In the United States, the Senate must ratify all treaties. The president can sign a treaty, but it is not binding unless the Senate votes for it. The Senate passed a resolution 98-0 against the Kyoto treaty. I’m sure that if the treaty was actually put before the Senate you’d have more Senators supporting it, but it is clear that Kyoto would never pass the Senate. It was therefore a dead issue. Bush was just stating that he would not put Kyoto before the Senate, where it was sure to be killed anyhow. Of course, Bush was against Kyoto in substance as well.
Clinton had not asked the opposition-party Senate to ratify the treaty, but had signed it and commited his administration to following it anyway. Bush reversed that order and “de-signed” the treaty. It’s therefore reasonable to say the US pulled out of it, even though the US was never formally in it.
I’m pretty sure it was the lovely David Suzuki who once observed that the biggest problem facing the trees and animals of this world is the fact that they can’t vote.
Environmental concerns, by their nature, require a wholly altruistic effort on the part of nation/states - and therein lies the rub… democracy (wonderful institution that it is) is largely an internal affair WITHIN a given nation/state. But at the internation level between nation/states? There’s no such thing as democracy, and anyone who argues against this reality is sorely delluded I rather think. At the international level, best case scenario you might get free trade agreements and military alliances, but all things being equal it’s every nation/state for themselves.
In this context, the environment comes a long distant last place sadly.
I will. Albeit if it’s Leiberman, I may rethink that.
I love that Bill Moyers peice BTW Reeder.
I realize it’s an op ed piece, but it’s the truth.
Has anyone from the southeast ever been up Mt Mitchell here in NC?
Dead trees…dead trees everywhere. All because of acid rain. And now the northeast and most of the rest of us well continue to be victimized by it.
Randy
Actually, you wouldn’t have to climb Mt. Mitchell to find multiple Google sites, factual ones actually, that would indicate the destruction is a mix of acid rain and beetles. For you to leave out the infestation is either ingenuous or stupid. It took me 30 seconds to find this.
And, I’m a fucking liberal, commie pinko. So get it straight before you post your crap. You’re bringing me down, man. :rolleyes:
What is sad is how you continuously propagate this unproven allegation as fact and get away with it.
And of course if Bill Moyers says something, it must be true, right? What a big surprise: Bil Moyers trashes Bush. There is not a single fact in that statement quote you posted, and yet you just eat it up.
“Will the envioronment be Bush’s downfall?”
Well, I’m not all that convinced that he could spell it correctly either, so let’s begin by assuming that the OP and the most powerful man in the world are equally ignorant.
“Do you see Bush as selling out our natural resources to the highest bidder? I don’t call it selling out, I call it raping.”
Interesting thought. But. Which natural resources? Sold to whom? By which owner? Rape is such a violently evocative bit of rhetoric, but just who is being raped by whom in this argument? I am handed an image of a single man auctioning off our ‘Natural Resources’ (Which ones? Cynicism? Bias? Hot air? Empty Rhetoric? Used cars? Police Unions? Electricity? Food? Computer keyboards?) and I wonder who might be lining up to purchase creeping socialism, let alone the Grand Canyon and the collected works of Oprah. Be specific. Who is buying these natural resources that are held so dear? What are they? And who is selling them?
". . . and the terrible economic conditions he presides over. . . "
“But probably the biggest problem lies in the economy – it’s tanking, slowly but inexorably.”
“The major thing Bush is going to have to explain with the upcoming election is why the economy is in the toilet, and why all his big plans did nothing to change this.”
Now, again, these are all popular things to say, but do any of the authors wish to defend these statements, or does simply saying so create sufficient truth? At which level of continuous economic growth would the authors consider the economy to no longer be “tanking,” or “terrible,” or “in the toilet”? I’m unfamiliar with the implied standard that slow growth is somehow considered to be a loss, and would ask someone to enlighten me. Is anything less than meteoric gain now considered a failure by the spoiled and recklessly disgruntled? Or are we applying a socialist ideal to a capitalist society, then using that ideal as a basis of complaint?
