Replies

At the direction of the President I assume.

At the direction of the President I assume.

I'm sure that information is prnted in the story. sic'

Yes, just like his statements desiring “European” levels of gasoline pricing, Baraq is on record saying he’ll put coal companies out of business.

But the MSM was far more interested in the status of Joe the plumber Wurzelbacher’s trade license.

The rule was advanced by President Barack Obama's administration to replace the regulations from President George W. Bush's administration that were rejected in the courts.

RC2> At the direction of the President I assume.

Yes. President George H.W. Bush signed the law requiring this.

Though actually, it was the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered it be implemented by the EPA after the EPA tried to exempt the power plants (note also the interstate aspects of the broader topic [CSAPR], as familyop has pointed out, where downwind states want implementation that upwind states don't want). The SCOTUS also denied appeals regarding the decision.

If we want the law overturned, then Congress is the place to do it. What kind of conservatives call for laws to be blatantly ignored, suggesting elimination of an implementing agency rather than getting the law amended? [I had composed this comment earlier today but didn't hit "Post"...now I see that arrogantsob has made this point, too. :-) ]

Logical me> Wisconsin should ignore the EPA and warn any attempt at force closing their plants will be the end of the EPA in this State.

Note that this headline focuses on Wisconsin only because that's the location of the source of the article.

In any case, though, Wisconsin's CAMR proposal was even stricter than the EPA's! I'm no fan of the Feds, but it's not like Wisconsin is some innocent victim here.

Also, what part of the EPA's technical basis do people think is flawed, if they do? Is it the studies from the from the medical literature that the EPA referenced? Is it the air/deposition model? Is it some component of the economic analysis? Complaints about the MACTs? Or is the technical basis valid and we're just saying a few birth defects are fine, and it should be legal for power companies to deposit teratogens onto neighbors' property to ensure their product doesn't cost us consumers too much?

I personally don't know all of the details and haven't read all the TSDs, but if people are so sure it's a bad rule, I'd like to hear the basis for that claim.