Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
At 11:48 PM 12/1/2002 -0500, you wrote: On 11/27/02 6:29 AM, Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your posts are too few and far between Matthew, but quality makes up for quantity a hundred-fold. You, my friend, have earned yourself a beer if we ever get the chance to meet. And if you are in the western part of PA, that could be sooner than you think. But you are going to have to tell me the secret of buying beer in PA. Make mine a Yuengling, Matthew Bos How to buy beer? After coming from another state it can be frustrating and confusing. My cousin is up from North Carolina. There are no bars in his town, and only a small number of restaurants can sell wine with a meal, but he can get beer on a Sunday in Wal-Mart. I like the laws myself. Like it's a big freedom to be able to buy liquor at 5am on a sunday. O my rights are being violated. Kevin T. Sorry, little rant there. Harrisburg to State College and points north, that's my range ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: snip Does the government have the right to sue people into buying new cars when their old cars no longer meets smog standards? When I lived in Texas, the government had the right to *not* issue you a car registration if your vehicle's emissions failed their standard (but I have to say that I saw many more smokies there than here in Colorado). Otherwise, why would there be emissions tests at all? Grandfathering in can't be unlimited (there was a bit of snarling over that practice in the field of Emergency Medicine, according to one of my (Boarded) friends), because of safety issues. Air pollution is certainly a health problem, both from a particulate and a chemical standpoint, even for the newborn: Rev Environ Health 2001 Jul-Sep;16(3):169-89 Health risk assessment of urban suspended particulate matter with special reference to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: a review. Ravindra, Mittal AK, Van Grieken R. Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Delhi, Hauzkhas, New Delhi- 110016, India. Airborne suspended particulate matter is an important marker of air quality. The term 'particulates' includes organic and inorganic matter, nitrogen compounds, sulphur compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), several heavy metals, and radionuclides. The health risks from the 'classic' pollutants sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulates have been comprehensively reviewed. Alarming levels of non-classic pollutants like the PAHs have been reported globally. PAHs have been found in placental tissues of women and in umbilical cord blood samples from newborn babies. The damaged DNA in cord blood is a indication of the fate of these pollutants in the environment. Hence, a need exists for a comprehensive investigation of the human health-related aspects of exposure to particulates and PAHs in the urban environment. This paper reviews the literature on PAHs in conjunction with particulate matter on a global perspective. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12357845dopt=Abstract Acute and chronic exposure to such components of air pollution as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and respirable particulate matter (isolated or in various combinations) enhances airway responsiveness to aeroallergens in atopic subjects. (Atopic = allergic individual) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12215581dopt=Abstract These findings indicate that air pollutants are significantly associated with ischemic stroke mortality, which suggests an acute pathogenetic process in the cerebrovascular system induced by air pollution. (in addition to the already-known association of air pollution and cardiovascular disease.) Children (and the elderly) are particularly at risk. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12204833dopt=Abstract We found positive associations between morbidity prevalence and outdoor levels of PM [particulate matter] of all size fractions, but the association appeared to be stronger for coarse particles (PM(10-2.5)). The results also present some evidence that ambient levels of NO(x) and SO(2) were positively associated with children's respiratory symptoms, but the evidence for these two gaseous pollutants appeared to be weaker than that for the PM. This 2002 article abstract reports that using a system to remove several pollutants at once is more cost-effective than single-target systems (but I won't pretend to have a working knowledge of power plants!): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12022692dopt=Abstract An integrated approach for the simultaneous reduction of major combustion-generated pollutants from power plants is presented along with a simplified economic analysis. With this technology, the synergistic effects of high-temperature sorbent/coal or sorbent/natural gas injection and high-temperature flue gas filtration are exploited. