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.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (2042)	1/22/2002 1:25:07 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Bush moves worry environmentalists Businesses want to weaken Air Act By BENNETT ROTH Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The environmental community has grown increasingly concerned that the Bush administration is quietly rolling back water, air and land protections, making changes that have gone largely unnoticed as war and the economy have dominated the headlines. During the fall, for example, as the nation was in shock over the terrorist attacks, the administration moved to drop Clinton-era regulations regarding mining in sensitive areas and delayed a ban on snowmobiles in some of the nation's parks. And last week, the Energy Department recommended that nuclear waste be stored beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a site opposed by state officials and environmentalists as unsafe. But particularly upsetting to some state officials and environmentalists is what they view as an effort by the administration to weaken the part of the Clean Air Act that requires power plants to upgrade pollution equipment when they expand. The administration is reviewing the provision that applies to plants built before the act went into effect in 1970. The utility industry has been lobbying the White House to make it easier to alter older coal-fired power plants without making costly anti-pollution improvements, and the administration is expected to issue new recommendations within a few weeks, said industry officials and environmentalists. "This is one of the most fundamental attacks on the Clean Air Act that has ever been mounted," said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "It is carte blanche to one of the most polluting industries to do whatever they want to expand the operation of their facilities and increase air pollution." Utility officials say they also are hoping the Bush administration will reverse the stand of the Clinton White House, which in 1999 sued seven power companies for not upgrading pollution equipment in more than 50 plants, largely in the Southeast and the Midwest. Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, said his trade group that represents utilities wants a return to "a more common-sense historic implementation of the program." Riedinger said the Clinton-era suit was forcing plants to make expensive anti-pollution upgrades even when they made minor maintenance improvements to the facilities. He said the intent of the Clean Air Act was to force older power plants to install new pollution equipment only when they planned major expansions that would increase pollution. Environmentalists and a number of officials from the Northeast states argue, however, that utilities had been making major changes to plants but calling them minor maintenance matters to avoid adding pollution equipment. Utilities were generous backers of President Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, giving the Republican $447,000 in contributions, compared with $65,000 they gave Democrat Al Gore. In addition, the president of the Edison Electric Institute is Thomas Kuhn, a classmate of Bush's at Yale and a political supporter. Riedinger said he did not know if Kuhn had spoken personally with the president or other administration officials to lobby for changes in the Clean Air Act. Environmental Protection Agency officials would not say when they plan to issue their recommendations, but they caution that any changes in the law would have to be approved by Congress. "No final decisions have been reached," according to an agency statement. But the prospect of weakening the historic air measure already has drawn protests in Congress. Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has vowed to hold hearings on the issue. "I am particularly concerned that this administration's actions may degrade air quality in the Northeast and across the nation," Jeffords said. "Polluters are supposed to reduce their total emissions as time goes by, not increase them. The administration should consider itself put on notice that it will be held accountable." Last year, Jeffords was responsible for Democrats taking control of the Senate when he bolted the Republican Party and became an independent, a decision based in part on his dissatisfaction with the Bush administration's environmental policies. The environment has been a sensitive issue for the president, who ran into opposition when he repealed Clinton-era initiatives early in his administration. In September, after a public outcry, EPA Director Christie Todd Whitman ended up reversing a decision to abandon an arsenic-in-water standard set by Clinton officials. And the president's advisers have worked aggressively to soften his image on the issue by having him travel regularly to national parks. Last week at an industrial site in suburban Philadelphia, Bush also sought to burnish his environmental credentials by signing legislation that provides up to $250 million to state and local governments and Indian tribes over five years to clean up industrial sites known as "brownfields." In signing the bill, Bush signaled that his administration wanted to take a balanced cooperative approach on the environment that did not force mandates on businesses and localities. "When government acts in such a heavy-handed way, it hurts a lot of people, and works against its own purposes," Bush said. But environmentalists say the Bush administration, in its zeal to avoid confrontation with industry, has weakened protections of sensitive environmental areas. They cite the decision in the fall by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to enact rules that reverse restrictions on gold, silver and copper mining on federal lands. The Interior Department will no longer be able to deny mining permits on the grounds that it will cause substantial irreparable harm. Norton also has postponed a planned ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks, saying that more studies are needed. And the department has shelved a plan to reintroduce grizzly bears to Idaho and Montana, a Clinton-era proposal that Republican governors in those states had opposed. Environmentalists also say that the Army Corps of Engineers is reneging on long-standing wetlands preservation policy. In November, the corps issued a letter stating that developers can use dry land to offset wetlands loss if that land helps protect remaining wetlands. Developers had been required to offset the loss of wetlands by restoring or creating wetlands elsewhere. The White House also continues to push for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska -- a proposal that critics say will ruin the pristine region. Administration officials say that with modern technology, there can be drilling without hurting the environment. Environmental groups credit the administration for pushing for more money for park maintenance. But they worry that with growing defense needs, they soon will face battles over spending on the environment.