The Pronk Pops Show 496, June 30, 2015, Story 1: Supreme Court Rules Against EPA Power Plant Mercury Limits — Videos

Posted on June 30, 2015. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Chemistry, Coal, College, Communications, Congress, Consitutional Law, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, History, Language, Law, Media, Medical, Natural Gas, News, Philosophy, Politics, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Scandals, Science, Social Science, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 496  June 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 495  June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494 June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493 June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492 June 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 491 June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490 June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489 June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488 June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487 June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486 June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Supreme Court Rules Against EPA Power Plant Mercury Limits — Videos

Obama’s Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry

Obama talked with The Chronicle editorial board Jan. 17 2008 for an interview. In his wide-ranging session with the paper, the Democratic senator from Illinois spoke about his energy plan and an “aggressive” cap-and-trade policy, and spoke about bankrupting the coal industry.

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY 4 /14- Intelligence Squared U.S.

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY 6/14- Intelligence Squared U.S.

Supreme Court rules on EPA emissions limits

Supreme Court rules against EPA on power plant regs VIDEO

Supreme Court rules against EPA’s policy on power plants

Justices rule against EPA power plant mercury limits

New EPA Rules Target Power Plants’ Toxic Mercury Emissions

EPA Rule Calling For Power Plant Carbon Emissions To Be Cut By 30% By 2030 – Cavuto

US Power Plants Ordered to Reduce Pollution

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

A Rare Loss for Environmentalists at the Supreme Court

The justices had given the EPA wide latitude to limit air pollutants before ruling against the agency on Monday.

Despite its conservative tilt, the Supreme Court has given environmentalists a rather remarkable run of success over the last decade. The justices’ 2007 ruling that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act set the stage for much of the Obama administration’s ambitious agenda to combat climate change. And just last year, the government largely prevailed in two cases challenging the limits it had placed on industry emissions.

On Monday, that winning streak came to an end when the Supreme Court’s five Republican-appointed justices blocked the Obama administration’s regulations on the emission of mercury and other toxins from coal-fired power plants. The 5-4 decision found that the EPA had violated the Clean Air Act by not considering the cost of compliance before deciding to limit mercury pollution. The government had argued that it considered the cost throughout its process of writing the mercury rules, but not at the outset. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the EPA failed to meet the law’s requirement that it regulate those pollutants only after determining, based on impact studies, that it was “appropriate and necessary” to do so. He cited the agency’s own finding that the mercury rule would carry a nearly $10 billion annual cost while generating direct benefits of just $4 billion to $6 billion a year.

Read naturally in the present context, the phrase “appropriate and necessary” requires at least some attention to cost. One would not say that it is even rational, never mind “appropriate,” to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.

No regulation is “appropriate” if it does significantly more harm than good. There are undoubtedly settings in which the phrase “appropriate and necessary” does not encompass cost. But this is not one of them.
The sharp-tongued Scalia finally had the chance to author a majority opinion after writing a series of fiery, colorful dissents against the court’s rulings in favor of Obamacare and same-sex marriage. He compared the EPA’s logic in arguing that it did not initially need to consider the cost of regulations to a consumer who decides to “buy a Ferrari without thinking about cost, because he plans to think about cost later when deciding whether to upgrade the sound system.” Sparring with Scalia in the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called the comparison “witty but wholly inapt”:

A better analogy might be to a car owner who decides without first checking prices that it is ‘appropriate and necessary’ to replace her worn-out brake-pads, aware from prior experience that she has ample time to comparison shop and bring that purchase within her budget.
Aside from the Ferrari metaphor, Scalia’s opinion was fairly dry and—dare we say it—bland. Even more importantly for environmental advocates, it was narrow. The ruling did not touch the EPA’s ambitious Clean Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from coal plants, and it said nothing about the substance of the mercury rules—only how they were promulgated. Finally, the court left it entirely up to the EPA to determine how it would consider cost when deciding whether to regulate. “This is clearly a loss,” said John Walke, the clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. But, he told me on Monday, “it’s a narrow loss that turns on a disagreement over the meaning of the word ‘appropriate’ in context. So it’s hard to see it having broader judicial implications or ideological implications, notwithstanding the split. It’s certainly not an ideological broadside against either the EPA or environmental regulations.”
The practical impact of the ruling is also unclear. The case was remanded to a lower court, and environmental advocates said that at minimum, the EPA would have to go back and undertake additional cost studies of the mercury rule. The agency noted that because the regulation was issued three years ago, industry “investments have been made and most plants are already well on their way to making emissions reductions.” Advocates said it was unlikely that plants that had shuttered rather than comply with the rule would reopen and that some companies even found that the compliance costs came in under projections. (The deadline for compliance was this April, although some companies received an extension.) “Much of the industry has kind of moved on,” said Sean Donahue, an attorney who argued the case on behalf of the Environmental Defense Council and public health advocates before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Whether they like this rule or not, they’ve decided they could live with it.”

