EPA suspends regulation

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
104,667
South Puget Sound, WA
This is troubling news. It lets industries not fix leaking pipes, pollute groundwater, etc. without oversight, or even reporting.
 
Troubling and bizarre at the same time...
 
I am not sure about how other industries are permitted but with respect to power plants and papermills, the owners have to self regulate as continion of operating. In the facilties I have worked in we had to continuously test for certain agreed upon permitted pollutants and operating conditions continuously, in most cases the data was directly accessible by the regulator. If we thought we were out of compliance we had to notify the air regulator. In most states, its not the EPA that actually enforces the rules, the responsibility is delegated to the states. Generally in those states the EPA audits the program to ensure that the state is following federal regulations. In rare occasions the EPA may step in and threaten to take over the states programs. Thus I am unsure on the actual impact to the environment unless the states with delegated authority decide to go along with it. No doubt plenty of law suits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashful
Not exactly what we need right now - more environmental hazards to deal with.
If nothing else, this pandemic should reinforce the importance of a hazard-free environment not laissez-faire for those that might spoil it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sloeffle
So this sounds similar to the "pollution waivers" granted to electric power generators during the 2003 northeast Blackout.
There were emergency MOU's in place for extreme conditions, and the details are fuzzy but the NYISO or the NPCC requested permission to activate the MOU's. This allowed the power plants to operate in a "Smoking" condition, which would normally require immediate action (potentially including shutdown) and a followup confession letter ending in some sort of fine.

Each actual incident required full follow-up documentation and remediation details, but the reporting times and fines were all waived.
And Peakbagger was correct that the State DEPs/DECs usually conducted the follow-up investigations and honored the MOU's unless they found something egregious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlbergSteve
This is troubling news. It lets industries not fix leaking pipes, pollute groundwater, etc. without oversight, or even reporting.
To me, this looks like an author with an agenda taking a temporary suspension of government services due to the virus and twisting it to fit a narrative. I mean, you were complaining just last week that the administration didn’t shut down quickly enough, and now you’re complaining that they have? Which is it, guys?
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulnlee
Temporary as in indefinite. You don't change protections, particularly in a health emergency. The emissions levels for autos was also just rolled back. Too bad, LA is enjoying a string of nice smog free days for the first time in memory.
 
Temporary as in indefinite. You don't change protections, particularly in a health emergency. The emissions levels for autos was also just rolled back. Too bad, LA is enjoying a string of nice smog free days for the first time in memory.
I think both sides are pretty equally deplorable, in using crises both past and present to push various agendas. There are plenty of examples to be found on both sides of the aisle, from this week alone, without having to even look back into history.

But the free market and public sentiment may achieve the desired result, with regard to those automotive targets. A very substantial and growing fraction of the auto-buying public is speaking loud and clear with their dollars, hence Tesla, and the success of the Prius ten years ago. Most automakers are clearly taking notice, and working toward satisfying that market demand.
 
Funny how we've been told time and again that we can't address climate change due to the huge costs. Now nature has given us time to pause and reflect on that question.
 
I think both sides are pretty equally deplorable, in using crises both past and present to push various agendas. There are plenty of examples to be found on both sides of the aisle, from this week alone, without having to even look back into history.

But the free market and public sentiment may achieve the desired result, with regard to those automotive targets. A very substantial and growing fraction of the auto-buying public is speaking loud and clear with their dollars, hence Tesla, and the success of the Prius ten years ago. Most automakers are clearly taking notice, and working toward satisfying that market demand.
Yet American manufacturers are cutting many of their higher mpg cars in favor of trucks and SUVs. Which I am pretty sure will come back to bite them in the ass again.
 
Yet American manufacturers are cutting many of their higher mpg cars in favor of trucks and SUVs. Which I am pretty sure will come back to bite them in the ass again.
I think there will always be demand for trucks, and for large vehicles, but that doesn’t preclude making them green, or the market demanding as much. We have already seen several new EV trucks and SUV’s introduced this year, either in concept form or full production. Several of the most popular mid-size SUV’s and crossovers are also headed that direction, perhaps most notably Volvo. Heck, even Cadillac was showing off a new full-size EV SUV a few weeks back. All of this appears to be driven more by a perception of market demand, than US government mandates.

I think an increasing fraction of the auto-buying public will force the national fleet of vehicles to continue getting greener, despite any US government regulations. The millennials I deal with at work and in my family and social circles seem to have no interest in, or tolerance for, big-displacement ICE’s. It’s one subject where I find their views as alien as they probably find mine, but they’ll be the ones buying most of the new cars in the next 20 years.
 
I am far less optimistic in the short term , with cheap fuel folks are still buying big. Ford spent the money upfront with Ecoboost and aluminum bodies to get ready for the tighter standards, GM has not and will go begging for another bailout,. Ford and GM have not made a dime on small cars for years, the only reason they sold them was to offset the CAFE standards to sell more trucks.
 
The manufacturer makes a profit on popular car models, more on luxury cars, SUVs and particularly trucks. Toyota is reported to make about $2K on a Camry. When you sell a lot that adds up to billions. Ford is reported to make about $10K on a typical F150.