About the Blog

I shall post videos, graphs, news stories, and other material. We shall use some of this material in class, and you may review the rest at your convenience. I encourage you to use the blog in these ways:

--To post questions or comments about the readings before we discuss them in class;
--To follow up on class discussions with additional comments or questions.
--To post relevant news items or videos.

There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges. This blog is on the open Internet, so post nothing that you would not want a potential employer to see.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

The Boiler Rule

On Monday, we discussed the importance of administrative rules. In this light, The Wall Street Journal reports:

Just ahead of President Barack Obama’s big jobs speech, the American Forest & Paper Association says a pending environmental rule could cost 20,500 jobs or 18% of the industry’s workforce.

In a study to be released Wednesday, the group is taking aim at an Environmental Protection Agency rule to cut pollution from factory boilers, saying the regulation will cause 36 U.S. paper and pulp mills to close. The study comes on the heels of a decision by Mr. Obama to jettison another EPA air quality rule related to ozone that industry complained would kill millions of jobs.

The so-called boiler rule has come under sharp attack from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, as well as industry, which say the regulations would be too costly and difficult to implement. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor included the rule in his list of 10 “job-destroying regulations” that he has vowed to fight.

The boiler rule would affect paper mills, refineries, chemical factories and other facilities that use boilers, such as universities, hospitals and apartment buildings. Boilers are on-site generators that can provide energy for facilities and factories. Bipartisan legislation is now pending in the House and Senate to delay implementation of the rule, with the aim of having EPA reconsider the regulation.

No comments:

Post a Comment