posted by Spliffdadday:
The problem, as I understand it, was that power companies were reluctant to upgrade their existing plants for fear that they would be required to FULLY MODERNIZE the plant in order to comply with emission regulations.
This statement is kinda true, as far as it goes -- which isn't far enough to connect all the dots.
The enforcement of the current regulations was counter-productive to decreasing emissions. They simply left the old plants untouched.
Yes, some power plant operators decided that it was better to use the Clean Air law's loophole of not doing anything (a power polluter's grandfather clause*), than to do something which might be considered a
"modernization" or an
"upgrade."
Yet, for Spliffdaddy to suggest that "the enforcement of the current regulations was counter-productive to
decreasing emissions," is totally at odds with the fact that these lawsuits were based upon power plant & oil refinery "upgrades" that actually
"increased harmful emissions."
Orwellian Double Speak is very much alive and well. War is Peace, and a polluters "upgrade" is a license to pollute more!
(*You can bet that the power company lobbyists worked real hard to insure that this little *grandfather clause* loophole was written into the Clean Air bill to purposely avoid having to do anything to comply with the newer "modern" and "updated" Clean Air standards. It is also worth noting that if it weren't for the efforts of some of the polluted downwind North Eastern state governors insisting that the Federal government enforce the law, many of these lawsuits probably wouldn't have happened. Most laws governing corporate behavior for the benefit of the public at large are just window dressing -- in that they tend to be ignored, flagrantly flouted even, until someone actually stands up and demands an accounting of the corporate lawbreaker.)
To be effective, you have to provide a financial incentive to businesses - not a moral incentive.
Pure BS! There was no "moral incentive," but there sure as hell was a "financial incentive" to
not increase emissions of business's
that were already not in compliance with the Clean Air law.
The fact is, these businesses weren't being taken to court over "upgrades" that actually
decreased emissions. They were however being sued for "expansion" and "modernization" schemes
that polluted the air EVEN MORE THAN BEFORE!
But rather than get with the Clean Air act, in any minimal way, these business' violated the law even more
flagrantly than before!
Yep, they'd much rather spend millions of dollars in legal fees (when & if they got caught) and political donations than use the same money to
actually "upgrade" their facilities so as to avoid the "financial incentives" of
non-compliance penalties.
The fact of the matter is that political donations and insider deals usually pay off sooner than the later drawn out legal battles.
As finboy said:
Spliff got it right. It's about incentives. Always was.
Incentives my ass.
Top
