Current Event : Week of 3/10

“The EPA Trims Costs to Control Toxic Air Pollution”
Dina Cappiello
The Associated Press; February 23, 2011

On February 23, the EPA stated that it will make regulations cheaper for companies to reduce air pollution. They have found ways to keep the pollution under control and do so with a 50% cost savings to the companies that are running the boilers, heaters and incinerators that have to install them. The companies that burn renewable fuels will not be required to to install the new technologies and only maintenence and “tune ups” every two years would be required. This new regulation proposal will cost 1.8 billion dollars less each year, and still stop the health problems caused by the pollution. A job analysis stated that with the new regulations 2200 jobs will be created, not including jobs coming from the purchases of the pollution-control equipment. Even with these changes, many representatives for boiler owners and manufacturers were not happy with the new regulations. The president of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Bob Bessette, said the changes made sense and will reduce costs, but the regulations can still be improved. Bessette also sated that he “hopes the EPA will consider other portions of the rule that would protect the environment while giving relief to manufacturers, universities and industrial energy providers” meaning, that the company is worried about how the cost will affect their industry. The real shock of this article was the fact that Obama administration originally asked the court for a 15-month extension to review the 4800 public comments that had come in, but the court gave them 30 days to review them and make the regulation instead. Working with their short deadline, the EPA created a new regulation that will require factories to install technologies that will reduce pollution and health risks in three years.

I did not care for this article that much. The writing did not grab my attention, or get it at all for that matter. It was repetitive, but the article did produce information on the recent activities of the EPA relating to the new regulations. I think, that the author may have been able to collect more information about what the regulations actually meant for the companies and for the EPA itself. Along with that, they also could have sorted their information in a more coherent manner. With those two things included in the article, I believe it may have left a better impression on me, as a reader.

Original article is not longer available online.