Completely off topic, but this is a classic:
“Clinton had not asked the opposition-party Senate to ratify the treaty, but had signed it and commited [sic] his administration to following it anyway. Bush reversed that order and “de-signed” the treaty. It’s therefore reasonable to say the US pulled out of it, even though the US was never formally in it.”
Breathtakingly daring logic, really, and also completely ignoring:
“The Senate passed a resolution 98-0 against the Kyoto treaty.”
Yes. That would be the “opposition-party Senate.” Note that the vote by those who did not join the “opposition party” was zero. Any real questions concerning the lack of opposition by the compensating party?
Then we have this:
“I realize it’s an op ed piece, but it’s the truth.”
According to who? Let’s start over – “Will the envioronment be Bush’s downfall?”
Which environment? The one that is mined for your iron and silicon chips and electricity; or the one that is farmed and fished for your sushi and sprouts; or the one that is harvested for your paper and gasoline; or the one that was cleared to make way for your home and employer and roadway; or the part that manufactures your furniture and carpets and automobiles; or the forest that was burned to make way for coca and marijuana crops; or the part that was devoted to growing and creating life-saving medications; or the part that was dammed or diverted to prevent massive deaths due to flooding; or that portion that mines the chalk for your toothpaste; or the portion that was denuded centuries ago to plant vineyards; or the part devoted to schools, playing fields, hospitals, soup kitchens, and military bases; or the flood basins that are now New Orleans and Washington D.C? Be specific. Which parts of the ‘environment’ do you support being given over to your own use, and which parts do you oppose? Are you saying that now that you have personally been provided with everything you think you need, progress can now stop, and nobody else needs anything further? Because it might damage your environment?
Clearly it is believed that the ‘Environment’ is a central political issue, so do us the favor of losing the catch-all rhetoric and letting us know just what that loosely used bit of a nonsense actually means. Provided you know. Spare us the bit about the whales, in the interest of brevity.
Gairloch
Sadly, it is absolutely NOT the truth as written and cited.
The root source of the claim by the ignoramus you cited is what is contained in *ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 [FRL-7414-6; RIN 2060-AK28; Electronic Docket OAR-2002-0068; Legacy Docket A-2002-04]
“Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion”*
Now, since I’m likely not only the only person here who has read that entire document, but am likely the only person here who ever will, I’ll provide a link to a summary of “myth versus fact” from the EPA itself.
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/nsrmythfact.pdf
From the above:
(bolding added as emphasis)
(self-serving Bush Admin propaganda sentence removed from the end, and bolding added for emphasis)
(once again, bolding added)
OK, so what drove the Bush Administration to do this? While one can put forth their own conspiracy theories if they wish, the rest of us in the industry have been watching this quaint little case go through the courts for some time. It is regarding
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4, IN THE MATTER OF
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
DOCKET NO. CAA-2000-04-0008
ORDER [42 U.S.C. §§7413 and 7477]
Wherein the EPA issued an order claiming that maintenance improvements at the Paradise, Colbert, Widows Creek, Allen, Cumberland, Bull Run, and John Sevier coal power plants were subject to New Source Review under the CAA and its Amendments. TVA naturally didn’t care for that, and took the EPA to court.
This thing has been winding through the court for some time, and a lot of people have been waiting to see what the result would be (in a similar manner to the coal tailing hazardous waste issue in the Appalachian mountain region). In anticipation of the result, and the in an effort to clear up the legal mess this has turned into, the EPA has been developing its revision of their Rules on NSR and upgrades since last year. However, this has recently come to a head in the mainstream press which the cow-like technologically-ignorant masses read due to the following action.
On June 24, 2003, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled on the case. Here is the cite:
What was the result of this? The three judges ruled unanimously in favour of TVA. Note the following key points in their decision process.