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: When you are looking at a power plant that is in the neighborhood of 30 years old, a fifteen percent increase in efficiency is not really unheard of. Computer modeling has come a long way since the 70's. The bottom line being that 15% is too much to expect in most cases, that 15% in some of the older plants still makes them much less efficient than newer plants, and that efficiency doesn't always translate into cleaner operation. Spewing carcinogens? Do you write script for the Democratic Party? (I really think the Democrats should come up with a flash animation of Bush tossing a old lady in a wheelchair down a smokestack for this one.) Are these the same coal plants that have despite a tripling of coal usage managed to cut the total emission of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide? I know you haven't mentioned it yet (why would you? :)) but the Clean Air targets which would reduce emissions by fifty percent were not touched by by the new rules. Hmm, do you have to be a Democrat to be susceptible to mercury or dioxins? Ohio plants alone released more than 1,600 lbs of mercury in 1998 and the state has issued warnings about eating fish caught in their waters. Dioxins are released in much smaller numbers, but are also thought to pose health risks even at very low levels. And of course the pollution Ohio creates doesn't just pollute Ohio. That's why a group of Northeast states are threatening to suit to prevent the changes from taking effect. In my example the destructive power plant (which by the way had a 650 million dollar upgrade to meet new nitrogen oxide standards) was trying to be more efficient producing energy. I thought that was the goal. Greens (and I don't know that you are one) always push for increases of CAFÉ standards for cars and light trucks. Why does this logic not work for utilities? Why do they have to tear down existing power plants to comply with rules that are written for new power plants? Does the government have the right to sue people into buying new cars when their old cars no longer meets smog standards? The old standards worked fine. They are a great idea. I am fully in support of newer cleaner technology. I believe that in the long term it is the best for people, the environment, and power companies. The Clinton EPA after changing the new source review rules found that eighty percent of the nation's utilities were outside of the new regulations. So instead of questioning what's wrong here, they decided the best way to proceed is by lawsuit. But then again the Clinton administration was excellent at making short term, stopgap measures that looked good for the environment, but in the long term actually decreased the quality of life (by increased energy costs). :) http://www.eenews.net/sr_nsr2.htm This is a pretty good reference on the New Source Review. One industry document provided to Greenwire by NRDC may stand out as contrary evidence to the industry argument that EPA has not historically enforced NSR requirements. In 1984, the Electric Power Research Institute published a number of consensus points that it had gathered among work group participants at a Washington conference on fossil-fuel power plant life extensions. The report was done at a particularly significant time in the debate -- when many utilities opted to replace parts at their existing facilities because it would be cheaper than building new plants, Hawkins said. According to the EPRI document, the utility officials concluded it may be appropriate to downplay the life extension aspects of its major projects by referring to them as plant restoration projects. EPRI also suggested that air quality regulatory issues associated with these projects should be dealt with at the state and local level and not elevated to the status of national environmental issues. Further, the organization said project elements should be stressed as maintenance-related activities to maximize chances for NSR exemptions. Utility accounting practices play a significant role here, the document says. So we have the industry trying to extend the lives of the plants that pollute the most by working around the rules. It is unfortunate that one of the only ways we have to impose our values on consciousless corporations is to sue them, but there is often no alternative. Did you know that one of the most popular investments for average Americans are the utility companies? I would like to keep them profitable, thereby creating the fortunes of average Americans. I do wish the Greens in this country would actually build a power plant just so we can see how its done. But then again, how would they pay for all their lawyers? I'm not an authority, but I'll bet that there are a fair number of utilities that are more environmentally conscious than the others. Invest in them and not those that seek to circumvent the rules and you'll be doing
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
