Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.

It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.

Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.

President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.

Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.

The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.

EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.

EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.

The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.

The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.

Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.

• Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act - PK

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.

The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.

In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.

Our troops are stretched so thinly worldwide that homeland security is compromised.  Ya gotta hear some of the older vets talking strategy...    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJk6MeBx54

Why?

How the Wikipedia entry of Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin was mysteriously scrubbed clean in the hours before John McCain revealed his running mate

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture-tech/2008/09/usa-vote-palin-wikipedia

My, must be nice. Trying to pass a bill for clean energy and who is going to profit from this? T. Boone Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels. Nancy and her husband bought #50K-$100K worth of stock in May 2007. No wonder she's pushing it. It means a fortune for her.

Another site states her husband bought the shares alone, but she lives in CA where it's share and share alike.

http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/news/the-pelosi-pickens-profit-plan-with-clean-energy-fuels-clne/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72225

Have a nice holiday.

This is from an article before the elections.  This sure would be a good start in the right direction. 

The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.

Here are some of the new rules Pelosi wants:

No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.

No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.

No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.

Temptations resisted

To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.

House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.

Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.

Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.

What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.

Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.

At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?

Can it work?

No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.

But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.

Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.

Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.

This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.

They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.

Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.

These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.

The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.

the only way I can see that actually making a difference is if somebody went in completely undecided, but had prayed for God to show them a sign. 

I sure hope everybody has a clear picture in their mind of who they want to vote for and why before they drive to their polling place and punch that card. 

It doesn't matter if something is supposed to be funny or not.  In the liberal world every statement is taken literally.  According to GT even thinking something stereotypical or racial should be grounds for dismissal from your job or worse yet a trip to the gallows, but in the next breath she posts a blatantly stereotypical article about our nations regions.

Oh did I take what GT said out of context?   Did other people take what GT said out of context?  Gee, gosh, sorry...but  cccording to the LIBERAL rules nothing is ever taken out of context.  If you utter the words like *black* or *abortion* in the same sentence.  Then you're a racist...case closed.

Don't blame us for enforcing your rules.  We didn't make them, but you have to play by them too, or we'll call you out... 

Have a nice night....

All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally.  You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.

It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above.  Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.

At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board.  Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.

All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude.  In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue.  All you're about is attacking.  Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.

Says a lot about fairness on this board.

And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.

Will you leave?  Sure.  *RME*  As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board.  Choose one.

and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina).  They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.

Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).

Please ask them to leave.

Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??

The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.

in my post to you above.  Another example is the post below. 

Never mind.  Maybe the poster is *right.*  I have a feeling if a liberal poster was trolling the conservative board and said your rules were *stupid* you would be telling them to stay on their own board. 

There are other sites where the rules are enforced equally, even for liberals. 

See ya.

thought this article was interesting.

Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan

How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?

The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."

But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.

So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?

Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?

Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.

Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.

Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.

The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.

thought this article was interesting.

Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan

How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?

The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."

But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.

So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?

Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?

Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.

Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.

Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.

The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.

By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment.  The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay.  I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there.  I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income.  (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him).  The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%.  Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from.  Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid. 

Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support.  Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system. 

He did get it paid up about 2 years ago.  Took him over 10 years to do so.  He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids.

I struggled for years with my kids on my own.  We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs.  There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job.  But I made it.  She can too.  I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is.  I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there.  The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children.  It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point. 

Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days.  They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table.  Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care.  I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations.  I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying.

Best of luck to you and your daughter.