[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ RE: Big lies from utilities



Besides not being able to drink the water in 10 more years or breathe the
air in 15, I want to know where my "SOYLENT GREEN" is???


----- Original Message -----
From: Alex J. Sagady & Associates <ajs@sagady.com>
To: <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 6:53 PM
Subject: E-M:/ Big lies from utilities


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <ajs@sagady.com>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Booth Newspaper report that Dave Dempsey
> circulated is worth reading as excellent examples
> of the 'big lie' technique from electric utilities...
>
> http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/20010815l816coal.frm
>
> Consumers Energy says of the Bush/EPA plan:
>
> "There absolutely no intention of rolling back
> standards."
>
> This is about the most egregious, bald-face lie I
> have ever heard from a utility company.  It is a lie
> that is designed to grease the skids for the
> Bush/Cheney/Whitman energy policy.
>
> Last month, Whitman was quoted in congressional testimony
> as saying that the administration wanted to eliminate....
>
> "EPA's Section 126 program, NOx SIP Call, regional haze program, New
Source
> Review program, and its mercury regulation initiative."
>
> All of this would be in favor of an unspecified 3 pollutant
> bill to be developed for which there is presently no agreement from
> the electric utilities, coal industry and the petroleum industry
> on any kind of tough emission reduction goals.
>
> Bush/Whitman/Cheney would cut the heart out of the Clean Air Act...  Gone
> would be requirements that one state not allow its
> emissions to interfer with attainment of health standards in another
> state, the requirements for states to plan for emission reductions
> to meet ambient public health standards, the requirement to control
regional
> haze, the requirement to ensure that new and modified air pollution
> sources install state of the art technology and show that they will
> not cause air quality standard violations and control technology
> standards for toxics.
>
> Eliminating new source review for new and modified facilities means
> that the public will not be notified and will be deprived of an
opportunity
> to participate in a permit process for new and modified
> industrial  facilities in their communities.
>
> To say, like Consumers Energy does, that this does not constitute
> a "rolling back of standards" is the worse sort of public deception
> that can be perpetrated with public statements.
>
> Even worse is every other industrial sector is essentially after
> the same deal as the utility campaign contributors to the Bush
> Campaign is getting.   The bottom line is that industry in this
> country is wanting to rush through a highly damaging revision and/or
> rollback to new source review permitting and public participation
> requirements for large air dischargers that have been in place since 1977.
>
> The utilities, the petroleum refineries, the paper plants, et al,
> want to be able to nearly rebuild their plants without air permits,
> sometimes significantly increasing their annual emissions, but then
> not show they have used state of the art emission controls, not
> show that they are not jeopardizing air quality and not tell the public
> about it through a permit process.
>
> The utilities want to be able to overhaul their plants, replacing
> boiler tubes, turbines and other equipment, then claim this is just
> a routine replacement, and then be permitted to have significant increases
> in annual emissions from increased utilization of their facilities or
> from increases in the potential to emit, all
> without getting a permit under requirements that have been in place
> since 1977.
>
> Electric utility plants would use this same exemption to start burning
> tires and other wastes, all without informing the community and/or getting
> air quality permits for the modifications.
>
> And then there is the quote from the disingenuous Mr. Harding....who says
> he supports tough controls on utility plants.   This is the same Russ
> Harding who formed an advisory committee consisting solely of industry
> representatives to assist him in the fight against EPA's call for
> nitrogen oxide controls in the Eastern United States.   This is the
> same Russ Harding who fought these controls using the entire force of
> Michigan government (all really on behalf of Michigan's utilities) to
> take the issue all of the way up to the Supreme Court (where he lost).
>
> With this kind of record, any insistence by Harding that he supports
> tough controls on power plants is simply not to be believed.   The
> only good thing to report is that Harding has not gotten a high
> appointment in the Bush Administration....we'll just have to keep
> a close eye on Mr. Harding here in Michigan.
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> /Alex J. Sagady & Associates        Email:  ajs@sagady.com
>
> Environmental Enforcement, Permits/Technical Review, Public Policy and
> Communications on Air, Water and Waste Issues
> and Community Environmental Protection
>
> PO Box 39  East Lansing, MI  48826-0039
> (517) 332-6971 (voice); (517) 332-8987 (fax)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>
>
> ==============================================================
> ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
>
> Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
enviro-mich"
> ==============================================================
>