The big question is what, if anything, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the mercury case portends for court challenges to the Obama administration’s more recent regulatory agenda on climate change. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader who has accused the president of waging a “war on coal,” seized on the ruling to urge Republican governors to resist complying with the EPA’s climate regulations:

While much of the damage of this regulation has already been done, the ruling serves as a critical reminder to every governor contemplating the administration’s demands to impose more regressive—and likely illegal—regulations that promise even more middle-class pain. Clearly, there is no reason to subject their states to such unnecessary pain before the courts have even had a chance to weigh in, especially if the Supreme Court simply ends up tossing the regulation out as we saw today.
Environmental advocates don’t seem that worried. The difference in law between the mercury rule and the climate regulations, Walke said, was “apples and oranges.” And the narrow nature of Scalia’s ruling doesn’t offer much of a signal either way about how the Court might rule on EPA regulations going forward. Monday’s ruling may have been a defeat for environmentalists, but it wasn’t a rout.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-rare-loss-for-environmentalists-at-the-supreme-court/397196/

 

Photo

A coal-fired power plant in Ghent, Ky. Industry groups and about 20 states challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to regulate emissions — one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives. CreditLuke Sharrett for The New York Times

 The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, anEnvironmental Protection Agency regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

Industry groups and about 20 states had challenged the E.P.A.’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose.

The Clean Air Act required the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”

The E.P.A. had argued that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate. But the agency added that it had done so later in setting emissions standards and that, in any event, the benefits far outweighed the costs.

The two sides had very different understandings of the costs and benefits involved. Industry groups said the government had imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits. The agency said the costs yielded tens of billions of dollars in benefits.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “The agency acted well within its authority in declining to consider costs at the opening bell of the regulatory process given that it would do so in every round thereafter — and given that the emissions limits finally issued would depend crucially on those accountings.”

The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, does not strike down the rule, but it means the E.P.A. will have to review and rewrite it, taking costs into consideration.

Pollution Limits
In three environmental regulation cases, the court found the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by failing to undertake a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to set limits on emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants.
5-4
DISSENT
MAJORITY
Sotomayor
Kagan
Ginsburg
Breyer
Kennedy
Roberts
Scalia
Alito
Thomas
• In the mercury case, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was reasonable.

“The E.P.A. will have to do more homework on costs,” said Sean Donahue, who represents environmental and public health groups that signed on to the agency’s case. “But I’m very confident that the final rule will be up and running and finally approved without a great deal of trouble. This is a disappointment. It’s a bump in the road, but I don’t think by any means it’s the end of this program.”

An E.P.A. spokeswoman, Melissa Harrison, said the agency intended to move forward with the rule.

Ms. Harrison said that since the court’s ruling was about how and when the agency considered costs in its decision about limiting mercury and other toxic emissions and not the agency’s authority to limit them over all, the E.P.A. was committed to protecting the public “from the significant amount of toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric utilities and continue reducing the toxic pollution from these facilities.”

The mercury regulation was one in a series of new Clean Air Actregulations from the Obama administration that President Obama hopes to build into a major environmental legacy. Later this summer the agency is expected to release a set of landmark climate change rules limiting greenhouse gas pollution from power plants — restrictions that have faced legal challenges from industry.

In the term that ended in June 2014, the justices heard cases on two other sets of Clean Air Act regulations — one aimed at limiting power plant pollution that wafts across state lines, the other at cutting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. The E.P.A. won the first case and largely prevailed in the second, though the Supreme Court indicated that it remained prepared to impose limits on the agency’s regulatory authority.

“From its ozone to greenhouse gas to navigable waters rules, the E.P.A. continues to burden the public with more and more costs even as so many are still struggling to get by and improve their lives in this economy,” said Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority leader. “The Supreme Court’s decision today vindicates the House’s legislative actions to rein in bureaucratic overreach and institute some common sense in rule making.”

Among the remaining questions is whether the current rule will stay in place as the E.P.A. completes its revision of the language, and how long that revision will take.

“The Obama administration will be hard pressed to get that job done before it goes out of office,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard.

In the meantime, companies could be forced to comply with the existing regulation. The question will go before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has frequently decided in favor of Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. rules.

“Given the fact that the E.P.A. has already done a detailed cost benefit analysis justifying the rule, and the fact that the majority of the affected industries have already invested heavily in compliance, there is a good chance that the D.C. Circuit will allow the rule to remain on the books” while the agency makes its revisions, said Patrick Parenteau, an expert on environmental law at Vermont Law School.

Scott Segal, who lobbies on behalf of electric utilities for the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said the decision should come as a warning to the Obama administration as the E.P.A. prepares to unveil the climate changeregulations this summer.

