.

They don't give a damn about the environment, and they don't give a damn about the utilities companies, either. Directives to screw things up as bad as possible in the waning days of the Bush Administration appear to have been either not issued or not followed, or they have some trick up their sleeve which has yet to be revealed.

But one thing they do know, quite well, is how they spiked about half of all the good things the Clinton Administration ever tried to do by revoking all regulations passed in between election day and inauguration. They might realize that pulling that trick is guaranteed to fail, and may draw attention to more subtle machinations we don't yet know about.

My guess is that one of the unpleasant realities President Obama will face is the fact that most of FY 09's budget has already been burned off and we'll find independent agencies like EPA so deep in the hole that they can't afford to do anything, to be followed by an across-the-board gutting of services in FY 10.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Good analysis.

[No Elephants]

10. You're right about FY '09. I bet the cupboard will be fairly bare well beyond that, too. NT

[MadMaddie]

3. Yes and the fact that he is lazy propably fed into it.

He has mentally checked out...his official calander is pathetic. He has done nothing for the financial disaster....

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. These were not Bush "failures" by the way.

I have just re-read the list.

These were Republican Neo-con successes.
Very few items on the list seem un-intentional.
Example: failure to keep public records.

The "failures" overall are mostly related to making sure cronies got the tax money,
and little tax money was spent for the good of the public.
Essentially, this is a list of criminal conduct.

[Mozcram]

6. SO... people have planned POWER PLANTS for natural parks!!?? N/T

[Mozcram]

7. SO... people have planned POWER PLANTS for natural parks!!?? N/T

[babydollhead]

8. is this from the onion? nt

[pinniped]

9. Probably 99% of what these assholes have done the past 8 years will....

have to be reversed.

*'s EPA appointees belong in prison for the shit they pulled.

Since these assholes like bad air so much, they should move to Southeast Asia.

[Robbien]

11. The previous EPA head has warned Obama not to reverse any decisions

without first consulting business interests.

Don't go leftie on us she warns. Any change made should be a compromise keeping in mind profits.