On 11/30/02 3:41 PM, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, do you have to be a Democrat to be susceptible to mercury or dioxins? Ohio plants alone released more than 1,600 lbs of mercury in 1998 and the state has issued warnings about eating fish caught in their waters. Dioxins are released in much smaller numbers, but are also thought to pose health risks even at very low levels. And of course the pollution Ohio creates doesn't just pollute Ohio. That's why a group of Northeast states are threatening to suit to prevent the changes from taking effect. No you don't have to be a Democrat to be susceptible to mercury or dioxins. It is, however, a big stretch to shift the blame to a particular group for a problem that has existed since the burning of coal as a fuel. You will not get any disagreement from me that the reduction of mercury is a worthwhile goal. What's being done about it? I am glad you asked. From the article: http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/06/06262001/mercury_44092.asp An excerpt from the article: Cherokee Station coal-powered plant, Denver, Colorado. The Public Service Company of Colorado relies primarily on coal for power generation at the Cherokee Station and its other power plants. A mercury emissions control system now used on municipal waste incinerators is being adapted to function on coal-fired power plants by Consol Inc. of Library, Pennsylvania. The system is expected to remove not only mercury but also sulfur pollutants that can create visible plumes and contaminate other pollution control devices. The Consol project is one of six new projects selected by the U.S. Department of Energy to curb mercury emissions from coal-fired plants more effectively that systems in use today and at a fraction of current costs. The program is designed to address environmental objections to the continued burning of coal to generate electricity. Coal currently generates just over half of America's electrical power. The six proposals, selected by the Energy Department's National Energy Technology Laboratory, will receive nearly $8 million in federal funds. The proposers will contribute nearly $2.3 million in cost sharing funding. U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham says the Bush administration's newly announced National Energy Policy calls for this type of technological ingenuity to meet many of the nation's energy and environmental goals. The Anti-Christ strikes again! But this one did not make the news. So we have the industry trying to extend the lives of the plants that pollute the most by working around the rules. It is unfortunate that one of the only ways we have to impose our values on consciousless corporations is to sue them, but there is often no alternative. But from your same quoted article comes the following: The Clinton EPA suits allege 51 coal-fired power plants made repairs and changes dating as far back as 1975, and as recent as 2000, that did not comply with permitting and the application of technologies as called for in NSR. Industry questions why EPA, as well as state and local environmental officials, inspected their sites throughout the previous decades and never raised the possibility of enforcement action. We have a legal process, said Gaynor. Congress enacts laws. EPA issues regulations. Industry abides by those laws and regulations. What this [Clinton] NSR initiative is all about is EPA not following the normal rulemaking processes to establish an interpretation of the law, and instead it is trying to argue that the interpretation that they're now seeking to enforce has always been in existence, when in fact it hasn't been. The Clinton era EPA changed the rules to a place where they were never meant to be. Bush switched them back. Yes, the old plants stay put, but they can get better. And they should. And they will. People will demand it, again this is not a bad thing. Oh, and about the fifteen percent. I'll make a correction down to 12 percent, but that's my final offer. (It just takes time to track down source documentation (That is unless your name is Dan M.)). Detroit Edison is proposing to replace the entire high-pressure sections of two turbines to allow for the use of a new type of turbine blade and to reconfigure the design in order to improve efficiency and reduce maintenance costs. To install the Dense Pack, Detroit Edison must shut down the units. Detroit Edison expects the installation to take approximately 44 days, and plans to complete the installation during the time normally allotted for turbine outages. Installation of the Dense Pack would involve replacement and reconfiguration of blades in the high-pressure sections of the two units, using rotors and casings to support the new blade configuration. In addition, the Dense Pack would use a newer, substantially improved type of blade than is currently in use at the Monroe facility. As noted above, Detroit Edison states that the high pressure sections of
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham says the Bush administration's newly announced National Energy Policy calls for this type of technological ingenuity to meet many of the nation's energy and environmental goals. The Anti-Christ strikes again! But this one did not make the news. Great stuff, but lets spread the credit a little further. http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/existingplants/mercurycontrol_fs.shtml In 1993, the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy gave five of the Nation's top environmental monitoring companies the task of assessing the release of trace impurities such as mercury from U.S. coal power plants. The work represented the most intensive effort to date to provide EPA with the critical data it needed on the release of mercury and other toxic impurities from the Nation's power plants. Further on in the report: In May 2001, the Department selected a second group of technology development projects, each