(emphasis added, abbreviation explained)
Note that little word that people like to brush under the rug – unconstitutional.
Note also from Page 8 of their ruling:
The Scenarios put forth by the court on pp10-12 are somewhat scary as well. See the original source.
Note this gem of a finding:
Why would they do that, exactly?
It’s pretty clear they didn’t like the way the Clinton Administration EPA handled themselves. But let’s skip forward to Page 50: VI: Conclusion
(emphasis added)
Given this ruling showing clear problems in the way in which ACOs were being applied to this concept of routine maintenance and repair, it was pretty clear that clarification of the NSR and upgrade issue was a good thing.
I can easily talk for hours about the difference between maintenance upgrades and New Source creations under the law. That’s really the next bit, and, it’s important to note, the 11th Circuit did not rule on the applicability nor the constitutionality of the application of NSR to maintenance upgrades.
The real debate between that can be found in the [FRL-7414-6; RIN 2060-AK28; Electronic Docket OAR-2002-0068; Legacy Docket A-2002-04], “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion” text.
It’s a 176-page text (and I’ve read the whole thing until my eyes bled), so I’ll point out Section III, subpart B for clarity (Page 25)
Reeder, you claim that the cite you posted was the “truth”. I respectfully want you to rebut my points and present yours on this specific issue to back up your assertion.
Bush was anti-environment in 2000 and lost the popular vote then.
Nothing has changed, he still is against wild lands/forests/rivers for us to hunt and fish in, and he will therefore lose the popular vote again in 2004.
It’s called analysis. I don’t get my facts from Bill. I happed to already be aware of the situation.
You think everyone who voted against him were single-issue voters?
This is a popular misconception but is not really correct. The Senate vote, which occurred before the Kyoto Protocol was fully drafted and signed (and long before the details were completely fleshed out…which was only completed about a year or so ago, after Bush had pulled the U.S. out of the negotiating process) was a “sense of the Senate” resolution on what the U.S. position should be on Kyoto. It stated that the Senate felt the developing countries should be included in limits on emissions. The final treaty did not set limits on the developing countries for this round (although it did state that they would be included in subsequent rounds) and hence some have taken the Senate vote as a vote-against-Kyoto before the fact. There are, however, some problems with this logic:
(1) Surely some Senators would have understood that treaties involve compromise and even though they wanted our position to be that the developing countries be included, they would understand the compromise that was reached on this.
(2) A lot has happened politically and scientifically since that vote has taken place. For example, on the scientific front, the IPCC Third Assessment Report more definitively attributed the warming we have already seen this past century as probably being due mainly to humans. And, a National Academy of Sciences report basically backed up the IPCC conclusions. Politically, many companies such as British Petroleum have dropped out of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry front group on climate change; in BP’s case they have embraced Kyoto and implemented Kyoto-equivalent reductions in their company 8 years ahead of schedule and at a claimed net savings of money. Recently, Senators Lieberman and McCain introduced a bipartisan bill setting stringent emissions limits on greenhouse gases. I think it is due to be voted on this fall and while it is not likely to pass, it will be an interesting test of the current level of support for getting serious about climate change.
The issue is not just that Bush dropped out of Kyoto but that he then did not propose any credible alternative.
Anthracite:
Well, you clearly know more about New Source Review than anyone around here but I do have a few comments / questions on what you wrote.
First, if the new NSR regulations are not possibly in violation of the Clean Air Act, what grounds are various state attorneys general suing the U.S. government on? I am not sure they will win the suits and maybe the suits are on other grounds, but surely there is some legal ambiguity here.
Second, while you quote from the findings in one case, haven’t there been other cases where the Justice Dept has won suits against companies under NSR (and many others where the companies have settled)?