“They’ll need to take a hard-nosed economic analysis that the Supreme Court calls for,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html

U.S. top court rules against Obama administration over air pollution rule

Cleaner Power Plants

On this page:

On December 16, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the first ever national standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants. More than 20 years after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, some power plants still do not control emissions of toxic pollutants, even though pollution control technology is widely available.

There are about 1,400 coal and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) at600 power plants covered by these standards. They emit harmful pollutants including mercury, non-mercury metallic toxics, acid gases, and organic air toxics including dioxin.

Power plants are currently the dominant emitters of mercury (50 percent), acid gases (over 75 percent) and many toxic metals (20-60 percent) in the United States.

While newer, and a significant percentage of older power plants already control their emissions of mercury, heavy metals, and acid gases, approximately 40 percent of the current EGUs still do not have advanced pollution control equipment.

The other big sources of mercury have already reduced their emissions.

In 1990, three industry sectors made up approximately two-thirds of total U.S. mercury emissions: medical waste incinerators, municipal waste combustors, and power plants. The first two of these sectors have been subject to emissions standards for years and as a result have reduced their mercury emissions by more than 95 percent. In addition, mercury standards for industries such as cement production, steel manufacturing and many others have reduced mercury emissions from these sources.

Sources of Mercury Emissions in the U.S.
Industrial Category 1990 Emissions tons per year (tpy) 2005 Emissions (tpy) Percent Reduction
Power Plants 59 53 10%
Municipal Waste Combustors 57 2 96%
Medical Waste Incinerators 51 1 98%

The final rule establishes power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants which will result in: preventing about 90 percent of the mercury in coal burned in power plants being emitted to the air; reducing 88 percent of acid gas emissions from power plants; and reducing 41 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants beyond the reductions expected from the Cross State Air Pollution Rule.

Top of page

Controls to Meet Limits are Widely Available

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards provide regulatory certainty for power plants. Additionally, these standards level the playing field so that all plants will have to limit their emissions of mercury as newer plants already do.

Use of widely-available controls will reduce harmful air toxics and help modernize the aging fleet of power plants, many of which are over 50 years old.

Widely-available control technologies that reduce mercury and other air toxics
Pollutant Addressed Existing Control Technologies to Address Toxic Pollutants
Mercury Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR )with Flue-gas Desulfurization (FGD), Activated Carbon Injection (ACI), ACI with Fabric Filter (FF) or Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP)
Non-mercury metals FF, ESP
Dioxins & furans Work Practice Standard ( inspection, adjustment, and/or maintenance and repairs to ensure optimal combustion)
Acid gases FGD, Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI), DSI with FF or ESP
Sulfur dioxide FGD, DSI

Top of page

Setting Emissions Limits for Toxic Air Pollutants

The MATS sets standards for all Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) emitted by coal- and oil-fired EGUs with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater. These are called national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), also known as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.  Coal- and/or oil-fired electric utilities emit many of the 187 hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.

Emissions standards set under the toxics program are federal air pollution limits that individual facilities must meet by a set date. MACT for new sources must be at least as stringent as the emission reduction achieved by the best performing similar source.  Existing source MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the emission reductions achieved by the average of the top 12 percent best controlled sources.  These standards must address all hazardous air pollutants emitted at a source category.

Setting a MACT standard is a two step process:

  1. The “MACT floor” is established based on what is currently achieved by sources – costs may not be considered.
  2. EPA may regulate “beyond the floor” where justified – costs and other issues must be considered.

Top of page

Power Plants Have Time to Meet the Standards

Existing sources generally will have up to 4 years if they need it to comply with MATS.

  • This includes the 3 years provided to all sources by the Clean Air Act. EPAs analysis continues to demonstrate that this will be sufficient time for most, if not all, sources to comply.
  • Under the Clean Air Act, state permitting authorities can also grant an additional year as needed for technology installation. EPA expects this option to be broadly available.

EPA is also providing a pathway for reliability critical units to obtain a schedule with up to an additional year to achieve compliance. This pathway is described in a separate enforcement policy document. The EPA believes there will be few, if any situations, in which this pathway will be needed.

In the unlikely event that there are other situations where sources cannot come into compliance on a timely basis, consistent with its longstanding historical practice under the Clean Air Act, the EPA will address individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis, at the appropriate time, to determine the appropriate response and resolution.

Top of page

Reliable Energy

In EPA’s 40 year history, the Clean Air Act has not impacted power companies’ ability to keep the lights on in communities across the United States. EPA’s analysis shows that the MATS rule and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule will not adversely affect resource adequacy in any region of the country. More information is available in EPA’s resource adequacy analysis (PDF) (9pp, 418k).

A number of other analyses have reached conclusions consistent with EPA’s, including a report from the Department of Energy (PDF).

http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerplants.html

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-496

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: