Blog for Clean Air

EPA to Congress: low-sulfur gas would cost only a penny a gallon

2012-02-28T05:42:00.000-08:00

Here is a letter to Congress from the US EPA clarifying the the scope and cost of gasoline changes related to the so-called Tier 3 clean-car program under consideration.

This ought to put to rest the oil industry charges that EPA is planning to do more than just reduce sulfur in gasoline levels, and that the changes would cost as much as a quarter a gallon. This letter backs up what we have been saying since last October: EPA can make real smog reductions just by reducing the sulfur content of gas, and the cost is so small that no one would notice. Note, by the way, that the projected cost of a penny a gallon wouldn’t happen until 2017.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

FEB 27 2012

OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION

Honorable Ed Whitfield U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Whitfield:

Thank for your letter of December 19, 2011, co-signed by 67 of your colleagues, sharing concerns a bout the potential impacts and the rulemaking processes of two upcoming U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed rules: the ''Tier 3" light-duty vehicle emissions and gasoline standards, and the refinery sector rulemaking.

The EPA is developing the Tier 3 standards to respond to the critical need to improve air quality, and to enable a harmonized national vehicle emissions control program. This rule would reduce motor vehicle emissions and help state and local areas attain and maintain the existing health-based air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to achieve new Tier 3 vehicle standards, and will facilitate the development of lower cost technologies to improve fuel economy. Improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save consumers money.

The Tier 3 standards would create a comprehensive regulatory approach that provides certainty for both the auto and oil industries. Under a single harmonized national vehicle program, the Tier 3 standards would provide for coordinated implementation with the California vehicle program and the EPA and Department of Transportation's recently proposed light-duty vehicle standards to reduce carbon pollution and improve fuel economy for- model years 2017 through 2025. The proposed standards are
projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles. Vehicles meeting these standards are projected to provide average net savings to consumers of $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle. Further, the coordinated timing of the Tier 3 a nd refinery sector rules provides the oil industry regulatory certainty and opportunities for cost-efficiency.

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the American public. That i s why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for Tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the functioning of emission control equipment. By focusing only on sulfur requirements in Tier 3, we estimate the costs to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported by a recent stud y by Mathpro.

lnternel Address (URL) • http //www epa gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted w•th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper

Your letter expressed concern about the regulation's potential effects on the refining industry and gasoline supply. Let me assure you that as many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to European countries gasoline that meets this standard (which is already required in places like Japan, South Korea, and a number of other countries). The regulatory flexibility we intend to build into the Tier 3 standards, similar to the flexibility we provide in our current fuel programs, will ensure that the Tier 3 standards under consideration would not cause refinery closures or negatively impact gasoline supply.

Your letter points to the need for thorough scientific, cost, and benefits analyses before proceeding. Let me assure you and your colleagues that we agree that these major rules require robust and transparent analyses of air quality, technological feasibility, and costs, as well as potential benefits. As we continue to develop these proposed rules, neither of which has yet been published for comment, we are conducting and documenting a wide range of analyses in all of these areas.

Regarding the refinery sector rule, we agree that thorough analysis of available data is crucial in the generation of common sense emission control standards. We have worked diligently to evaluate and analyze data received through the Information Collection Request. We have taken and will continue to take into consideration the perspective and input of stakeholders as we strive to develop a reasonable rulemaking that will achieve meaningful and cost-effective pollution reductions in the refining industry.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may call Diann Frantz in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 202-564-3668.

Sincerely,

Gina McCarthy
EPA Assistant Administrator

Newt again repeats oil lie about EPA and gas prices; time for the White House to set the record straight!

2012-02-22T12:56:00.000-08:00

This has gotten ridiculous. Newt Gingrich (granted, his views now seem less relevant than they did a few weeks back as he sinks in the polls) has again repeated the oil industry’s big lie about EPA and gas prices. See the link and excerpt below.

As you will recall, the oil industry commissioned a study which hypothesized that the EPA would make various changes to gasoline, including so-called vapor pressure. And the industry charged the various changes would add up to a quarter a gallon in costs.

But EPA is NOT planning such an extensive change to gasoline. It has explored reducing the sulfur content of gas – a modest change that would cost less than a penny a gallon, starting around 2017. That change would make every car on the road cleaner because lower sulfur levels would make catalytic converters more effective in eliminating smog-forming pollution.

But politics being what it is, the truth doesn’t seem to matter.

It is time for the White House to set the record straight here. The President is making a big speech on energy in Florida tomorrow. He should use this as an opportunity to clarify that he fully backs the EPA plan to clean up gasoline because that would be the single most effective strategy possible to reduce smog levels across America. And it would have ZERO immediate impact on gasoline prices, and only a negligible less-than-a-penny impact five years from now.

White House silence on this merely permits the demagogues to continue ranting.

http://www.newt.org/news/video-message-newt-gingrich-american-energy/

…To show you how far this is going: Even though we have today the highest price average cost of gasoline in history. That’s right, President Obama has taken us from $1.89 to the most expensive gasoline on average we have ever had. They are still not satisfied. The Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama has a proposal for a brand new regulation that would, on average, raise the cost of gasoline another $0.25.

Praise for a new climate change initiative, but...

2012-02-16T05:21:00.000-08:00

We want to take a moment this morning to praise the new initiative being announced today at the State Department to reduce emissions of pollutants that hasten climate change.

As we have been reporting for some time, limiting black carbon soot emissions (for example, from diesel engines) and some other “climate forcers” such as methane can limit the damages from climate change while policy makers argue over longer term solutions involving carbon dioxide. http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2011/06/un-report-limit-soot-and-smog-emissions.html http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2008/10/bulletin-international-group-oks-new.html

So let’s give two cheers to this new initiative.

But we need to point out one irony. It is being announced literally the same week the Obama administration rolled out its proposed budget, which includes a plan to CUT spending to clean up existing dirty diesel engines in the United States. Note p 16 at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/FY_2013_CJ.pdf

Has the dirty diesel problem in the US been solved? Not by a long shot, according to the EPA, which reports that

Because diesel engines can operate for 20 to 30 years, millions of older, dirtier diesel engines are still in use. http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/basicinfo.htm

As the old saying goes, what one hand gives, the other takes away.

However, the new announcement is a good pr moment. Isn’t that what it’s all about?

Soot pollution linked to cognitive impairment in older women

2012-02-14T10:58:00.000-08:00

from the Archives of Internal Medicine

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/172/3/219

Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Cognitive Decline in Older Women
Jennifer Weuve, MPH, ScD; Robin C. Puett, MPH, PhD; Joel Schwartz, PhD; Jeff D. Yanosky, MS, ScD; Francine Laden, MS, ScD; Francine Grodstein, ScD

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(3):219-227. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.683

Background Chronic exposure to particulate air pollution may accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, although data on this association are limited. Our objective was to examine long-term exposure to particulate matter (PM) air pollution, both coarse ([PM 2.5-10 µm in diameter [PM2.5-10]) and fine (PM <2.5 µm in diameter [PM2.5]), in relation to cognitive decline.

Methods The study population comprised the Nurses' Health Study Cognitive Cohort, which included 19 409 US women aged 70 to 81 years. We used geographic information system–based spatiotemporal smoothing models to estimate recent (1 month) and long-term (7-14 years) exposures to PM2.5-10, and PM2.5 preceding baseline cognitive testing (1995-2001) of participants residing in the contiguous United States. We used generalized estimating equation regression to estimate differences in the rate of cognitive decline across levels of PM2.5-10 and PM2.5 exposures. The main outcome measure was cognition, via validated telephone assessments, administered 3 times at approximately 2-year intervals, includ-ing tests of general cognition, verbal memory, category fluency, working memory, and attention.

Results Higher levels of long-term exposure to both PM2.5-10 and PM2.5 were associated with significantly faster cognitive decline. Two-year decline on a global score was 0.020 (95% CI, –0.032 to –0.008) standard units worse per 10 μg/m3 increment in PM2.5-10 exposure and 0.018 (95% CI, –0.035 to –0.002) units worse per 10 μg/m3 increment in PM2.5 exposure. These differences in cognitive trajectory were similar to those between women in our cohort who were approximately 2 years apart in age, indicating that the effect of a 10-μg/m3 increment in long-term PM exposure is cognitively equivalent to aging by approximately 2 years.

Conclusion Long-term exposure to PM2.5-10 and PM2.5 at levels typically experienced by many individuals in the United States is associated with significantly worse cognitive decline in older women.

Medical researchers: even moderate air pollution levels can raise stroke risk

2012-02-14T10:30:00.002-08:00

Even Moderate Air Pollution Can Raise Stroke Risks
Risk rises within hours of exposure
Date: 2/13/2012
BIDMC Contact: Jerry Berger
Phone: 617-667-7308
Email: jberger@bidmc.harvard.edu

BOSTON – Air pollution, even at levels generally considered safe by federal regulations, increases the risk of stroke by 34 percent, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center researchers have found.

Writing in the Feb. 14, 2012 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers who studied more than 1,700 stroke patients in the Boston area over a 10-year period found exposure to ambient fine particulate matter, generally from vehicle traffic, was associated with a significantly higher risk of ischemic strokes on days when the EPA’s air quality index for particulate matter was yellow instead of green.

Researchers focused on particles with a diameter of 2.5 millionths of a meter, referred to as PM2.5. These particles come from a variety of sources, including power plants, factories, trucks and automobiles and the burning of wood. They can travel deeply into the lungs and have been associated in other studies with increased numbers of hospital visits for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attacks.

“The link between increased stroke risk and these particulates can be observed within hours of exposure and are most strongly associated with pollution from local or transported traffic emissions,” says Murray A. Mittleman, MD, DrPH, the study’s senior author, a physician in the CardioVascular Institute at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. “Any proposed changes in regulated pollution levels must consider the impact of lower levels on public health.”

“Considering that almost everyone is exposed to air pollution and is at risk for stroke, that’s actually a pretty large effect,” adds Gregory Wellenius, ScD, the study’s lead author and an Assistant Professor of Community Health at Brown University.

Researchers analyzed the medical records of more than 1,700 patients who went to the hospital for treatment of confirmed strokes between 1999 and 2008. They matched the onset of stroke symptoms in each patient to hourly measurements of particulate air pollution taken at the nearby Harvard School of Public Health’s environmental monitoring station.

The team was able to estimate the hour the stroke symptoms first occurred, rather than relying on the more coarse measure of when patients were admitted to the hospital. They also included only strokes confirmed by attending neurologists, rather than relying on more vague insurance billing codes.

Meanwhile, Harvard’s hourly measurements of pollution within 13 miles of 90 percent of the stroke patients’ homes allowed for close matching in time of exposure and stroke onset.

“We think that this study is novel in that it has high-quality data on both air pollution exposure and stroke diagnosis,” Wellenius says.

The team was able to calculate that the peak risk to patients from pollution exposure occurs 12-14 hours before a stroke. That information may be useful to researchers who want to trace how PM2.5 might be working in the body to increase the likelihood of stroke.

They also found that black carbon and nitrogen dioxide, two pollutants associated with vehicle traffic, were closely linked with stroke risk, suggesting that pollution from cars and trucks may be particularly important.

Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability and the third leading cause of death in the United States. An estimated 795,000 Americans suffer a new or recurrent stroke every year, resulting in more than 135,000 deaths and 829,000 hospital admissions.