Third, here is how this whole NSR thing works, as I understand it. (You can comment on how correct this view is.) Basically, the clean air act requires that new power plants have very strict and quite expensive pollution controls. Current plant fall under a “grandfathering clause” and don’t need to meet these strict standards. However, the hope was that these old dirty plants would eventually be closed down. In reality what has happened is that these plants have hung on for a long time and in may cases they have been upgraded to keep running a lot longer. That is where New Source Review comes in…It is basically a law to prevent companies from significantly upgrading old plants but not installing modern pollution controls. It basically states if the upgrade is significant enough…certainly more than just routine maintenance, then these controls have to be installed. The rub is what constitutes a significant upgrade vs. routine maintenance. There probably was some need for clarification on this given the number of lawsuits it has spawned. The Bush Administration’s clarification, however, comes down very much on the side of the industry.
The Administration, taking an argument from the industry, claims that these new rules will actually reduce emissions because they will allow companies to do maintenance and upgrades that may result in cleaner plants, but without having to meet the very stringent standards that it is claimed would otherwise deter them from doing these upgrades at all. However, a recent report by the GAO says that EPA lacked any good data on this and basically based their conclusions on anecdotal evidence from the industry.
I would need to see the exact complaint text of the suits you’re referring to. I can’t comment otherwise. However, I would find a suit by a State on this exact subject to be somewhat odd, especially since States have the right to pre-empt the CAA and its Amendments with stricter regulations, even for existing power plants. I do not know why a State would sue over this, when they could simply pass their own stricter emissions legislation. I run into stricter State (and local) limits on SO2, NOx, and (especially) opacity all the time, so I suspect that whatever their complaint is, it’s not as simple as NSR when you get into the brass tacks of it. I believe such States as Arizona, California, and North Carolina already pre-empt the CAA with stricter regulation on existing plants, and I see no reason why other States simply do not follow suit, rather than following with a suit. 
Of the original targets of the EPA, I am not remembering any who lost in court and declined to appeal. Whether or not one of them settled with the EPA is not proof or backing of the provisions, it could merely mean that the company did not want to spend the money and time to fight. This is no different than any civil case.
The problem lies at this point - what is the legislative device which forces or encourages these plants to close down? I do not believe that the courts have said that the CAA and its Amendments set a timetable or schedule of any kind for closure, nor do they mandate that a plant continue operation until the first catastophic outage. Given that required maintenance outages on coal power plants range from every 6 months to 18 months, you would in effect be saying that by not being able to do repairs, ALL coal power plants would close 2 years or so after the CAA. How the US would suddenly replace that 50-55% of its electrical generation is unclear to me.
The key thing here is contained in what you say next:
And you have it exactly right here. The EPA was calling many things that are and have been routine maintenance “new generation” or “significant upgrades”. IIRC (I don’t have my work documents here), in the case of the TVA Allen plant (one which I have personally inspected), the component in question was the replacement of the reheater surface. In the case of Johnsonville (another plant I have inspected), I believe the case was replacement of the ball-tube mills (which had been a safety hazard due to their tendency to have fires and minor explosions) with roll and ring mills. Now, there roll and ring mills had a higher capacity, and thus the unit could generate more, if it needed to. With Paradise plant (been there too), I believe the items in question were the cyclone combustors. However, IIRC the cyclone combustor change was done in conjunction with air staging changes which allowed for lower NOx production. Since cyclones are finicky beasts, there was modification required to allow them to run at a different primary air stoichiometry. However, I believe that the coal pipes were upgraded, and the refractory material, which allowed for higher output from the burners. So in effect, their attempt to lower NOx emissions overall increased their capacity. The net effect, IIRC, was less NOx over the year, even if they ran at the higher capacity. It turns out that major coal handling problems prevent them from using that extra capacity in anything but an “emergency” situation, so it’s a moot point from an engineering standpoint.