proposing a more novel mercury control system in an earlier phase of development. The projects were: among others, Console Inc. We have a legal process, said Gaynor. Congress enacts laws. EPA issues regulations. Industry abides by those laws and regulations. What this [Clinton] NSR initiative is all about is EPA not following the normal rulemaking processes to establish an interpretation of the law, and instead it is trying to argue that the interpretation that they're now seeking to enforce has always been in existence, when in fact it hasn't been. The Clinton era EPA changed the rules to a place where they were never meant to be. Bush switched them back. Yes, the old plants stay put, but they can get better. And they should. And they will. People will demand it, again this is not a bad thing. It's more like the industry was playing games with the rules, Clinton called them on it after they had gotten away with it for quite a while. (see the part of the article I posted). Oh, and about the fifteen percent. I'll make a correction down to 12 percent, but that's my final offer. (It just takes time to track down source documentation (That is unless your name is Dan M.)). Detroit Edison is proposing to replace the entire high-pressure sections of two turbines to allow for the use of a new type of turbine blade and to reconfigure the design in order to improve efficiency and reduce maintenance costs. To install the Dense Pack, Detroit Edison must shut down the units. Detroit Edison expects the installation to take approximately 44 days, and plans to complete the installation during the time normally allotted for turbine outages. Installation of the Dense Pack would involve replacement and reconfiguration of blades in the high-pressure sections of the two units, using rotors and casings to support the new blade configuration. In addition, the Dense Pack would use a newer, substantially improved type of blade than is currently in use at the Monroe facility. As noted above, Detroit Edison states that the high pressure sections of the turbines at Units 1 and 4 are operating at 7% below their original efficiency ratings due to accumulated deterioration in the high-pressure section of the turbines. The Dense Pack project would increase efficiency of the high-pressure sections of the turbines over current levels by 12%, restoring the 7% lost efficiency at the high pressure section and improving the efficiency of the high-pressure section by 5% over the original design. This increased efficiency in the high-pressure sections would increase the overall efficiency of each of the turbines by 4.5%. In addition, the new Dense Pack configuration could reduce efficiency deterioration by 70%. Therefore, Detroit Edison expects the inspections and needed repair or replacements to occur once every 10 years, instead of once every 4 years. But the bottom line is that efficiency over the initial state of the plant (built in 1973 I believe) is 5%. And how is efficiency related to emissions? I ask not to make a point but because I don't know and I'm about done in for the night so I'm not gonna do another search. 8^) Just remember who is going to be paying your social security! :) Well, in 30+ years of paying in to the system with at least 17 to go I would hope to get something out of it. And by the by, if it helps keep the system solvent, I'm all for raising the eligibility age. I'm not paying for your Viagra, I should hope not! Doug Who can only hope he never needs the stuff... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
Existing rules require U.S. utilities and refineries to invest in state-of-the-art pollution controls if a plant undergoes a major expansion or modification. The issue is pivotal for aging coal-fired utilities in the Midwest that could face hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments. Under the proposed rules, the EPA would change the definition of routine maintenance to give utilities more leeway to modify a plant without triggering extra pollution-reduction requirements. So let's say that a coal fired power plant wanted to upgrade their steam turbines to a new design that was 15 percent more efficient than their previous design. Under the old (Clinton era) rules, this would trigger the EPA to force new source review; killing the upgrade because of the hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the entire plant to the highest achievable standards. So instead of being 15 percent more efficient, plants are only being maintained and not improved. Maybe you would like to explain how in this case the Clinton era policy actually helps the environment? The Bush rollback consists of putting the new source review back to where it belongs, namely in ensuring that any new power plant be built to utilize the best pollution fighting technology available. Old coal plants are by definition old. They should be allowed to upgrade as necessary without being burdened with regulations that only brand new power plants should adhere to. Critics also warned that the new proposal could endanger ongoing lawsuits brought by the EPA against nine U.S. utilities to enforce the new source review rules. Always important to sue utility companies. It's only one of the ways the government makes everything we buy just a little more expensive. And maybe a little less cleaner than they should be. Hanging with the Anti-Christ, Matthew Bos Rah rah! Another true answer, not rhetoric like the journalists like to push. Your posts are too few and far between Matthew, but quality makes up for quantity a hundred-fold. Kevin T. No added value(my post) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