The finding that days of moderate air quality substantially elevate stroke risk compared to days of good air quality suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency may need to strengthen the language it uses to describe the health consequences of moderate air quality, researchers say.

“In partnership with NIEHS, EPA funded this research advancing our understanding of air pollution and health effects,” said Dan Costa, ScD, DABT, Interim National Program Director for Air Climate & Energy Research in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Research.

“In 2009, EPA published an Integrated Science Assessment concluding a causal relationship exists between PM2.5 and cardiovascular impacts, including strokes. Dr. Wellenius and colleagues’ study is the first to show that the onset of stroke can occur with less than a day's exposure to fine PM. Highly relevant research such as this informs the PM2.5 standards and protects human health.”

Researchers estimate reducing PM2.5 pollution by about 20 percent could have prevented 6,100 of the 184,000 stroke hospitalizations in the northeastern United States in 2007.

While researchers acknowledge results need to be replicated in other cities, they note that Boston is considered to have relatively clean air.

“The levels of PM2.5 in Boston are lower than those seen in many in other parts of the country, yet we still find that within these moderate levels the risk of stroke is higher on days with more particles in the air,” Mittleman says.

In addition to Wellenius and Mittleman, co-authors include Mary R. Burger, MD, and Gottfried Schlaug, MD, MPH of BIDMC, Brent A. Coull. PhD, Joel Schwartz, PhD, Helen Suh, ScD, Petros Koutrakis, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health and Diane R. Gold, MD, of Brigham an d Women’s Hospital.

The study was supported by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency. One or more of the authors are currently receiving or have received funding from the Health Effects Institute of Boston; the Electric Power Research Institute of Palo Alto, CA; the EPA and the National Institutes of Health.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is a major patient care, teaching and research affiliate of Harvard Medical School, currently ranks third in National Institutes of Health funding among independent hospitals nationwide. The medical center is clinically affiliated with the Joslin Diabetes Center and is a founding member of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. BIDMC is the official hospital of the Boston Red Sox. For more information, visit www.bidmc.org.

New York Times editorial calls on White House to permit EPA to move forward with low-sulfur gasoline standards

2012-02-14T06:58:00.000-08:00

Thank you, New York Times for flagging this issue. Cleaner, low-sulfur gas will not only help California, but will reduce smog levels everywhere in America!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/opinion/californias-clean-car-rules.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

EDITORIAL
California Rules

California, long a leader on clean air and other environmental issues, is doing good things again. The state’s powerful Air Resources Board has issued new rules that, when finally approved, will lead to many fewer smog-causing pollutants, fewer greenhouse gases and, in time, encourage the auto industry to build millions more emissions-free cars and trucks, including a new generation of all-electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles...

The Environmental Protection Agency is almost certain to grant the waiver California needs to put the rules into effect. It should also begin pushing the oil refiners to lower the sulfur content in gasoline, greatly improving California’s chances of achieving smog reductions. The oil companies hate this idea because it will add to their refining costs. It is hard to feel sympathy for them at a time of record profits. Lisa Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, has proposed sulfur reductions for gasoline, but the White House has yet to give her the green light. It should.

A big thanks to states, led by NY, which are suing EPA to update national air standards for fine particle soot!

2012-02-10T12:45:00.001-08:00

We are most grateful to these attorneys general noted below.

The science is overwhelming that EPA should set tougher new standards to limit the amount of deadly fine particle soot in the air. All the studies have been completed and reviewed. But the Obama administration is dragging its feet. The appearance is that people are breathing deadly air because of the timidity induced by election-year politics.

________________________________________
From: NYAG PressOffice [mailto:NYAG.PressOffice@ag.ny.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:35 PM
To: NYAG PressOffice
Subject: A.G. SCHNEIDERMAN FILES AIR POLLUTION LAWSUIT TO PROTECT PUBLIC FROM BREATHING SOOT

News from Attorney General Eric T Schneiderman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 10, 2012

New York City Press Office / 212-416-8060
Albany Press Office / 518-473-5525
nyag.pressoffice@ag.ny.gov
Twitter:@AGSchneiderman

A.G. SCHNEIDERMAN FILES AIR POLLUTION LAWSUIT TO PROTECT PUBLIC FROM BREATHING SOOT

Attorney General Leads A Coalition Of 11 States Responding To EPA's Failure To Comply With Federal Clean Air Act, Adopt Air Quality Standards That Protect Public Health

Under Current Lax Standards, Roughly 2,000 Die Annually In NYC-Area From Heart and Lung Disease Related To Soot

Schneiderman: Clean Air Is A Public Right

NEW YORK – Leading a coalition of 11 states, New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a lawsuit to compel the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promptly revise national air quality standards for air pollution involving soot. The coalition took legal action after the EPA failed to meet an October 2011 deadline for revising the existing lax standards, as required by the federal Clean Air Act.

Attorney General Schneiderman's lawsuit, filed today in federal district court in Manhattan, asks the Court to order the EPA to adopt new air pollution standards promptly and by a date certain.

"Clean air is a public right, and standards that protect it are a necessity," said Attorney General Schneiderman. "Every day, air pollution, from soot, risks the health of more than one-third of Americans, including our most vulnerable – children, the elderly and the sick. These risks are simply unacceptable. The EPA must take prompt action to reduce pollution now, and safeguard the health of the public and the air we breathe."

Soot, also known as fine particulate matter pollution or “PM 2.5,” is produced by diesel trucks and buses, power plants and other sources, and is prevalent in New York City and other urban areas. Tiny particles of soot evade the body’s defense mechanisms and collect deep within peoples’ lungs, where they are absorbed into the blood stream. Breathing it increases the risk of early death, heart attacks, strokes and emergency room visits, especially for people with asthma, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Moreover,
• EPA estimates that more than 100 million Americans -- one-third of the nation’s population -- have special susceptibility to be harmed from soot, including children, senior citizens, and people with lung disease such as asthma; and

• According to the American Lung Association, one in 17 Americans live in areas with unhealthy year-round levels of soot;

• The American Lung Association ranks New York City among the top 25 U.S. cities with the highest levels of pollution; and

• Under the current standards, the EPA estimates that approximately 2,000 people die prematurely every year in the New York City urban area from heart and lung disease related to soot.

The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA every five years to review and, if warranted by advances in public health science, revise the national air quality standards for common air pollutants, including soot. EPA last revised the standards in 2006. However, New York and 15 other states challenged those standards as lax, and having been adopted against the advice of EPA’s own air pollution experts and the agency’s independent scientific advisors.

In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the coalition of states, and ruled that the EPA had not justified its decision to adopt those lax standards. The Court returned the standards back to the agency for reconsideration in light of the Court’s concerns that the standards failed to adequately protect public health.

In response to the court’s remand, the EPA stated that it would revise the soot standards as part of its next five-year review under the statute. However, that statutory deadline -- October 17, 2011 -- passed without the EPA finalizing, or even proposing, revised soot standards. Because the federal agency failed to act on this important public health matter as required by law, on November 16, 2011, Attorney General Schneiderman and the states joining him in today's lawsuit sent a 60-day notice to the EPA, stating their intention to sue over the agency's failure to timely revise the soot air pollution standards. The EPA has not taken action in response to the coalition's notice, leading Schneiderman and his coalition to take today's legal action. New York and other coalition states also have a petition pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that court to order the EPA promptly to revise the soot standards.

The states joining Attorney General Schneiderman in today's action are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The lawsuit is being handled by Assistant Attorneys General Jane Cameron and Michael Myers, under the supervision of the Attorney General’s Environmental Protection Bureau Chief Lemuel M. Srolovic and Executive Deputy Attorney General for Social Justice Janet Sabel.

EPA makes "minor technical adjustments" to embattled cross-state pollution rules

2012-02-08T07:59:00.000-08:00

The US EPA has rather quietly made a few adjustments to its embattled cross-state air pollution rules for power plant emissions that drift across state lines. The new rules were signed last night and can be found online: http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html

EPA describes these as “minor technical adjustments” based on new information since the rules were released last July. According to the EPA

The adjustments provide flexibility by increasing budgets in 17 states and easing limits on market-based compliance options. While individual state adjustments vary, overall, the total budget increase from both rules remain small—around two percent—when compared to the millions of tons of pollution reductions secured by CSAPR.

As you know, the rules have been stayed by a federal court while lawsuits grind through the system. EPA says it is prepared to move forward with these changes if it prevails in court.

We know courts are unpredictable.

But we do believe EPA is trying to make decisions based on the best possible information. And the cross-state rule is crucial to bring down levels of soot and smog pollution that cause thousands of premature deaths a year.

Truth squads Politifact and Factcheck.org both agree with us: Newt was wrong about long-awaited EPA clean car, clean fuel plan and gas prices

2012-02-08T05:52:00.000-08:00

Please note at

http://bit.ly/xjlL6q

http://bit.ly/wZhT4d

EPA to Congress: yes, people are dying at particle soot levels BELOW the current standard (so why is the Obama administation dragging its feet in setting a new standard?)

2012-02-07T10:40:00.000-08:00

An item of possible interest as we explore the “unfinished business” of the Obama administration as it pertains to air pollution control. As you may recall, some of the very glib opponents of coal power plant and other industrial cleanup have complained about some of the EPA-projected benefits of pollution control, especially the “deaths avoided” from reducing fine particle soot levels below the national air quality standards set in 1997 and re-affirmed by the Bush administration in 2006. (Some of you may recall that back then, the EPA science advisers urged a tougher national standard. State, health and environmental groups subsequently sued, and the Bush standard was found arbitrary and capricious.)

The polluter interests prompted this letter to EPA from several prominent members of Congress, led by Rep. Fred “Geez, how conservative do I have to be to appease the right wing?” Upton (R-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=9164

The EPA has now responded with the following letter, which makes it crystal clear that the current national fine particle soot standard is far too weak. Indeed, EPA reports that people are dying from breathing particle soot levels that are “significantly below” the arbitrary Bush standard. EPA argues, accurately, that there will be significant health benefits from cleaning up coal power plants, cement plants, etc.

However, this response does raise a pretty big question: why is the Obama administration dragging its feet in updating the obviously outmoded national standard? As you may recall, EPA recently went to court to try to fend off state, health and environmental group efforts to get EPA off the dime. The Obama administration recently told the court that a decision would be put off until 2013 – after the elections. This is a real elephant in the room – or, should I say, donkey?

So is EPA’s decision on new national fine particle soot standards another casualty of election year politics? It’s starting to look that way.

**

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

FEB - 3 2012_

OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION

The Honorable Fred Upton
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House ofRepresentatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of December 14, 2011, to Administrator Lisa Jackson, co-signed by three of your colleagues, requesting additional information regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's estimates of the public health benefits expected to result from regulatory actions. The Administrator has asked me to respond on her behalf.

Your letter raises several questions about our benefits estimates for reducing fine particle pollution. We believe the health improvements achieved by reducing fine particle exposures represent real benefits to real people, and it is appropriate to provide information to decisionmakers and the public about these expected benefits of cleaner air. These estimates are incorporated in Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), which help inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential benefits and costs of our proposed and final rules. The benefits estimates and RIAs are developed and reviewed as part of the normal rulemaking process, including interagency review and public notice and comment. We prepare these estimates for all economically significant rules. Although we strive to make these analyses as complete as possible, there are often many benefits that cannot be quantified, including a number of significant benefits from reducing mercury and other air taxies.

