Sunday, March 19, 2006

Checks and Balances at work

Although Congress is in lockstep with the Presidency, it is still nice to see the Courts can still help ensure the President follows the law.

Court blocks EPA from easing pollution rules

Appeals panel: White House-backed change violates Clean Air Act

A federal court blocked the EPA from easing clean-air rules on aging power plants and factories.

ALBANY, New York (AP) -- A federal appeals court blocked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday from easing clean-air rules on aging power plants, refineries and factories, one of the regulatory changes that had been among the White House's environmental priorities.

The rules, strongly supported by industry representatives, would have allowed older plants to modernize without having to install advanced pollution controls.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington declared that the EPA rules violate the Clean Air Act and that only Congress can authorize such changes.



Blogger Smartypants said...

I've had too much champagne tonight so I'll just say that George and his cronies make Smarty very, very sad.

March 19, 2006  
Blogger torporific said...

We'll pay for the Bush administration's policies for generations.

Champagne is a celebratory drink--it must be a good occasion.

I doubt you're like my old roommate who used to down one or two bottles of champagne a night. Of course, he drank 2.99 bottles of J. Roget. He would pour the warm champagne in a tall tupperware glass and drink it. After he would finish off his second bottle, then he would feast on hamburger helper or some sort of a frozen dinner.

I watched this freakshow every night.

March 19, 2006  
Blogger Brian D. said...

I have mixed emotions about this result. The way the system currently is if you do anything other than maintenance at an old plant then you're forced to upgrade to the latest greatest standards of environmental protection. For many plants it isn't cost effective to do that so we're stuck with plants that pollute very badly.

I would prefer an old plant to conform to the newest regs, but if it truly is cost effective to have a, for example, 60% improvement instead of a 100% improvement I'll take the 60% improvement over none.

Call me a legal/environmental pragmatist. You can only club big business over the head so many times with regulations before they say forgedaboutit!!! Policy needs to be smart enough to be more than all or nothing.

March 20, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Banner eXTReMe Tracker