In every case I’ve found, there is no clear indication that a replacement was driven solely by a desire to increase power. In most cases, it’s replacing old equipment with new, and given that some of these plants are 50+ years old, even a “stock” replacement item (of which there are not many) tends to be much better from a capacity, efficiency, and reliability standpoint. In some cases, the replacement increases the equivalent availability of the system instead. Consider a unit that is mill-limited to run at 5 mills in service at full load, 100% capacity. If they upgrade the mills y 10%, they may be able to run at 110% capacity, this is true. Whether or not the boiler, fans, precipitators, and other equipment can join them is another question. However, the important thing is that when there is an unplanned outage or a planned maintenance outage, the units 4-mill capacity is now higher (88% versus 80%), and thus they are more likely to be able to deliver the power demanded.
Now, jshore, I do believe that there is a large “loophole”, so to speak, but I believe that it is a necessary loophole. Some aspects of real operation of complex facilities like power plants don’t lend themselves to micromanagement by a technologically illiterate Congress and elected representatives within, nor to the EPA. The new Rules are something which you may or may not agree with - however, would you agree that they are a much clearer and more straightforward guideline to follow that anything given by the Clinton Administration EPA?
I do not belive the GAO specifies what their criteria was for “acceptable” data for them. There was a 120-day comment period, IIRC, and there were a multitude of comments from those against, as well as for.
Although your comments are very good and you bring up excellent points, this does not address the accusation that the CAA has been “rolled back”, or that the EPA made “a major relaxation of air pollution rules giving essentially free rides to the worst polluters in the country”. Nor the very irresponsible reporting of the facts of this case in the popular press. However, since the popular press is not on trial here, I would like know how the comments cited in this thread can be logically defended.
Anthracite…a very well thought out and researched post and for that I thank you. I wish that I was learned enough to rebut every point you make…but alas…I’'m not.
Please4 excuse me for being a bit cynical…but you site the EPA itself to rebut the harm the changes will do. What do you really expect them to say?
Isn’t that like asking the fox for details as to how not to get into the henhouse?
I think the point is that these polluters are not pouring out everything they can now because of the clean air act. The new rules allow them to change things in stages and avoid making the upgrades needed to keep their discharges clean. Which will allow them to go to 100% output.
Are you aware that the American Lung Association is against the changes too? Do they really have a bone to pick with the EPA outside of the consequences?
Randy
Anthracite, I’m pretty sure you’ve previously presented some really good overviews, pro/con re New Source Review on either SDMB or your Unaboard. I’d love to review any pertinent commentary you’d done previously, if you’d care to post any references/links. Thanks very much, and I appreciate your expertise on this issue.
With all due respect, is your refutation of my cite based essentially on claiming that the EPA is lying?
With respect again, I’m not certain if you understand the situation, for a couple of reasons. First, no part of the Clean Air Act or its amendments have been nullifed except (possibly) the portion found unconstitutional by the 11th Circuit Court. Since the Bush Administration is not likely to appeal to the USSC, it is likely to go no further until some other challenge winds its way through the courts. The EPA is allowed to interpret what the RMRR portions of the CAA mean, and this is the way the law was written and signed into being by Congress and the President.
Second, there are a large number of power plants that simply can not benefit from this in any real manner. The maximum output of a power plant is limited by many factors, including the river water temperature limits, condenser efficiency, turbine, boiler tubing, fuel delivery, waste disposal capability, and generator capacity. Unless a deficiency exists at the unit, one cannot just throw on an “upgrade” and make the power plant generate more. Sometimes an “upgrade” may only increase efficiency, without a maximum capable power increase. In addition to all of this, a large number of power plants I am personally familiar with are simply not going to be upgraded in any manner due to a simple lack of capital to spend on the part of the utility companies. In my more than a decade working on these sorts of projects, I can count the number of projects I’ve worked on which would increase the maximum continuous rating (MCR) of the unit more than 1-3% on one hand. And as I said before, this would be a completely different matter if there had been a legislative measure signed into law specifying the lifespan of these units, and setting limits on their maximum age before retirement. But the fact is there is no lifespan limit codified in the law, and this has not changed with any ruling under the Bush Administration.