EPA's approach for estimating benefits from reducing fine particle pollution is science-driven. Studies demonstrate an association between premature mortality and fine particle pollution at the lowest levels measured in the relevant studies, levels that are significantly below the NAAQS for fine particles. These studies have not observed a level at which premature mortality effects do not occur. The best scientific evidence, confirmed by independent, Congressionally-mandated expert panels, is that there is no threshold level of fine particle pollution below which health risk reductions are not achieved by reduced exposure. Thus, based on specific advice from scientific peer-review, we project benefits from reducing fine particle pollution below the level of the NAAQS and below the lowest levels measured in the studies.

Using a no-threshold approach to developing our primary benefits estimates for our rules, which was also the approach we took from 1997 to 2006, is warranted by the extensive scientific review reflected in the Integrated Science Assessment on Particulate Matter (PM ISA), the first draft of which was prepared by EPA scientists and technical staff and released in December 2008. All drafts of the PM ISA reflect this conclusion that there is no scientific evidence supporting assumption of a threshold for PM effects.

1

risks. The no-threshold approach, and associated projections of benefits, were also specifically reviewed and approved by the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, another panel of outside experts established by Congress to review EPA studies of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act.

Based on the first draft PM ISA released in December 2008, EPA technical staff incorporated the no threshold approach in benefits calculations, which were subject to intra- and inter-agency review and public notice and comment. We have followed a no-threshold approach to our primary benefits estimate since then.

Detailed responses to a number of specific questions raised in your letter are addressed in the attachment. We have also provided the key documents cited in this letter on the enclosed disc. Again, the Administrator and I thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may call Josh Lewis in the EPA's Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

Sincerely,

Gina McCarthy
Assistant Administrator

Newt Gingrich repeats Big Oil's big lie about EPA and gas prices

2012-02-06T11:58:00.000-08:00

In case you missed yesterday’s Meet the Press, I am sorry to report that presidential contender Newt Gingrich repeated big oil’s big lie about EPA and gas prices.

As part of a spiel attacking the Obama administration, Gingrich asserted that Obama “has an Environmental Protection Agency proposal that would raise the price of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon.” [See at about 9:37 into the interview at this link: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/02/video-newt-gingrich-on-meet-the-press-2412/ ]

This is repeating some nonsense, already repeated by some congressional oil industry supporters led by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) that were instigated by the oil industry and based on a bogus premise: that EPA is seeking to change the so-called Reid Vapor Pressure of gasoline. (That is not, by the way, a reference to Senator Harry Reid’s (D-NV) blood pressure.)

At the President’s directive, EPA has been working on a plan to require cleaner new passenger vehicles and cleaner, low-sulfur gasoline – a move that could cost LESS THAN A PENNY a gallon. See at http://www.4cleanair.org/documents/NACAATier3VehandFuelReport-EMBARGOED-Oct2011.pdfs

Our friend, Rich Kassel of NRDC, explained the oil industry’s bogus assertion in this excellent blog post http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkassel/epa_oil_industry_assumptions_a.html

Reducing the sulfur content of gasoline would make every catalytic converter on the road today more effective. Every car in America would emit fewer smog-producing emissions. In fact, reducing sulfur is the single quickest and most effective step that EPA could take to reduce smog levels from coast to coast.

But here’s the question: are attacks like Gingrich’s – however factually off base -- causing the White House to get cold feet on this issue?

EPA’s proposal is long overdue.

NE & Mid-Atlantic enviro commissioners to EPA: we need clean-car, clean-gasoline standards NOW -- in 2012!

2012-01-25T10:50:00.000-08:00

Dear friends,

Please note the letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, below, from seven Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic state environmental commissioners (CT, MD, MA, DC, RI, NY & VT).

They are urging EPA to move quickly to move quickly to set new (so-called Tier 3) vehicle tailpipe pollution and cleaner, low-sulfur gasoline standards. The EPA testified months ago to Congress that it was working on these standards, but there has been deafening silence since.

This is the latest letter urging the EPA to take action. Other letters have been sent by the pollution control industry leaders http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2012/01/pollution-control-industry-to-epa.html as well as by major health and environmental groups.

The clock is ticking loudly. Will EPA finally get the message?

January 25, 2012
Honorable Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 6102T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Re: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Standards / Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We, the undersigned state environmental leaders, write to urge you to expeditiously propose the Tier 3 motor vehicle and low sulfur gasoline standards and to finalize that rule in 2012. Despite a significant and sustained joint state and federal effort spanning more than 40 years, air pollution remains a serious public health threat in our region and across the United States.

EPA first committed to proposing Tier 3 standards in 2008 to help states meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and is late in delivering the much needed reductions from the light-duty vehicle sector. This sector remains a significant source of ozone forming pollutants across the country. EPA’s own modeling analysis shows that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (if implemented) will not result in attaining the new ozone NAAQS in many of the most populous areas in our region. Clearly, Tier 3 and low sulfur gasoline is needed to better protect public health.

Emissions from cars and light and medium-duty trucks also contribute to fine particle pollution and are key sources of hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene. These pollutants disproportionately affect people living and working in our urban communities, where vehicle congestion and population density are highest. Further, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other vehicle -related pollutants contribute to a number of environmental problems such as acid rain, coastal marine eutrophication, and regional haze that affect cherished and economically valuable resources in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region.

Light-duty vehicles are by far the largest source of NOx emissions in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), emitting over 700,000 tons of NOx per year. Lowering the sulfur content of gasoline to 10 parts per million (ppm), as EPA is considering, would immediately reduce NOx from this sector by more than 25 percent. Over time, the vehicle standards will dramatically reduce harmful pollutants as the Tier 3 vehicles replace older cars and trucks in the fleet.

A recent analysis indicates that the Tier 3/low sulfur gasoline program would reduce NOx emissions in the OTR by over 50,000 tons per year in 2017, which is more than three times the benefits projected for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in the region.1 Further, as a national strategy, the Tier 3 low sulfur gasoline provision alone would reduce NOx emissions by over 175,000 tons per year, or 500 tons per day, by 2017 across the eastern United States. These reductions will benefit air quality by lowering the “ozone reservoir” and accompanying NOx precursor pollution generated in the eastern United States and transported into the OTR under the prevailing summertime winds.

These reductions would translate to between $235 million and $1.2 billion in direct public health benefits annually in our region. The 10 ppm sulfur gasoline provisions would likely reduce NOx at a cost of less than $4,000 per ton, which is comparable to or less than the costs associated with federal Tier 2 and heavy-duty engine/low sulfur diesel rules and many stationary source controls, including industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers and combustion turbines.

Given the stringency of existing emission controls already in place in our states, federal constraints on state regulation of motor vehicle fuels, and the fact that our states are significantly affected by pollution transport from sources outside the region, national emission control measures for light-duty vehicles are critical to achieving further improvements in air quality.

Without Tier 3 and other federal measures, more costly emission reductions will have to be accomplished by controlling local sources in our states beyond what otherwise would be needed, in order to compensate for the foregone national measures.

We respectfully request that EPA expeditiously issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and finalize the Tier 3/low sulfur gasoline rule in 2012.

Sincerely,

Daniel C. Esty, Commissioner
CT Department of Energy & Environmental Protection

Christophe A. G. Tulou, Director
DC Department of the Environment

Robert M. Summers, Secretary
MD Department of the Environment

Kenneth L. Kimmell, Commissioner
MA Department of Environmental Protection

Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

Janet Coit, Director
RI Department of Environmental Management

David K. Mears, Commissioner
VT Department of Environmental Conservation

1 Assessment of Clean Gasoline in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management, Boston, MA (November 2011).

cc: Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, EPA
Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, OAR
Margo Oge, Director, OAR/OTAQ

EPA to court: we're punting final decision on particle soot air standard to 2013

2012-01-23T06:23:00.000-08:00

This should not come as a shock, but it is disappointing nonetheless. In a filing in federal court (and H/T to BNA Daily Environment Report for spotting this!) the U.S. EPA has said it does not intend to set final new fine particle soot air quality standards before mid-2013! EPA says it intends to propose new standards by June 2012.

This is quite a disapppointment to health and environmental groups. The science is already in: we know current air standards are too weak. In fact, people are getting sick and dying under current standards. There is no excuse for EPA to drag its feet.

You may recall the background: the prior Bush administration set standards that were weaker than recommended by EPA's science advisers. State, health and environmental groups sued, and the EPA decision was found to be arbitrary and capricious. The court told EPA to go back to the drawing board. New science was reviewed. Again the science advisers have called for tougher standards.

Pollution control industry to EPA: cleaner cars and cleaner gas mean big economic benefits

2012-01-23T06:01:00.000-08:00

This is an excellent letter. It points out that long-awaited EPA standards for cleaner cars and cleaner gasoline will not only mean cleaner air, but also real economic benefits.

January 13, 2012
BY E-MAIL
The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
Mail Code: 1101A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

jackson.lisa@epa.gov

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We are writing collectively as representatives of the mobile source emissions control industry to respectfully urge you to advance the agency’s proposal for Tier 3 emission and fuel standards this month and adopt the new standards by mid-year. We fear that delay will jeopardize the ultimate
adoption of these new standards and deny the country of the health and economic benefits associated with the new rule.

The potential health benefits associated with Tier 3 are well established by numerous health effects studies. The plain fact is passenger vehicles are a major source of emissions of ozone precursors,carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Studies have shown that these pollutants threaten human
health by reducing lung function, aggravating asthma and other chronic lung diseases, causing permanent lung damage through repeated exposure, and causing heart attacks.1

These health threats can lead to premature death. Tier 3 has the potential to substantially reduce these health threats by cutting overall vehicle emissions of nitrogen oxides by 29%, carbon monoxides by 38%, and volatile organic compounds by 26% by 2030.2

Reducing the sulfur content of gasoline is critical to achieving these emission reductions on new vehicles. State-of-the-art emission control systems require low sulfur fuel to achieve optimal performance in terms of both emissions reduction and cost. Importantly, reducing the sulfur content
of the fuel will also reduce harmful emissions from the in-use-fleet by almost 30% in the first year of the program.

In addition to these important environmental benefits, Tier 3 also has the potential to generate substantial economic benefits. First among these is the ability of the auto industry and its suppliers to scale production and maximize efficiency in the manufacture of new vehicles and systems that are
designed to meet the tighter tailpipe emission standards.

1 Health Effects Institute, “Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects, Special Report 17,” January 12, 2010.

2 National Association of Clean Air Agencies, “Cleaner Cars, Cleaner Fuel, Cleaner Air: The Need for and Benefits of Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Regulations,” October 2011, p 16.

California is adopting new emission standards under their LEV III rule to address serious ozone and PM nonattainment problems in many regions of the state. If EPA does not move forward promptly to adopt Tier 3, other states with ozone and PM nonattainment problems will likely adopt emission
standards similar to LEV III, as they are authorized to do so under the Clean Air Act. This would result in automakers and their suppliers having to manufacture vehicles with different emission systems for different state markets.

Tier 3 addresses this problem by harmonizing emission standards across the country. This would enable car makers and their suppliers to scale production to one set of standards, thereby minimizing the cost of the emissions reduction for the auto industry, its suppliers, and consumers alike.

The second important economic benefit is the increased investment that will be driven by Tier 3. Automakers, their suppliers, and petroleum refiners will have to make an increased investment to meet the new tailpipe and fuel standards. This investment will most certainly generate employment
opportunities in the United States. Our industry is willing and eager to make this investment to improve the national economy.