On 11/25/02 12:41 PM, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted the following article: Existing rules require U.S. utilities and refineries to invest in state-of-the-art pollution controls if a plant undergoes a major expansion or modification. The issue is pivotal for aging coal-fired utilities in the Midwest that could face hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments. Under the proposed rules, the EPA would change the definition of routine maintenance to give utilities more leeway to modify a plant without triggering extra pollution-reduction requirements. So let's say that a coal fired power plant wanted to upgrade their steam turbines to a new design that was 15 percent more efficient than their previous design. Under the old (Clinton era) rules, this would trigger the EPA to force new source review; killing the upgrade because of the hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the entire plant to the highest achievable standards. So instead of being 15 percent more efficient, plants are only being maintained and not improved. Maybe you would like to explain how in this case the Clinton era policy actually helps the environment? The Bush rollback consists of putting the new source review back to where it belongs, namely in ensuring that any new power plant be built to utilize the best pollution fighting technology available. Old coal plants are by definition old. They should be allowed to upgrade as necessary without being burdened with regulations that only brand new power plants should adhere to. Critics also warned that the new proposal could endanger ongoing lawsuits brought by the EPA against nine U.S. utilities to enforce the new source review rules. Always important to sue utility companies. It's only one of the ways the government makes everything we buy just a little more expensive. And maybe a little less cleaner than they should be. Hanging with the Anti-Christ, Matthew Bos ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: So instead of being 15 percent more efficient, plants are only being maintained and not improved. Maybe you would like to explain how in this case the Clinton era policy actually helps the environment? Is 15% a realistic number or is 1.5% closer to the mark? How long will upgrading the polluting plant allow it to continue to spew carcinogens and acidic byproducts into our air and what is the cost to the state and federal governments, not to mention the citizenry, for not upgrading these destructive plants? The Bush administration is excellent at making short term, stopgap measures look good for the economy, but I'm more interested in preserving the quality of life for my grandchildren than preserving the fortune of wealthy Americans. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
On 11/27/02 12:51 AM, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is 15% a realistic number or is 1.5% closer to the mark? How long will upgrading the polluting plant allow it to continue to spew carcinogens and acidic byproducts into our air and what is the cost to the state and federal governments, not to mention the citizenry, for not upgrading these destructive plants? The Bush administration is excellent at making short term, stopgap measures look good for the economy, but I'm more interested in preserving the quality of life for my grandchildren than preserving the fortune of wealthy Americans. When you are looking at a power plant that is in the neighborhood of 30 years old, a fifteen percent increase in efficiency is not really unheard of. Computer modeling has come a long way since the 70's. Spewing carcinogens? Do you write script for the Democratic Party? (I really think the Democrats should come up with a flash animation of Bush tossing a old lady in a wheelchair down a smokestack for this one.) Are these the same coal plants that have despite a tripling of coal usage managed to cut the total emission of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide? I know you haven't mentioned it yet (why would you? :)) but the Clean Air targets which would reduce emissions by fifty percent were not touched by by the new rules. In my example the destructive power plant (which by the way had a 650 million dollar upgrade to meet new nitrogen oxide standards) was trying to be more efficient producing energy. I thought that was the goal. Greens (and I don't know that you are one) always push for increases of CAFÉ standards for cars and light trucks. Why does this logic not work for utilities? Why do they have to tear down existing power plants to comply with rules that are written for new power plants? Does the government have the right to sue people into buying new cars when their old cars no longer meets smog standards? The old standards worked fine. They are a great idea. I am fully in support of newer cleaner technology. I believe that in the long term it is the best for people, the environment, and power