Sometimes the system works (political)
First the court decision on snowmobiles, now this, hopefully mercury emissions next. Maybe Shrub et al will begin to realize that their systematic efforts to reward their patrons in the polluting industries at the expense of the environment and the health of the American people is becoming a bit too obvious with these court decisions. 2004 is an election year after all, people might start to notice.
From the NYT:
Court Blocks Easing of E.P.A. Rules on Industrial Pollution
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
Published: December 24, 2003
ASHINGTON, Dec. 24 — Bush administration efforts to loosen regulations on older coal-burning power plants were dealt a setback today when the District Court of Appeals here blocked the changes from taking effect on Friday.
The court said that the more than dozen states and cities and environmental advocacy groups that filed a legal challenge to the new administration rules had a sound chance of winning their case.
The Environmental Protection Agency expressed disappointment with the court's decision but did not say whether it would be appealed.
The court order, while only two pages in length, was a strong statement in one of the most contentious environmental and public health battles of the last several years — whether aging coal-fired power plants must install controls as they increase their pollution emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that full enforcement of existing rules on power plant pollution would save 19,000 lives per year.
The court order, issued by a three-judge panel, said that the plaintiffs had demonstrated "likelihood of success" and "irreparable harm" if the regulations were to take effect — a rebuke to the White House assertion that an overhaul of the Clean Air Act through regulatory reform would have environmental benefits. The utility industry has been pushing for such an overhaul to strengthen its footing against legal actions and to foster a more stable business environment.
States and environmental advocates said the intervention by the court showed the weakness of the Bush administration's stance. "This is an enormously important victory that halts the Bush administration efforts to eviscerate the Clean Air Act," the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, said. "Piece by piece, the Bush administration has been undercutting meaningful enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The D.C. court has said it can do so no longer."
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the rules last December; the states and environmental advocacy groups filed suit shortly after the rules were finalized in October.
The three judges in today's ruling — Harry Edwards, Judith Rogers, and David S. Tatel — were appointed by Democratic presidents but have regularly voted to uphold other administrative decisions made by the Bush administration.
Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the Electric Reliability Coordination Council, an industry group founded in part to push for the changes in what is called New Source Review section of the Clean Air Act, described the court's action as "a setback."
"This stay motion and litigation undermines certainty for consumers and the regulated community," Mr. Segal said.
The E.P.A. statement today said that "the New Source Review rule was intended to clarify the process for maintaining and operating a facility."
"The new N.S.R. rule increases the reliability, efficiency and safety of industrial and power plants," it continued. "The new rule does not allow power plants to increase their emissions past their current Clean Air Act limits. In fact, this rule will have little or no impact on emissions."
The long battle over power plant regulations intensified in 1999, when the Clinton administration and states began suing power companies under New Source Review, which was then a little-used section of the Clear Air Act.
Under that section, coal-burning power plants that had been grandfathered-in were exempt from pollution controls as long as they only underwent "routine maintenance," rather than major modifications.
The states and the Clinton administration charged that the power companies had been making major modifications without installing controls. The one case that made its way through the court system ended in a ruling against the power company, FirstEnergy.
The states that originally filed the cases were Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. A number of cities, including New York City, Washington, San Francisco, also joined in the case.
Regulated? BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!
Nothing is ever as it seems when the political system and the courts are involved......
There is only one good reason that the Bush Administration ever pushed for this - to fatten the bonuses of the current utility execs who have and would continue to fatten his campaign war chest. (How many of you knew politicians pocket the money left over in their campaigns funds after elections?)
By preventing utilities from having to upgrade to meet emmission standards, the Bush camp would ensure utility profits were not drained off the balance sheets, which would allow utility execs to bank very sizable 'performance bonuses' on increased stock values, SOP in the corporate world. But what many people in Amerika don't seem to realize is that utilities NEVER really lose money, as each state's Public Utility Commission, which regulates the rates we pay for gas and electricity, is mandated to allow the utilities to make a reasonable profit. That profit is around 13%-15% annually. Losses from previous years are made up in future rate hikes, excessive profits command rate reductions. But overall,
stock prices are everything when it comes to evaluating senior utility management's annual bonuses, which can be in the hundreds of thousands, even millions.
Of course, those bonuses are paid by - stock value? HA! By you and me, every month on every bill. Therefore, Bush utility contributors (read: Corporate Bigwig Thieves) would stand to gain by not having to make capital investments which, in the short term would affect stock prices and, hence, executive bonuses. It's Republican economics: enrichment of a few at the expense and health of the many. The CEO of the former utility I once worked for gave me a lesson on just how many ways small investors and customers were screwed by the laws utilities lobbied for, and in the way dividends were paid because, and this is important - at one time virtually every utility in Amerika was owned by the four richest men in the world. They didn't get rich by being generous. And that tradition continues. Even if 19,000 people a year must die.
edit: I wonder if Americans would support a corporation that went into homes, at random, each year and yanked out 19,000 people, put a gun to those peoples' heads, and pulled the trigger?
Or would Americans support a President that supported the corporation that killed those people?
Just a thought.....
Re: Regulated? BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!
Quote:
Originally posted by splat
That profit is around 13%-15% annually. Losses from previous years are made up in future rate hikes, excessive profits command rate reductions.
Where can I get a piece of that action?
I agree that corporate leaders are pigs at the trough but that's not a utilities issue -- the entire market has this problem.
Re: Re: Regulated? BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!
Quote:
Originally posted by Snow Dog
Where can I get a piece of that action?
I agree that corporate leaders are pigs at the trough but that's not a utilities issue -- the entire market has this problem.
That's why utilities have long been considered such a 'safe' investment. But many problems across the markets stem from the same short term greed of corporate honchos looking only at their bonuses, not the long term stability of the company or the stock values. Ski resorts are a prime example: Sell real estate now to inflate value and get bonuses, damn the future.
Re: Sometimes the system works (political)
Quote:
Originally posted by natty dread
some sweet shit
FKNA!
Re: Re: Re: Regulated? BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!
Quote:
Originally posted by splat
That's why utilities have long been considered such a 'safe' investment. But many problems across the markets stem from the same short term greed of corporate honchos looking only at their bonuses, not the long term stability of the company or the stock values. Ski resorts are a prime example: Sell real estate now to inflate value and get bonuses, damn the future.
There's the rub. How can you get long-term accountability when everyone's short term?
Senior managers, nowadays, are only around for a few years. so "take the money and run" is the new motto. I believe long term companies are only long term because their founders controlled the company (the old Ford, Intel and Andy Grove, Microsoft and Bill Gates, IBM and Tom Watson). Most modern companies are publicly traded and the control is so diluted that, really, nobody's in charge.