The third economic benefit is the technology development that will be required to meet the new Tier 3 standards. Over the last forty years, our industry has collaborated with our customers in the auto industry to develop successive generations of emission control technologies to meet the evertightening emission standards. Because the United States has led the world in mobile source regulation, we have also led the world in the development of emissions reduction technology. Tier 3 will be no different.

It will establish a new threshold of tighter standards that will set the stage for the next step of emission reductions around the world. We will develop technology that will meet the new Tier 3 standards in the United States first. And, as these new standards migrate around the world,
we will be in the best position to supply product into these new expanding markets.

The experience of our industry over the last 40 years vividly demonstrates this connection between regulation and economic development. Prior to 1970, our industry did not exist. But, with the enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1970, our industry has flourished, developing successive generations of technology to meet ever tightening regulatory standards. Since the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975, more than 500 million light-duty vehicles have been sold in the United States equipped with exhaust and evaporative emission control technologies developed by our
industry. This generated an estimated $250-$300 billion in economic activity since 1975. In 2010 alone, our industry generated $12 billion of economic activity and accounted for 65,000 U.S. jobs, mostly in manufacturing.3

We understand that other parties have argued against the adoption of low sulfur fuel standards because of increased investment that may be necessary at the refinery level to meet the lower sulfur standard and because of an alleged increase in the cost of gasoline for consumers. We believe that
increased business investment is good for America and we are prepared to make the investment to meet the new Tier 3 tailpipe standards. We believe our customers in the automobile industry share this view.4

3 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, “MECA Highlights Economic Benefits of Mobile Source Emissions Control Industry,” March 11, 2011.

4 Bainwol, Mitch. Letter. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, October 6, 2011.

We also believe that the cost to consumers of low sulfur fuel is insignificant, at less than $5 per year for an average American driver.5 This small increased cost of fuel will be more than offset for American consumers by the health benefits of cleaner air arising from the new Tier 3 emission and fuel standards.

We appreciate the opportunity to make our views known and stand ready to be of assistance to your agency as you proceed with your consideration of Tier 3.

Sincerely,

Joseph Kubsh
Executive Director
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association
www.meca.org

Timothy Regan
President
Emissions Control Technology Association
www.ectausa.com

BASF Corporation
BorgWarner Inc.
Bosal Emission Control Systems North America
Clean Diesel Technologies Inc., including Catalytic Solutions Inc. and
Engine Control Systems Limited
Corning Incorporated
Johnson Matthey Inc.
MANN+HUMMEL USA
NGK Automotive Ceramics USA, Inc.
Stoneridge Inc.
Tenneco, Inc.
Umicore Autocat USA
Unifrax I LLC

cc: Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, EPA (perciasepe.bob@epa.gov)
Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, OAR (mccarthy.gina@epa.gov)
Nancy Sutley, Chair, CEQ (Nancy_H._Sutley@ceq.eop.gov)
Gary Guzy, Deputy Director, CEQ (Gary_S._Guzy@ceq.eop.gov)
Margo Oge, Director, OAR/OTAQ (oge.margo@epa.gov)
Cass Sunstein, Administrator, OIRA (Cass_R._Sunstein@omb.eop.gov)
Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, (Heather_R._Zichal@who.eop.gov)

5 National Association of Clean Air Agencies, “Cleaner Cars, Cleaner Fuel, Cleaner Air: The Need for and Benefits of Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Regulations,” October 2011, p 15. The sulfur provision translates to a cost
of $4.80 per year for the average driver or the equivalent of about 1.5 gallons of gasoline at current prices (assumes 12,000 miles/year, 25 mpg, 1 cent/gal

Congressional Research Service: EPA mercury/toxic rule for power plants will NOT mean lights out

2012-01-18T06:41:00.000-08:00

H/T to BNA Daily Environment Report for bringing this to our attention.

This report on EPA's new mercury/toxic rules for coal power plants by the respected Congressional Research Service undercuts the propaganda by several big coal power companies including American Electric Power and Southern Company.

It concludes that the lights won't go out -- and that electric rates won't rise much. To quote from the report's conclusions:

A particular issue has been whether the standards will lead to retirement
of a significant number of electric generating units, with negative effects on the reliability of the power supply. EPA and many other analysts maintain that this will not be the case.

To address this question, this report reviews industry data on planning reserve margins and potential retirement of units that do not currently meet the standards. Based on these data, it appears that, although the rule may lead to the retirement or derating of some facilities, almost all
of the capacity reductions will occur in areas that have substantial reserve margins. Two areas that may have difficulty meeting reserve margins, Texas and New England, will experience few plant retirements and deratings, according to industry data. Furthermore, to address the reliability concerns expressed by industry, the final rule includes provisions aimed at providing additional time for compliance if it is needed to install pollution controls or add new capacity to ensure
reliability in specific areas. As a result, it is unlikely that electric reliability will be harmed by the rule.

Another potential concern, given the rule’s cost, is what impact it may have on the price of electricity. EPA estimates that the average price of electricity nationally will increase by 3.1% by 2015, as a result of the rule. Electricity prices have declined more than 20% in real terms since
1980. The impact of price changes would be relatively small compared to this downward trend, and well within the normal range of historical price fluctuations.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pxNKQRFwi_Xjrj7YO7lneIMTBWG8pGXq3XirzxFvjLU/edit

Major enviro groups to EPA: we need new clean car, clean gas standards now!

2012-01-11T14:16:00.000-08:00

The letter below neatly sums up the need for new clean-car, clean-gas standards.

The real question: will President Obama and his team permit the EPA to move forward with these critical standards?

January 11, 2012

BY EMAIL AND US MAIL TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
USEPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
Mail Code: 1101A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

jackson.lisa@epa.gov

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We are writing to strongly urge you to take an important step to reduce pollution from the nation's cars, light trucks, and sport-utility vehicles. In particular, we respectfully ask you to immediately propose Tier 3 emissions and gasoline standards for passenger vehicles and to finalize these protections by the summer of 2012. A rigorous Tier 3 program
would have immediate and far-reaching health and environmental benefits: reducing a cascade of harmful airborne contaminants, ensuring longer and healthier lives, and helping states and communities across our country restore healthy air. These vital health protections will be achieved at an extremely modest cost – the additional cost to consumers of the cleaner gasoline would be less than a penny a gallon. And timely finalization of Tier 3 standards would allow manufacturers to efficiently align technology
upgrades with pending fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Now is the time to secure these human health protections for our nation.

Millions of Americans breathe cleaner, healthier air as a result of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's leadership in carrying out our nation's clean air laws. But serious challenges remain. More than 1 in 3 Americans still live in areas where air pollutant levels exceed at least one of the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
And passenger vehicles remain the second largest emitters of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds in the U.S. – the primary pollutants that form ozone. These vehicles also emit more than half of all carbon monoxide pollution and contribute significantly to lethal particulate matter emissions.

A protective Tier 3 program has the potential to cut gasoline vehicle emissions of nitrogen oxides by nearly sixty percent, carbon monoxide by about 38 percent, and volatile organic compounds by close to a third when these protections are carried out.

The substantial emissions reductions from all vehicles will translate into more than 400 avoided premature deaths and 52,000 avoided lost workdays each year.1

1 NACAA, Cleaner Cars, Cleaner Fuel, Cleaner Air: The Need for and Benefits of Tier 3
Vehicle and Fuel Regulations; October, 2011.

Reducing sulfur in gasoline will also result in an immediate reduction in emissions from the existing fleet – on the order of approximately 260,000 tons of nitrogen oxides in 2017 when the program begins – equivalent to taking 33 million cars off our nation’s roads.

A timely federal Tier 3 program is also imperative for states to meet the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards, including the ozone standard adopted in 2008, which assumed final Tier 3 emissions and gasoline standards in its baseline. Emissions reductions not achieved through a rigorous Tier 3 program would have to come from controls on local sources, which could be far less significant in magnitude and less cost-
effective.

A timely Tier 3 program is critical to protect human health from transportation sector pollution and one of the single most cost-effective solutions our nation can deploy to help states achieve and maintain healthy air in communities out of compliance with health-based national air quality standards. We cannot afford to delay these vital clean air
protections for millions of Americans.

In a May 2010 Rose Garden ceremony, President Obama announced his intention to finalize a Tier 3 program by 2012 that would reduce sulfur levels in gasoline and introduce cleaner cars, light trucks and sport-utility vehicles on the same schedule as his already-finalized greenhouse gas program. Proposing this program now will help ensure that the President’s commitment is kept. Thus, we strongly urge you to propose this
program as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Frances Beinecke
President Natural Resources Defense Council

Kevin Knobloch
President
Union of Concerned Scientists

Michael Brune
Executive Director Sierra Club

Fred Krupp
President
Environmental Defense Fund

cc:
Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, EPA (perciasepe.bob@epa.gov)
Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, OAR (mccarthy.gina@epa.gov)
Nancy Sutley, Chair, CEQ (Nancy_H._Sutley@ceq.eop.gov)
Gary Guzy, Deputy Director, CEQ (Gary_S._Guzy@ceq.eop.gov)
Margo Oge, Director, OAR/OTAQ (oge.margo@epa.gov)
Cass Sunstein, Administrator, OIRA (Cass_R._Sunstein@omb.eop.gov)
Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change,
(Heather_R._Zichal@who.eop.gov)

A few quick thoughts on EPA’s mercury/toxic standards for power plants

2011-12-21T10:46:00.000-08:00

The EPA has posted its final mercury/toxic standards for power plants. http://www.epa.gov/mats

We obviously haven’t had a chance to scrutinize all aspects of this, but here are a few quick thoughts:

This is truly history in the making. It is indeed a landmark accomplishment. After more than two decades of delay, dirty coal-fired power plants are going to be cleaned up in short order. The dirty, soot-spewing coal plant will soon become a relic of the past – a dirty industrial dinosaur.

Today’s action ensures that the cleanup of coal-fired power plants will be the signature clean-air achievement of the Obama administration. These standards complement the first cleanup phase embodied in EPA’s so-called Cross-State rule. In our opinion, these standards combined are more significant than the laudable vehicle fuel economy standards because cleaning up dirty power plants translates directly into massive health benefits. Americans everywhere will breathe easier – and will find fish safer to eat. And the EPA bent over backwards to accommodate concerns about electric reliability.

To understand how really positive today’s action is, one only need listen to the squeals coming from cleanup opponents. They lost this one.
On that note, a quick point. It has been alleged that the prior Bush administration issued the “first-ever” mercury standards for power plants.

Well, not really. Those of you who have been around will recall that the Bush EPA issued a more industry friendly cap-and-trade scheme calling for a reduction in the overall national amount of mercury from power plants over a very protracted timetable. Some analysts projected that the overall emissions would be reduced by about 69-70%, but not until 2026! Even then, many plants would have avoided any mercury emission controls. Oh, and by the way, a federal appeals court tossed out the Bush plan as obviously illegal (it did not require all power plants to meet a standard) and even made fun of the Bush crowd, saying they had used “the logic of the Queen of Hearts.” http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/68822E72677ACBCD8525744000470736/$file/05-1097a.pdf

In any event, the standards issued today will require much more cleanup much more quickly than the weak Bush approach.