The third and key reason I feel you may not understand the situation is that the emissions limits for these plants have not changed. It is true that overall emissions over a year period for a plant which does happen to implement a capital improvement to their systems may, I repeat, may increase as a result of an capacity increase, I freely admit that. However, the capacity factor of a unit can change radically from year to year, being anywhere from 20% to 85% for a coal power plant. At most, the sorts of upgrades and efficiency improvements discussed can increase output maybe 5%-10%. When you compare that to the year-to-year variation seen due to differential economic dispath considerations, the effect is really not easy to even measure. And in some cases, may even move the plant lower on the dispatch schedule, thus actually decreasing its annual total emissions. Now, this is unlikely to happen often, but I have seen it happen, so it is not impossible.
Fourth, some of these maintenance upgrades do result in efficiency increases which do result in lower emissions at the unit, especially in the form of combustion controls, airflow modifications, burner upgrades, and mill upgrades (including dynamic classifiers), which can drastically decrease NOx emissions, as well as CO emissions. In the past, the EPA gave no “consideration” to a plant that was able to decrease both point and total emissions over the year, and thus there was little incentive to. A plant knew that if they added dynamic classifiers to their unit (at a capital cost of about $1-3 million), even though their NOx and CO and unburned carbon emissions would decrease, the EPA would have considered that a “capacity upgrade”, since the use of dynamic classifiers increases mill capacity (and thus, possibly, unit capacity if the the mills are the limiting factor) and increases boiler efficiency (and thus, possibly unit capacity if the boiler is the weak link in the chain), and could have forced them to certify the plant under NSR. Thus, they had no incentive to increase efficiency and reduce emissions.
This is not relevant to the facts of the matter, and it would be interesting to see the legal review they have done if they too claim that this is some sort of a “repeal” of the CAA. The law is clear, the EPA rules are clear, and the findings of the 11th Circuit are clear, and all are online and viewable publically. The emissions limits have not changed for the older plants, and anyone in the print or media who claims that this is a “rollback”, “invalidation”, “repeal”, or “essentially (a) free ride” to pollute is being so dishonest about the matter that their motives cannot help but be suspect. In fact, if it’s not libel, it ought to be.
I could put forth my opinion that I feel that the grandfathering of these older plants should be gradually ended, and that emissions limits should be tightened on all of them, to the point where scrubbers, SCR/SNCR, and mercury removal carbon filters becomes the “standard” outfitting of a power plant. I’m actually very much in favour of tighter emissions controls, if for no other reason than it greatly increases my income - a very large portion of the work I do is emissions-oriented projects, and a ruling that said “all plants must follow current BACT” would have dump trucks full of money pulling up to my company every morning from the engineering work to be done. I would love to see that. What I am arguing about here, however, is trying to shoot down the reporting in the popular media which is based on either ignorance or libel to categorize this ruling as a setback to environmental legislation. If the desire is to criticize the Bush Administration on emissions, then the focus should be on CAFE, ANWR, or even carbon taxes - I won’t argue with that for the most part. This particular issue, IMO, is a non-issue.
I don’t believe I have anything public here, and I know I don’t on my Board, on the details of NSR. If someone wishes to outline the details of NSR and discuss and debate the pros/cons of its applicability to these scenarios, and what the gross and net effects are under the Bush Administration EPA “New World Order”, so to speak, then I would try to contribute what I could to that. I’m not an environmental attorney, although I do have some who work under me, and I can’t outline huge portions of the CAA and its Amendments very easily without a lot of sit-down work. Even relatively commonly-reviewed portions of the CAA such as Part 70 take 6 lawyers, 3 engineers, an espresso machine, and about 100 hours on the phone with the EPA to get a clear understanding of what they really mean to the point where you can put your PE stamp on a plan without feeling like you stand a good chance of ending up in “Club Fed”. :eek: