may 1 workers of the world reunite

This is a correspondence with a friend of mine that is interesting from time to time. the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Part of his business is connected with supplying support to energy companies for one thing.

It started with this email to my friend.
Personal Message:
your "daily" energy briefing

More Lawlessness at EPA

BARELY A MONTH ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a stinging rebuke to the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to rewrite federal clean air law to weaken rules concerning power companies upgrading old coal-fired equipment. This week, a cross-ideological panel of the...

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602343.html?referrer=emailarticle

To wit came a reply

Subject: Re: A washingtonpost.com article from: jj

dear JJ


I actually read this thing and I don't understand it. It starts off with energy credits used in the retrofit of older coal fired power plants and segues into pollution in the Anacosta from sewage washed into the river when it rises. If I didn't know better I would have thought they were talking about sewage from a power plant, and I never could figure out where the sewage they talk about comes from.

your friend


Hi old friend,

The tenor of the article ( and I don´t mean me as the tenor) is that the EPA attempted recently to weaken rules concerning upgrading old coal-fired equipment and was overruled by the U.S Court of Appeals. The second part of the article deals with a issue of sewer water that the EPA was trying to fudge through the language of daily versus annual measurements and was again overruled. The article is pointing out that within a short time the EPA has been again overuled. The article appears to say that the EPA is trying to protect us through politics and not responsible actions.


JJ

Dear JJ

must have really been out of it when I read the article last week.

The problem utilities face with older coal fired plants (and with plants being built today) is that you can't just shut down a billion dollar investment (pretty close to the cost of one unit in a plant which may have up to six or eight units) every time newer technology comes along. We often get newer technology before a plant in finished, and if you don't operate it for it's intended life cycle (typically 40 years) no one would be able to afford to turn on a light.

That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't install newer equipment to attempt to keep older plants as clean as possible. I have been in facilities, in fact most of the older plants, where new emission upgrades over the years have far exceeded the initial cost to build the plant.

However, there is a point at which a utility has to either raise prices which the public won't pay or go bankrupt.

From the end of the great depression until 10 or 15 years ago utilities were primarily owned by older folks who just wanted to protect their life savings and insure a modest return for their retirement. Termed widows and orphans stocks for their low returns (but with stability), the government mandated upgrades coupled with utility commissions not allowing the costs to be passed to the client (us) put a majority of the old time players out of business. Of course, it also killed the widows and orphans and retirees, but ?????

So it goes on without answers,

Your friend



Dear friend

The point of the article is not about the economics of energy plants but of the responsibilities of the EPA which does not stand for Energy Plant Association.

JJ



Dear JJ
Don't get testy on me now!

Your friend




Dear Friend

I would never never get testy..The issue is not about how difficult it is for companies to adjust to govt. regulations, it about is politicizing the EPA which is about everyone´s health and not the health of a particular business. I am sure you want the FDA to insure that the bulk of your medications are safe and not downgrading safety for the profit margin of the major drug firms. That being said here is an article that you and I agree 150 percent about http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043000867.html


I don´t quite understand the problems of the energy business as it is entwined with govt. anyway which means it cannot be allowed to fail. The people who supported Bush`s folly in Iraq and the billions upon billions of dollars it has cost can reach in their pockets and bail out the energy industry. When the time comes to bail out this industry, the govt. will write a check or print some more money add some pork to the bill just like they are doing right now, deficit be damned. I do not see any problem. We need to reduce taxes anyway so prime the pump.

JJ


More to follow....