A final note: you will doubtless observe as we did that some of the projected costs and benefits are both lower than those projected in EPA’s March proposal. As I understand it, these are the result of some things that have happened in subsequent months. For example, TVA agreed to a massive, multi-billion dollar cleanup in April

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/tvacoal-fired.html

To avoid any legitimate charge of “double counting” benefits, EPA removed those benefits (eg, up to 3,000 premature deaths a year avoided by the TVA cleanup) from those itemized today. Likewise, because of new lower projections of natural gas prices. EPA is not counting air pollution benefits resulting from companies ramping up gas use or building new gas plants chiefly for economic reasons. Similarly, EPA now expects some companies to use less costly pollution controls than previously anticipated because of comments it received.

EPA okays tough new standards for power plant emissions

2011-12-17T10:44:00.000-08:00

from today's Washington Post:

The Obama administration finished crafting tough new rules Friday curbing mercury and other poisons emitted by coal-fired utilities, according to several people briefed on the decision, culminating more than two decades of work to clean up the nation’s dirtiest power plants.

As part of last-minute negotiations between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency, the regulations give some flexibility to power plant operators who argued they could not meet the three-year deadline for compliance outlined by the EPA. Several individuals familiar with the details declined to be identified because the agency will not announce the rules until next week.

The new rules will cost utilities $10.6 billion by 2016 for the installation of control equipment known as scrubbers, according to EPA estimates. But the EPA said those costs would be far offset by health benefits. The agency estimates that as of 2016, lowering emissions would save $59 billion to $140 billion in annual health costs, preventing 17,000 premature deaths a year along with illnesses and lost workdays...

Several experts said the new controls on mercury, acid gas and other pollutants represent one of the most significant public health and environmental measures in years. The rules will prevent 91 percent of the mercury in coal from entering the air and much of the soot as well: According to EPA estimates, they will prevent 11,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks annually by 2016.

“I think this will prove to be the signature environmental accomplishment of the Obama administration,” said Frank O’Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “It will soon mean the end of the smoke-spewing coal power plant as we know it today. At the same time, the administration is trying to add a bit of flexibility to extinguish the bogus claim that these standards could mean lights out.”

More at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html?hpid=z4

Women members of Congress call for cleanup of mercury/toxics from power plants

2011-12-14T08:14:00.000-08:00

http://capps.house.gov/sites/capps.house.gov/files/documents/President_EPA_Mercury_Standards.pdf

Washington Whispers: why on earth would gas, nuclear lobbies back coal lobby's call to delay coal power plant cleanup?

2011-12-13T10:02:00.001-08:00

Inside the Beltway is abuzz this week about a letter (below) sent to President Obama by various industry lobbies. The letter urges delays in EPA’s power plant cleanup for mercury and other toxic pollutants (an announcement is now expected next Monday).

Some of the letter signers are no surprise, given the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s opposition.

But here is the buzz – and the big question: why are the American Gas Association and the Nuclear Energy Institute among those calling for delays in coal power plant cleanup? Hasn’t one of the big claims been that the cleanup would reduce coal use—and lead to more use of alternatives, especially gas? I best most of the members of some of these groups – especially the gas and nuclear crowd – had no idea their DC representatives were selling them out.

Is this simply a case of inside-the-Beltway lobbyists scratching each other’s back – even if that harms member companies of those lobbies? (One of DC’s secrets is that the lobbyists do need to keep creating billable hours for themselves.) Do some of the most strident cleanup opponents, particularly Southern Company and American Electric Power, have enough juice to persuade the gas and nuclear lobbies to slit their own wrists?

Or could this just be a classic case of anti-regulatory political ideology triumphing over factual reality?

In any case, the President should ignore this silly letter. Coal power plant cleanup is long overdue. It will be highly cost effective. And it will save lives and prevent sickness.

December 9, 2011

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:

The organizations listed below share a common belief that affordable and reliable electricity is
critical to our economic growth and job creation. We also share a deep concern that the Utility
MACT rule, due to be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 16,
2011 could cause significant electricity reliability constraints that would have a ripple effect
through our fragile economy, hurting businesses of all sizes. We urge you, as President, to
provide the leadership necessary to ensure that electric reliability risks of the final rule can be
managed effectively.

Reasonable regulation and regulatory certainty are essential for businesses to grow and prosper.
By contrast, regulatory uncertainty is a deterrent to putting Americans back to work, particularly
for small businesses. The potential costs of the UtilityMACT rule could have a major impact on
job creation and consumer demand for our products and services.

It is clear that some utilities will need additional time to comply with this rule beyond the three
or four years allowed under the Clean Air Act. Utilities must replace power plants, install
compliance equipment and build new natural gas pipelines and transmission lines. This is going
to cost tens of billions of dollars and require a reasonable number of years for a smooth transition
to a cleaner generating fleet. If the final rule fails to recognize these realities, our entire economy
will suffer.

The organizations responsible for the reliability of the electric grid—including the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation and regional transmission organizations—have
expressed serious concerns about the impact of the Utility MACT rule on reliability as electric
utilities replace power plants and install controls on so many plants during the same short time
period. The members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is
ultimately responsible for grid reliability, stated as recently as last Wednesday, that utilities
should not be forced to choose between reliable electric service and meeting environmental
requirements. While we agree with EPA’s proposal to provide an additional year to some power
plants for the installation of controls, we believe it should be a categorical extension of time. We
also urge you to delegate your presidential exemption authority under the Clean Air Act to
provide additional time as needed to those facilities that are making good-faith efforts to achieve
compliance.

We believe the goals of protecting public health and the environment and maintaining a reliable
electric system can both be met through an orderly and realistic transition period under the
Utility MACT rule. Achieving these goals will require your presidential leadership, and we urge
you to act.

Respectfully yours,

American Coatings Association
American Council of Engineering Companies
American Forest & Paper Association
American Foundry Society
American Frozen Food Institute
American Gas Association
American Iron & Steel Institute
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc.
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. - Illinois Chapter
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. - Rhode Island Chapter
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. - Nevada Chapter
Associated Electric Cooperative (MO)
Associated Equipment Distributors
Associated General Contractors of America
Associated Industries of Arkansas
Association of American Railroads
Basin Electric Power Cooperative (ND)
Bay City Chamber of Commerce & Agriculture (TX)
Beatrice Area Chamber of Commerce (NE)
Big Rivers Electric Corp (KY)
Birmingham Business Alliance
Bismarck-Mandan Chamber of Commerce
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative (TX)
Bristol Chamber of Commerce
Burlington/West Burlington Area Chamber of Commerce (IA)
Burnsville Chamber of Commerce (MN)
Business Council of Alabama
Business Roundtable
Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce (OH)
Catawba County Chamber of Commerce (NC)
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
Central Electric Power Cooperative (MO)
Central Electric Power Cooperative (SC)
Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative
Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry
Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce
Corn Belt Power Cooperative (IA)
Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce
East Kentucky Power Cooperative
East River Power Cooperative (SD)
Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce (WI)
Edison Electric Institute
Elk River Area Chamber of Commerce (MN)
Fargo Moorhead West Fargo Chamber of Commerce
Fentress County Chamber of Commerce (TN)
Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce (AZ)
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce (CA)
Georgia Chamber of Commerce
Georgia Transmission Corporation
Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce
Grants Pass & Josephine County Chamber of Commerce (OR)
Great River Energy (MN)
Greater Centralia Illinois Chamber of Commerce
Greater Cleveland Partnership
Greater Irving-Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce
Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce
Greater Omaha Chamber
Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce
Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce
Greater Sandoval County Chamber of Commerce (NM)
Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce (GA)
Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce (VA)
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative (IN)
Indiana Cast Metals Association
Indiana Chamber of Commerce
International Falls Area Chamber of Commerce (MN)
Johnson City Chamber of Commerce (TN)
Joliet Chamber of Commerce
Kalamazoo Regional Chamber of Commerce (MI)
Kankakee Regional Chamber of Commerce (IL)
Kansas Chamber of Commerce
Kansas Electric Power Cooperative
Kentucky Chamber of Commerce
Lincoln/Logan County Chamber of Commerce (IL)
Louisiana Association of Business & Industry
Marshalltown Area Chamber of Commerce (IA)
Metalcasters of Minnesota
Metals Service Center Institute
Midwest Power Coalition
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce
Minnkota Power Cooperative (ND)
Mississippi Economic Council
Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce (AL)
Monona Chamber of Commerce (WI)
Morgantown Area Chamber of Commerce (WV)
National Association of Chemical Distributors
National Association of Manufacturers
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Restaurant Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Nebraska Electric G&T Cooperative
Non-Ferrous Founders’ Society
North American Die Casting Association
North American Equipment Dealers Association
North Carolina Chamber of Commerce
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
North Dakota Chamber of Commerce
Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce
Northwest Electric Power Cooperative (MO)
Nuclear Energy Institute
Oglethorpe Power Cooperative (GA)
Ohio Cast Metals Association
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (VA)
One Southern Indiana
Oskaloosa Area Chamber & Development Group (IA)
Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative (OR)
Pennsylvania Foundry Association
Portland Cement Association
PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (AL)
Prince William Chamber of Commerce (VA)
Rushmore Electric Power Cooperative (SD)
San Miguel Electric Cooperative (TX)
Seminole Electric Cooperative (FL)
South Carolina Chamber of Commerce
South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry
South Mississippi Electric Power Association
Southern Illinois Power Cooperative
Southern Wayne County Regional Chamber (MI)
Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Texas Association of Business
Texas Cast Metals Association
Tex-La Electric Cooperative
Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Wabash Valley Power Association (IN)
West Virginia Chamber of Commerce
Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (OK)
Wisconsin Cast Metals Association
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce
cc: The Members of the United States Congress

A MERCURY MASSACRE? will Obama and Senate Democrats kill toxic boiler cleanup as part of tax deal?

2011-12-10T12:52:00.000-08:00

Rumor of the day: the President and Senate leaders are reported to be entertaining the idea of including in the pending tax legislation an amendment or rider that would block EPA toxic air pollution standards for boilers. Deals are being cut behind closed doors this weekend.

Let’s hope this is not true. The Obama administration appears to be expecting environmentalist applause for its upcoming mercury/toxic standards for electric power plants. It would be pretty hypocritical to permit the same type of toxic emissions to continue spewing from industrial boilers.

A mercury massacre? Say it ain’t so!

Senator Boxer's office has released the following:

For Immediate Release Contact: Mary Kerr or Kate Gilman: 202-224-8832
December 9, 2011 mary_kerr@epw.senate.gov or kate_gilman@epw.senate.gov

U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works
Boxer Calls on House Republicans to Stand with American People, Not Polluters
Calls for dropping dangerous riders from must-pass legislation

Washington, D.C. – Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is calling on House Republicans to drop dangerous provisions from their payroll tax cut legislation that would stop a clean air rule that protects the American people from toxic mercury and arsenic pollution. The proposal also includes a provision to immediately move forward on the tar sands XL pipeline without proper consideration of public health and safety.

Senator Boxer said: “Why on earth would the Republicans give a payroll tax cut with one hand, and with the other hand, increase the likelihood of premature deaths, heart attacks, cancer, and developmental disabilities in children?

We know that this boiler MACT rule that Republicans are rushing to repeal will prevent up to 8,100 premature deaths per year, 52,000 asthma cases per year, 5,100 hearts attacks per year, and 400,000 lost work days per year.

There is no reason to do this other than to protect the largest polluters in the nation who should be cleaning up their act.

