Issa tells EPA to wait on utility mercury rule

EPA tells Issa to take a hike.

Environment and Energy Daily reports:

With all signs pointing to a December release for U.S. EPA’s new limits on toxic air pollution from power plants, top-ranking Republicans in Congress are starting a last-ditch campaign to convince the Obama administration to hold off on the rule…

EPA plans to come out with a final rule by mid-December, as was agreed upon as part of a settlement with environmental and public health groups, [EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe] reaffirmed yesterday.

But Issa said the agency needs more time to review the 900,000-plus comments that were submitted, so that power companies can minimize increases in electricity rates. The rules proposed this March would be a “financial deathblow” to companies struggling to meet payroll and families on fixed incomes, he argued.

“Everyone here would like to achieve the best possible outcomes for this country,” Issa said. “We’re more likely to do that if we take a legitimate amount of time to consider the material before us.”

Perciasepe was not receptive to that argument.

At one point, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked Perciasepe what is so “talismanic” about the planned release date of Dec. 16. Congress ordered toxic emissions limits for coal plants with the last round of amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990.

“Twenty-one years waiting,” Perciasepe replied. “Health benefits denied.”

There is, however, no scientific or medical evidence that power plant emissions have hurt anyone or that the EPA’s rule will prevent any health harms in the future.

Toward exposing that reality, Sen. James Inhofe wrote to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson on Monday requesting information showing that the agency complied with the Data Quality Act in developing the so-called “Clean Air Mercury Rule” or “Utility MACT.”

Read Inhofe’s letter to Jackson.

One thought on “Issa tells EPA to wait on utility mercury rule”

  1. what the heck is scientific or medical evidence anyways? is it not more appropriate to say scientific evidence can be manipulated and purchased based on who is paying for it.and who is liable for the truth..because for every-time that the evidence created through PHD’s MD’s Scientists from the most prestigious universities makes an industry look bad…that science or medical evidence is discounted and not accounted for..because basically PHD’s MD’s and Scientist on the payroll of the scrutinized industry can produce .. manipulate …and make law data that lessens the liability of an industry…

    because if a chemical does not outright kill you within for example hours after you ingest it..((which might qualify as medical evidence proving a chemical is dangerous to even the most scrupulous defender of lets say asbestos..lead..ddt…mercury in industry)) ((but rest assured even there is some wingnut that will say that it was never the DDT–mercury–lead–asbestos–but your bad genetics or some other frivolous smoke and mirrors deflecting argument that makes humans look like they are invincible to dangerous chemicals and that dangerous chemicals only harm in large amounts..which even the amounts are hard to register based on unlimited body types))

    basically chemicals are harmful…even in low doses..but don’t outright kill you..and that is the fine or saddening..or sickening ..or evil line that industry..lawyers of certain industries play with humans….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.