companies. The Clinton EPA after changing the new source review rules found that eighty percent of the nation's utilities were outside of the new regulations. So instead of questioning what's wrong here, they decided the best way to proceed is by lawsuit. But then again the Clinton administration was excellent at making short term, stopgap measures that looked good for the environment, but in the long term actually decreased the quality of life (by increased energy costs). :) Did you know that one of the most popular investments for average Americans are the utility companies? I would like to keep them profitable, thereby creating the fortunes of average Americans. I do wish the Greens in this country would actually build a power plant just so we can see how its done. But then again, how would they pay for all their lawyers? Beggars can't be choosers, Matthew Bos (I don't know if I can respond in the next couple of days, I'll be out of town. So have a happy Thanksgiving, and I'll look forward to responding to you this weekend.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules By Chris Baltimore 11-24-2 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has proposed relaxing clean air rules to help old coal-fired power plants avoid costly pollution controls, a plan that nine states vowed to fight in federal court on health grounds. The proposal, made Friday, was also roundly condemned by Democrats and environmental groups on health grounds. The Environmental Protection Agency defended its new rules as simply giving power plants and oil refineries more flexibility to cut emissions. Existing rules require U.S. utilities and refineries to invest in state-of-the-art pollution controls if a plant undergoes a major expansion or modification. The issue is pivotal for aging coal-fired utilities in the Midwest that could face hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments. Under the proposed rules, the EPA would change the definition of routine maintenance to give utilities more leeway to modify a plant without triggering extra pollution-reduction requirements. Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney general, announced he would soon file a federal lawsuit challenging the rules together with eight other Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Spitzer said the rules were written to favor the financial interests of the energy industry instead of public health. Emissions from the plants are linked to acid rain, smog and soot, and can aggravate medical conditions such as asthma, chronic bronchitis and pneumonia. CALL FOR EPA CHIEF TO RESIGN Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a Democrat and possible presidential contender, called for EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to resign. Gov. Whitman has a good record and good intentions, but on her watch this administration has undertaken the biggest rollback in Clean Air Act history and scaled back countless other environmental protections. Lieberman said. The EPA released a plan for new source review rules, one of the agency's most complex programs to curb air emissions. Whitman said the actions would encourage utilities to cut emissions after years of postponements because of the current program's requirements. The EPA said it wants to finalize the rules by late 2003. The EPA also would give utilities a plant-specific annual allowance for making repairs and replacements. Modifications made that fit below the allotted cost ceiling will not trigger more stringent regulations. The EPA did not disclose actual figures for such allotments. The proposed rules also would allow utilities to replace aging equipment with their functional equivalent new equipment without triggering regulations, the EPA said. CRITICS ON BOTH SIDES The proposed rules will not take effect until the EPA has collected and analyzed feedback from utilities, green groups, and others. The EPA was criticized by environmental groups and Democratic lawmakers on one side, and utility officials on the other. Green groups complained that the agency action rolls back federal Clean Air Act protections, while the industry contends they do not go far enough. It is difficult to imagine a more aggressive assault on our clean air protections, said Rebecca Stanfield at the Public Interest Research Group. Spitzer said the change would worsen air quality in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states, a region already struggling with dirty air blown from Midwestern states. Spitzer said New York's lawsuit would be filed in the federal appeals court in Washington. The EPA said the new rules will not spur a rise in pollution from power plants. Emissions from the power sector will continue to come down ... regardless of what happens in the future of the new source review program, said EPA Assistant Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead. Holmstead said power plant emissions are limited by the administration's Clear Skies proposal, which requires utilities to cut three harmful emissions by 70 percent by 2018 using a cap-and-trade system. Critics also warned that the new proposal could endanger ongoing lawsuits brought by the EPA against nine U.S. utilities to enforce the new source review rules. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
