Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : PROPAGANDA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (281)	1/15/2001 8:08:00 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 318

These new regulations could close a major portion of the plants and put more strain on existing power plants, refineries. Not saying cleaning up the environment is not correct however, at what cost. Perhaps incentives can come into play to help these companies comply vs going out of business. January 15, 2001 To Fight Haze, EPA Proposes Regulation That May Clamp Down on Power Plants By JOHN J. FIALKA Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- Taking aim at the haze that obscures views in many national parks, the Clinton administration proposed air-pollution rules that could clamp down on hundreds of coal-fired power plants and other industrial facilities. The Environmental Protection Agency's sweeping proposal is designed to reduce the growing haze problem that limits visibility in the Grand Canyon, the Great Smoky Mountains and other national parks. It is part of a regulatory blitz by the Clinton administration in its final days, and could be overturned by President-elect George W. Bush's administration. If the rule stands, it would require states to limit emissions from older power plants and petroleum refineries, chemical plants and steel and paper mills. Many of these facilities have been exempt or "grandfathered" from controls imposed by the Clean Air Act starting in 1977. According to the EPA, the guidelines will show which facilities are subject to the controls. The intention is to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, a Washington-based environmental group, called it "the most significant step in decades toward cleaning up the air in our national parks" by cutting emissions by "millions of tons each year." John Kinsman, an atmospheric-science expert for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents privately owned power plants, called it "a major move. This is going to affect a lot of plants." Just how many plants and industrial facilities would be affected, he said, is uncertain, but he noted that the EPA said power plants covered by the proposal emitted more than six million tons of carbon dioxide in 1999. That is about half the pollution emitted by some 1,000 coal-fired plants in the U.S., according to EEI. The proposal expands on a 1999 EPA program that called for gradually removing haze from parks during the next 65 years. In the East, for example, summertime visibility has dropped to 12 miles from 90 miles. In western parks, the visibility has shrunk to 35 miles from 140 miles. Industrial haze, which can drift for hundreds of miles, consists largely of tiny particles that absorb and scatter sunlight. Industries and others that would be affected by the change have 60 days to comment on the proposal, which would add a layer of controls on top of rules to combat acid rain. If the EPA makes it a rule, states must identify plants by 2004, and then controls representing "the best available technology" must be installed within five years. Currently, such technology consists of "scrubbers," devices that trap pollutants in power-plant stacks. According to the power industry, these can cost as much as $100 million per plant. Write to John J. Fialka at john.fialka@wsj.com