I also call on House Republicans to drop their provisions approving the controversial tar sands XL pipeline provision. As President Obama has said, this needs further study on the project’s implications for public health and safety. In fact, questions have been raised about the health and safety reviews to date and their connection to the polluter.

If there is one thing all Americans are united on it is their negative feelings about attaching unrelated matters to must-pass legislation that is needed to protect the economy -- especially when these provisions haven’t even had a vote. The House Republicans need to acknowledge that they should be serving the people, not the polluters.”

PSEG breaks with EEI over the latter's terrible position on mercury/toxic cleanup

2011-12-09T06:11:00.000-08:00

The story of the day comes from us courtesy the National Journal, which reports exclusively that the big NJ-based utility PSEG has broken ranks with the Edison Electric Institute over the latter’s attempts to weaken EPA’s mercury/toxic standards for electric power plants. Please note below.

PSEG Chairman and CEO Ralph Izzo deserves our praise and thanks for his courageous position. (It’s always tough to step out from groupthink like this. Other utility execs have not.) Bravo!

I do want to point out that the story completely verifies what we have been reporting: that EEI – pushed by cleanup laggards American Electric Power and Southern Company – has been seeking not only cleanup delays and loopholes, but to weaken the mercury standard itself. Talk about greed!

What’s the next step? I guess it would make sense to ask EEI what it plans now that its ranks are so openly fractured.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/member/energy/epa-mercury-rule-ruffles-utility-group-20111208

EPA Mercury Rule Ruffles Utility Group
By Amy Harder

Internal rifts within the nation’s largest utility trade group keep popping up as the Obama administration’s new rules for mercury emissions loom.

An executive of a major power company told National Journal he is pulling away from the formal position the Edison Electric Institute has taken in objecting to the Environmental Protection Agency’s mercury standard for power plants, which EPA plans to finalize on Dec. 16.

Ralph Izzo, chairman and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group, a New Jersey-based utility, said in an interview on Thursday that his company was willing to compromise on delays to the rule, but when EEI started discussing increasing by 20 percent the amount of mercury pollution allowable under the rule, that was the last straw. His company pulled out of the internal negotiations and consensus position two weeks ago.

It remains unclear whether EEI, which chose not to comment for this story, ultimately ended up pitching the higher allowable pollution level to the White House or EPA. The rule is currently going through regulatory review at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“The cumulative weight of the concessions finally came crashing down when the mercury standard began entering into debate,” Izzo said. PSEG’s power generation mostly comes from natural gas and nuclear power—energy sources not affected by EPA’s mercury rule—and about 18 percent from coal, the dirtiest form of electricity, which will be affected the most by EPA’s mercury rule. Coal is also the cheapest and most prevalent, providing nearly half of the nation’s electricity.

Current law requires companies to comply with the rule by 2015.
Izzo said that his company was originally part of a group of EEI member companies that had agreed to EEI’s consensus position despite not being wholeheartedly on board with some of those provisions. Those provisions include a one-year blanket delay for all power companies to comply and the possibility of invoking a presidential exemption that would allow for two or more years to comply if national security was at risk. If a power plant that generates electricity for a military base is shut down because of an EPA rule and grid reliability is jeopardized, the reasoning goes, that could present a national-security concern.

“We weren’t fond of the one-year delay and we weren’t fond of the presidential exemption,” Izzo said. “But in the interest of compromise and getting a rule we could all live with and not spend the rest of eternity battling in the courts … we were willing to compromise on several of those provisions.”

Izzo, who has been with PSEG in various executive positions since 1992, said he has never known a time when his company departed from EEI’s consensus position before.

“EEI does a lot of very good things that we’re supportive of,” Izzo said. “This disagreement would not push me to leave the organization.”
Internal divisions with a trade group as diverse as EEI are not uncommon and should not be surprising despite the media attention such rifts generate. Unity is critical when trying to convince the White House and EPA to delay or change the rule in any significant way, such as whether companies should have blanket extensions to comply or whether mercury pollution levels should be weakened.

While coal utilities like Southern Company and American Electric Power have been the most vocal about asking for more time, even some clean-burning utilities that will be able to comply within three years are fully on board with EEI’s request for more time, further complicating the internal dynamics of the group.

“It’s hard to get anybody’s assurances that they will get the flexibility they need the way the draft rule proposal has been written,” Lewis Hay, chairman and CEO of NextEra Energy, said in a phone interview last week. “That’s why I strongly support the one-year blanket extension.” NextEra Energy is the largest generator of wind and solar power in the country.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce goes on the attack against EPA mercury toxic proposal -- but with a poor choice of image!

2011-12-08T10:40:00.000-08:00

We are accustomed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce consistently siding with big polluters against any and all attempts to make them clean up. So this latest Chamber gambit should come as no surprise.

The business lobbying group has joined forces with the equally odious National Association of Manufacturers to launch an 11th hour campaign against the upcoming EPA plan to reduce mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants. http://www.chamberpost.com/2011/12/blackout-rule-threatens-economy/

With its usual heavy-handed approach, the Chamber visually portrays the standards as causing a blackout of the Manhattan skyline. This is utterly ludicrous and a dumb choice for an image. New York State has among the toughest emission standards in the nation. It was the state with the first acid rain controls, it has tough in-state standards on NOx, in-state limits on mercury and also is a member of RGGI. The lights have never gone out on Broadway as a result of emission standards.

So why would the Chamber get involved? Could it be because its board of directors http://www.uschamber.com/about/board/board-directors includes not only big coal companies Peabody and Consol, but Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and an executive vice president of Southern Company, which both sent lobbyists to the White House recently to plead the case for looser standards. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_11292011c

FLASH: at behest of dirty power companies, OMB staff presses EPA to weaken mercury standard for power plants

2011-12-07T08:21:00.000-08:00

We have promised to keep our ear to the ground on the fierce lobbying on the EPA mercury/air toxic rule for power plants. There is an excellent story in today’s National Journal, but here is the very latest:

We are informed reliably that the White House Office of Management and Budget, at the behest of the coal-burning electric power industry, is now pushing the EPA to weaken its mercury pollution control requirements in its upcoming toxic pollution rule for power plants. Power companies could emit almost 20% more mercury under the dirty power industry scheme being promoted by OMB bean counters.

This is nothing short of outrageous. The White House should immediately disavow this latest attempt by OMB staffers to front for dirty industry. (You will recall the recent excellent report by the Center for Progressive Reform on the topic of OMB, its meetings with industry, and its impact on EPA. http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/OIRA_Meetings_1111.pdf )

In this case, the real culprit is the dirty power industry, which continues to push not only for delays and loopholes, but for the right to spew out more toxic mercury. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/say_no_to_polluters_call_to_we.html

The push for weaker standards initially came from the so-called Utility Air Regulatory Group, which called last August in its official comments to EPA for a weakening of the proposed mercury standard from 1.2 lb/TBtu to 1.42 – or going roughly from a 91% mercury control requirement to about 75%. This change would mean thousands of additional pounds of toxic mercury being spewed into the environment each year.

The current push is being driven principally by Southern Company and American Electric Power Company because they apparently believe a weaker standard would cost them less.

Some trade off: more brain poisons so a couple of big companies could save a few bucks.

Associated Press on the "farm dust" farce

2011-12-07T06:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/12/07/spin_meter_gop_debates_nonexistent_dust_rule/

SPIN METER: GOP debates nonexistent dust rule
By The Associated Press

EDITOR'S NOTE: An occasional look behind the rhetoric of public officials.
WASHINGTON — The issue may be dust in the wind, but Republicans are still moving to block it.
Environmental Protection Agency officials have said — over and over again — that they won't propose new regulations to limit dust kicked up by farm equipment. But anti-regulation sentiment is strong this year on the campaign trail, and real or not, House Republicans are planning to vote this week to prevent such regulations.
Republicans and even some Democrats have told farm-state audiences that the EPA is considering a crackdown on farms, despite the agency's public statement in October calling that a "myth."
Supporters say they are pushing the bill this week because they want more certainty for the agriculture industry. The House GOP has pushed a host of measures aimed at weakening, delaying or scrapping environmental regulations in recent months, saying they view them as job killers.
South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem, the bill's sponsor, says the EPA's assertions don't "hold a lot of water" for wary farmers.
"The EPA has been so aggressive on a lot of its policies, so we just want to make sure they can't take any action that can hurt the farm industry right now," she said.
Democrats have scoffed at the bill and are calling it a waste of time.
Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, joked sarcastically on Tuesday that the bill is "critically important" since the EPA has said they have no intention of regulating farm dust.
"We are once again doing a bill that is not necessary and has no effect," Hoyer said at a news conference at the Capitol.
In letters to two senators in October, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency won't expand its current air quality standards to include dust created by agriculture. "We hope this action finally puts to rest the misinformation regarding dust regulation and eases the minds of farmers and ranchers across the country," Johnson said then.
That didn't stop the opponents' message machine. Just a few weeks later, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who has since suspended his campaign, ran a television ad in Iowa that quoted a farmer saying "The EPA wants to regulate dust."
Though Republicans often blame the Democratic Obama administration for an overly aggressive EPA, the Republican Bush administration also had a hand in the matter. The Bush EPA proposed regulating rural and urban areas when it comes to "coarse particulate matter" in the air, meaning farms could fall under tighter restrictions. Farm groups challenged that in court, and a federal appeals court ruled in February 2009 that the EPA had already provided the evidence necessary to determine farm dust "likely is not safe."
Obama's EPA initially defended that decision. An EPA spokeswoman said after the ruling that regardless of whether someone lives in a rural or urban area, the threshold for unsafe levels of dust in the air should remain consistent nationally. But later, Jackson said the agency was unlikely to single out farm dust.
Under current rules, states are tasked with making sure that their levels of particulate matter in the air are below certain levels. Farm groups worried, however, that their pollution — dust kicked up behind a combine, for example — would be targeted separately.
Environmentalists say the House bill, which is not likely to make it through the Senate, would prevent the EPA from even considering tighter regulations if that became necessary for public health.
"When it comes to stuff in the air that could harm your health, it would be nice if the government could at least do an honest assessment," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. He says the bill is "totally detached from reality — the kind of issue that makes people cynical about Congress."

Special report: investigation finds concerns were overblown about EPA greenhouse gas permits

2011-12-05T07:04:00.000-08:00

You may recall that industry spokespeople have claimed for many months that requiring big polluters to obtain greenhouse gas permits would harm the economy. For instance, when Texas under Governor Rick Perry refused to issue permits -- and the US EPA was forced to step in -- former EPA official (and current power industry lobbyist) Jeff Holmstead asserted "EPA takes forever to do permits."

But now it appears those concerns were overblown, to say the least. The authoritative BNA Daily Environment Report has published a special report detailing its investigation of real-world permit situations.

BNA found businesses were obtaining permits with "few problems." The publication found that 17 major sources of pollution have already obtained greenhouse gas permits this year, and that it has been a "smooth transition" to include greenhouse gases among permitted emissions. Contrary to some fears, the permit requirements did not prompt fuel switching.

Here is the piece Reproduced with permission from Daily
Environment Report, 233 DEN BB-1 (Dec. 5, 2011).
Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. (800-372-1033)
www.bna.com

Industries, Regulators Report Few Problems
With Greenhouse Gas Permitting Program
BNA Snapshot
Greenhouse Gas Permitting for Industrial Sources
Key Development: EPA and states have approved 17 greenhouse gas permits for new and modified industrial sources with few problems reported since permitting began Jan. 2.
Potential Impact: Industries still have concerns with how regulators determine the required greenhouse gas controls and conflicts with other air pollution rules.By Andrew Childers
The addition of greenhouse gas emissions to the prevention of significant deterioration permitting process has largely been a smooth transition, industry representatives and state regulators told BNA.
EPA and state regulators have finalized 17 permits through Nov. 21 that limit emissions of greenhouse gases from new and modified industrial sources since the permitting took effect Jan. 2. Another 100 are pending, the agency said.
Industry representatives said the permitting process has gone more smoothly than they may have initially predicted. However, they say they are still concerned about how controls are determined and potential conflicts with other pollutant rules.
“The fact there have been 17 permits approved shows states are really figuring out how to do this,” Margaret Peloso, an attorney at Vinson & Elkins LLP who works on permits for industry clients, told BNA.
Permits Target Efficiencies
PSD requires new and modified sources to obtain permits for emissions of regulated air pollutants and to control those emissions using best available control technology (BACT), determined individually for each source
Permitting includes a review process to determine the optimal controls for each facility, or BACT. The BACT process is a “top down” review that begins by identifying all available control technologies.
For greenhouse gases, that could include expensive and infeasible options such as carbon capture. However, as the review proceeds, it eliminates controls that are infeasible, too expensive, or environmentally inefficient.
EPA said the majority of the permits issued have focused on energy efficiency as a surrogate for greenhouse gas controls, something the agency recommended in its guidance to states (217 DEN A-5, 11/12/10).
Permits issued to date largely require facilities to ensure they are burning fuel as efficiently as possible.
Because the controls are determined for each facility and only 17 permits have been approved in 12 states and one for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, industries said it is difficult to detect any trends in how EPA and states are applying the BACT controls.
“It's hard to know how this is going to play out until we see more units permitted and different types of units and how the guidance gets applied or not applied by state authorities and EPA to an individual set of circumstances,” said Steve Kohl, a partner at Warner, Norcross & Judd LLP who represented the Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative for two permit applications in Michigan.
However, reducing emissions through efficiency has been the main focus for permits.
EPA also has indicated its preference to have specific emissions limits included in permits, rejecting a permit in Utah that did not include specific greenhouse gas limits.
And EPA went further with a permit it issued recently in Texas. The agency set limits for individual greenhouse gases, rather than a general limit on overall emissions based on their carbon dioxide equivalency.
Permitting ‘Not as Traumatic.'
Permits that have been issued have not required industries to switch fuels or make other changes to their business practices, Peloso said.
“What you're seeing is once states get down to the brass tacks of the doing it, it's not as traumatic as it could be,” she said.
Don Neal, vice president of environment, health, and safety for Calpine Corp., told BNA that the PSD permits issued for other regulated pollutants often included provisions limiting the amount of fuel that could be burned in a year as part of their required pollution controls.
Regulators have been able to convert that restriction into a numeric greenhouse gas emissions limit based on the chemical composition of the fuel, he said.
“No one should have an issue with complying with that because you've already limited, per se,” Neal said.
Calpine received one greenhouse gas permit in February for a 600 megawatt natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant and has three other applications pending (23 DEN A-5, 2/5/10).
Marty Gray, section manager for major new source review at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, told BNA Dec. 1 that EPA's guidance document and the three permits issued by the federal agency have provided valuable examples of the agency's expectations.
Gray said states are not only examining the efficiency of individual pieces of equipment, but EPA is encouraging them to create a monitoring process to track any decline in efficiency as the units age.
“It's gone pretty smoothly for us once we recognized what EPA's concerns were,” he said.
Michigan Leads in Permitting
Michigan leads all states in permitting, having approved three to date. Iowa has approved two permits while California, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin have issued one each. EPA has issued permits in California, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico.
PSD permitting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions began Jan. 2, with industrial facilities required to obtain permits if they also would be required to obtain the permit for other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides or sulfur dioxide.
As of July 1, new industrial facilities that emit the equivalent of 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year and modified sources that increase their emissions by 75,000 tons annually were required to get PSD or Title V operating permits for greenhouse gases regardless of whether they triggered the permitting thresholds for other air pollutants.
EPA had predicted as many as 900 new applications under the permitting requirements, but state regulators have said those estimates were off (111 DEN A-2, 6/9/11).
EPA Criticizes Utah Permit
EPA has kept a close eye on the efficiency measures required by state and local regulators.
“I do think the regulators are paying attention to, ‘Is this really as efficient as it could be?' They're still looking at, ‘Does that equate to an energy efficient unit,' ” Kohl said.
EPA in a March 4 letter criticized a permit proposed by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality for PacifiCorp Energy, which plans to add two natural gas-fired generating units to its existing Lake Side Power Plant in Utah County.
EPA said the proposed permit would have required PacifiCorp to use “high efficiency” gas turbines with heat recovery steam generators rather than set numeric emissions limits on greenhouse gases.
“High efficiency” was never defined sufficiently in the permit, the agency said.
The two new units would double the facility's greenhouse gas emissions to 1.8 million tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent, according to the facility's permit.
“This proposal of an undefined design standard as BACT, rather than a numerical emission limit, does not satisfy the definition of BACT” under the Clean Air Act or Utah's state implementation plan, EPA said.
The final permit issued to PacifiCorp in May limited the plant's annual greenhouse gas emissions to 950 pounds per megawatt-hour.
Gray said the efficiency requirements in the proposed permit were equivalent of the eventual numeric emissions limit, but Utah added the numeric limit after consulting with EPA.
“We basically tried to follow the guidance EPA had put out for that,” he said. “The only thing we didn't do was establish an actual limit. That's where we had a falling out with EPA. Once they explained the importance of that we went ahead and did that.”
Texas Permit Targets Individual Gases
Most of the permits issued to date have set emissions standards for greenhouse gases on a carbon dioxide-equivalent basis.
However, the permit issued for the Lower Colorado River Authority's Thomas C. Ferguson Power Plant in Texas includes individual emissions limits for methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride, all greenhouse gases regulated by EPA. Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and carbon dioxide are the other regulated greenhouse gases (219 DEN A-7, 11/14/11).
Industry representatives said they are closely watching to see if other state regulators set limits on individual greenhouse gases in EPA's wake.
The Lower Colorado permit is “potentially a signal that EPA as a whole is going to be looking for more defined, numeric limitations. How states are going to arrive at those is a very important question,” Peloso said.
EPA is issuing greenhouse gas permits in Texas because the state refused to implement a greenhouse gas permitting process. It is the only state to refuse to update its state implementation plan to include greenhouse gas regulations in its PSD requirements.
While EPA has taken over greenhouse permitting in Texas, the state continues to administer prevention of significant deterioration and new source review permitting for other regulated pollutants.
That places applicants in Texas on a two-track review system.
Calpine has two pending applications in Texas, Neal said.
“It will be interesting to see who issues the permit first,” he said. “So far, based on the discussions we've had with Region 6, things are progressing well.”
Permitting, Nitrogen Rule Could Conflict
Another concern for industries is how the greenhouse gas control requirements will be affected by EPA's more stringent air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide.
The permits typically require facilities to improve how efficiently fuels are burned, reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. However, that improved combustion efficiency tends to increase emissions of nitrogen oxides.
This creates a “tension” in the BACT analysis between the two pollutants, Peloso said.
“In some cases that has caused greenhouse gas BACT not to be as high as it could be,” Peloso said. “That could become particularly significant as the new one hour standard for [nitrogen dioxide] comes into place.”
EPA issued the first hourly national ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide of 0.10 part per million (100 parts per billion) in February 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 6473; 15 DEN A-4, 1/26/10).
Areas not in attainment of EPA's nitrogen dioxide standards may be forced to accept higher greenhouse gas emissions as a result, Peloso said.
“If you're looking at a site where you have very stringent controls on [nitrogen oxides] and compliance must be achieved through modeling, which makes that level of control more stringent, it's going to force state permitting officials to make some very significant tradeoffs,” she said.
Regulators have successfully dealt with similar conflicts through the BACT process before, Neal said.
The oxidation catalysts used to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide increase emissions of particulate matter, he said.
“That's the beauty of the top-down BACT process. That's what it's designed to do,” Neal said.

EPA's new toxic boiler proposal: only a tiny fraction of boilers would meet tough emission limits; why are opponents squawking?

2011-12-02T07:22:00.000-08:00

Dear friends, as you probably know, the US EPA today is releasing a new proposal to deal with the toxic pollution caused by industrial boilers and related activities.

This has been an extremely controversial issue, with a range of polluters lobbying Congress to block EPA from taking action. The House of Representatives obliged, taking both dictation and campaign contributions, though the President has said he would veto rollbacks.

The EPA has just made its new proposal public http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/actions.html , so we obviously have not had much time to analyze it. However, a couple of things do seem worth noting:

EPA does seem to be working hard to make sure that the cleanup produces cleaner air in a practical and affordable way. It notes that the proposed standards would avoid up to 8,100 premature deaths and 52,000 asthma attacks a year. It also estimates that every dollar in cost would produce $12 to $30 dollars in benefits. Even the bean counters like OMB’s Cass Sunstein ought to like this one.

It appears that more than 99 percent of boilers in the country are either clean enough that they are not covered by these standards or will only need to conduct maintenance and tune-ups to comply. Today’s proposals focus on the less than one percent of boilers that emit the majority of pollution from this sector. Even among the biggest industrial boilers (14,000 of them), 88% percent of those would be required to conduct periodic tune-ups. Only 12% would be required to take steps to meet
emissions limits if they do not already meet them. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/docs/20111202msboilerfs.pdf

So EPA is really trying to focus the cleanup on the biggest and dirtiest boilers out there.

This is obviously a very serious source of toxic pollution – one that needs to be dealt with to protect public health.

Opponents in Congress ought to stand down and let the agency move forward with what looks to be at least an effort to deal with this mess in a practical and cost-effective way. (This is, by the way, just a proposal. Industry groups and others will doubtless continue to sound off as we all examine this proposal in more detail.)

Washington Whispers: why on earth would President Obama give an unprecedented special exemption to dirty power companies?

2011-12-01T12:37:00.000-08:00

As you know, the plot continues to evolve over the EPA’s upcoming mercury/toxic pollution standards for power plants, with leading companies now pressing hard at the White House for various delays and loopholes. As the National Journal reported (below), even a cleaner power company that has tried hard to scrub its image has joined with its dirtier Edison Electric Institute frat brothers to press for weaker requirements.

One such request – or should I say demand? – involves use of the so-called presidential exemption in the Clean Air Act. If you are not familiar with it, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007412----000-.html
And specifically

(4) Presidential exemption
The President may exempt any stationary source from compliance with any standard or limitation under this section for a period of not more than 2 years if the President determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so. An exemption under this paragraph may be extended for 1 or more additional periods, each period not to exceed 2 years. The President shall report to Congress with respect to each exemption (or extension thereof) made under this paragraph.

This provision is like the ultimate safety valve, and clearly wasn’t meant to be used except in the case of a genuine emergency. (As you probably know, the Clean Air Act already gives companies 3 years to clean up, with a possible extension of a fourth year.)

Further delays and loopholes seem to be nothing but a gift to industry. (Even DOE now says the EPA standards won’t pose a reliability threat http://1.usa.gov/sTgpSz )

But the Edison Electric Institute is trying to exploit this exemption and broaden it into an institutionalized Obama Loophole. EEI floated some illogical concepts in its official comments, arguing that a “national security” exemption should apply if a delay is certified by a non-governmental organization like NERC or an RTO to be “consistent with the state-approved integrated resource plan (or similar state process).” Consistent, in other words, with a company-designed road map. A rather cheesy way, don’t you think, to justify spewing more poisons?)

We understand the latest EEI pitch includes trying to institutionalize this exemption by seeking that it be written directly into EPA’s preamble and/or rule itself, and possibly asking that the President delegate his authority directly to the EPA.

Now we generally like the EPA, but this idea of an Obama Loophole is only being floated because the companies think they can exploit it further if it’s actually written into the rule or preamble. The question of the moment: why would the White House possibly entertain such an outlandish demand?

Consider that the Obama re-election campaign is already claiming credit for this rule!!
http://www.barackobama.com/record/environment?source=footer-nav
Improving the quality of our air

Under President Obama’s watch, the Environmental Protection Agency has set up the first national standards for mercury emissions and other dangerous chemicals from coal and oil-fired power plants.

The new rules will help to clear our skies of pollutants that can make health problems like asthma and bronchitis worse, saving up to 17,000 lives each year.

Yes, that is the Obama re-election campaign noting that each year of delay could mean up to 17,000 premature deaths.

So why would on earth would the President and his staff permit these standards to be undermined by insider lobbying?

Is there some unreported personal relationship involved?

As you probably know, one of the critical EEI lobbyists is Brian Wolff, former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He was, for example, documented at an OMB meeting with White House big dogs like Cass Sunstein and Heather Zichal. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_10312011

Wolff raised so much campaign cash for Democrats in the 2010 elections that Politico dubbed him the “King of Democratic bundlers.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48742.html

We will continue tracking this and related angles to this still-evolving story.

Below is the story I referenced if you haven’t already seen it.

*
ENVIRONMENT
Clean-Energy Company Joins Call for More Time on EPA Rules
By Amy Harder

Coal companies aren’t the only ones who want the Obama administration to give at least one year—and more if necessary—for utilities to comply with new clean-air rules.

Lewis Hay, chairman and CEO of NextEra Energy, the largest generator of wind and solar power in the country, told National Journal on Wednesday that he thinks the Environmental Protection Agency should give all companies one more year to comply with the agency’s mercury standard that EPA is expected to finalize by Dec. 16. He says that extra year is critical to ensure utilities can continue providing electricity without putting at risk grid reliability when old plants get retrofitted or replaced with cleaner plants. Current law requires companies to comply with EPA’s mercury standard by 2015.
“It’s hard to get anybody’s assurances that they will get the flexibility they need the way the draft rule proposal has been written,” Hay said in a telephone interview on Wednesday evening. “That’s why I strongly support the one-year blanket extension.”
Hay takes that position despite confidence that his company, which produces 50 percent of its capacity from wind energy, would be just fine without more time. “We will be in full compliance on time in the initial three-year period,” he said. “We will not have any reliability issues."
Hay's views coincide with the official position of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents 70 percent of the U.S. power industry. Hay is vice chairman of EEI and a member of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Hay also said he supports EEI’s request that Obama issue an executive order that could give certain companies at least two more years to comply if national security were at risk. In industry circles, this is known as the “presidential exemption” outlined in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. If a power plant generating electricity for a military base is shut down because of an EPA rule, the reasoning goes, that could present a national-security concern.
Hay argued that the administration should be ready to “potentially utilize the presidential exemption.”
Kathleen Barron, vice president for federal regulatory affairs and policy at Exelon, the nation’s biggest nuclear-reactor company and also one of the biggest supporters of EPA rules, said at a conference on Wednesday that her company would also support the presidential exemption in limited situations.

National Journal reported earlier this week that utilities with coal-fired power plants—which would be most affected by EPA's mercury rules—are urging the administration to use the presidential exemption to provide companies more time to comply with the regulations.

Arsenic-laced apple juice! Another reason EPA must clean up toxins (including arsenic!) from coal-burning power plants

2011-11-30T07:20:00.000-08:00

Here’s another reason why EPA must move ahead to clean up the toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants – including mercury and arsenic.

Consumer Reports has found arsenic in bottled apple juice. http://gma.yahoo.com/arsenic-juice-study-prompts-action-084002586.html

It’s unclear exactly where that arsenic is coming from, but we do know coal-burning power plants spew out this carcinogen. EPA’s toxic pollution standards would sharply cut arsenic levels.
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/presentation.pdf

The White House ought to keep this in mind when the dirty power companies – especially American Electric Power and Southern Company – plead for a special deal so they can keep spewing arsenic and other toxins.

Mercury/toxic standards for power plants...AN OBAMA LOOPHOLE?...the plot sickens

2011-11-29T07:11:00.000-08:00

As you know the lobbying is becoming more intense by the moment as we draw closer to a final decision on EPA’s upcoming mercury/toxic pollution standards for power plants.

A fascinating story (below) in today’s National Journal notes that some coal-heavy power companies and the Edison Electric Institute are now putting it to President Obama directly: they want him to delay cleanup of deadly power plants by invoking a “national security” provision of the Clean Air Act. This is one of the more appalling excuses for delay that we have ever heard. I mean really!

EEI reportedly is also lobbying for a blanket (and possibly illegal) four-year cleanup deadline. (It could be a poison pill provision. These lawyers are very crafty! That sounds to us like a way to create another opportunity to sue after the rules are issued.)

We all know from prior reports that most power companies are poised to meet these standards. It looks as if EEI is being dominated by the lower common denominator – dirty companies such as American Electric Power and Southern Company, which are spending big time lobbying for additional delays so they can keep spewing mercury and other toxins.

The question at hand: will the Obama Administration mar what could become one of its signature clean-air accomplishments by adding an Obama Loophole?

**

ENERGY
Coal Utilities Propose Clean-Air Exemption
By Amy Harder
.
Coal-fired utilities seeking more time to comply with the Obama administration’s clean-air rules are invoking a rare statutory tool that grants companies more time if the country’s national security is at risk.
Edison Electric Institute, the trade group representing 70 percent of the U.S. power industry, is urging President Obama to issue an executive order under the Clean Air Act that exempts a company from any Environmental Protection Agency rule for two years “if the President determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so,” as the law states. This provision also states that the exemption “may be extended for 1 or more additional periods.”

Industry sources said that the provision has never been used.

On Dec. 16, the EPA is expected to finalize a controversial rule that aims to slash 90 percent of mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants. All utilities would be required to comply by 2015. Because coal is the dirtiest fuel used to generate electricity, coal-intensive utilities like American Electric Power and Southern Company would be hit the hardest.

EEI’s reasoning for invoking the national-security clause goes like this: The compliance time frame —primarily for the mercury standard—could force some power plants to shut down, triggering brownouts and blackouts. There could be shortages in areas with military bases, making it a national-security issue.

“It is widely understood, most recently in discussions about the importance of cybersecurity in our electricity infrastructure and the importance of national security and defense facilities having secure, reliable electric service, that the provision of reliable, cost-effective electricity is critical for national security,” EEI stated in comments submitted to EPA.
An industry source said such a request “would be so rare” because the proof threshold is so high. Still, at least one company is already eyeing this exemption.

“There is a coal-fired plant that is scheduled to be shut down that is currently providing electrical power to a series of military installations on our Atlantic shoreline,” said former Sen. John Warner, R-Va. (Warner is a consultant on both national-security and energy issues at Hogan Lovells.) The company, which Warner declined to identify, is hoping “the president will issue his executive order simultaneous with the EPA rule” on Dec. 16.

Separately, EEI is asking EPA to give all companies four years instead of three to comply. That means some companies could get up to at least six years to become compliant.

Lobbyists for clean-burning utilities say it’s just another delay tactic by coal companies. Some national-security experts question the connection coal utilities are trying to make.

“It baffles me that they would assume national-security planners would be caught blindsided by an EPA rule that makes coal-fired power plants go offline,” said Will Rogers, an energy and national-security expert at the Center for a New American Security.

This article appeared in the Tuesday, November 29, 2011 edition of National Journal Daily.

CERES: only a few power companies seek to delay important mercury/toxic cleanup standards

2011-11-28T12:00:00.000-08:00

I came across an excellent blog post a bit ago, by the nonprofit Ceres. Please note below. It notes, accurately, that only a few politically active power companies such as American Electric Power and Southern Company seek to delay EPA’s important mercury/toxic pollution standards. Given all the nonsense being tossed out (by folks in the employ of these companies, I might add), I think this article adds important perspective. Most companies either meet the standards already, or are telling investors it won’t be a problem.

Why should people across the nation keep breathing harmful and even deadly air just so a couple of laggards can get a deal? We will keep very close watch on this issue in the coming days. Meanwhile, this is a good read:

http://www.ceres.org/press/blog-posts

Delay Tactics: A Few Big Utility Companies Seek to Delay Important Clean Air Protections

The EPA is scheduled to release its Mercury and Air Toxics (a.k.a., Utility MACT) Rule on December 16. The rule will establish, for the first time, limits on mercury and other toxic air pollutants from coal-fired power plants. Although power plant operators would not be required to comply with the Utility MACT rule until 2015 or 2016, members of Congress and some within the electric industry have been suggesting that EPA push back the compliance schedule even further. AEP, for example, has suggested that it may need until 2020 to comply.

by Dan Bakal, Director of Electric Power Program, Ceres — Ceres Posted on Nov 28, 2011

The EPA is scheduled to release its Mercury and Air Toxics (a.k.a., Utility MACT) Rule on December 16. The rule will establish, for the first time, limits on mercury and other toxic air pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

Although power plant operators would not be required to comply with the Utility MACT rule until 2015 or 2016, members of Congress and some within the electric industry have been suggesting that EPA push back the compliance schedule even further. AEP, for example, has suggested that it may need until 2020 to comply.

I have been reviewing industry earnings call for several years, and in my most recent review of 3rd Quarter earnings calls, I looked closely at how companies are positioned to comply. I was surprised (and pleased) to find that, despite the heated rhetoric, most companies have been assuring financial analysts that they are well on their way in terms of cleaning up their coal fleets.

For example, take Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, which generates more than 60 percent of its electricity from coal. He recently described his “fleet modernization” program during the company’s third quarter earnings call. The company has a number of new power plants coming on-line and is on track to have “nearly 100%” of its coal generation capacity equipped with advanced pollution control systems.

A new report out today details positive statements made by 30 power companies indicating that early investments in their power plants have put them in a good position to comply with EPA’s new air pollution rules. The report notes that these companies represent 50% of the nation’s coal-fired power plants, and eleven of the 15 largest coal-based electric power companies utility companies. Across the fleet, about 50% of coal plants are very well controlled with scrubbers and other pollution control systems.

So, let’s do the math:
• 70% of the nation’s electric generating facilities are not affected by EPA’s Utility MACT Rule because they rely on natural gas, nuclear, or other non-emitting energy sources.
• 15% of the nation’s electric generating facilities are coal plants that are already complying or well on their way to comply with the Utility MACT Rule.
• This means that 85% of the nation’s electric generating fleet is unaffected by the rule or ready to comply.

This leaves me asking, just why is it that some in Congress are considering delaying important health protections for millions of Americans to accommodate a small fraction of the electric generating fleet and a minority of companies?

Among the most vocal companies calling for extended delays of the Rule are AEP, Southern Company, and MidAmerican. I see no sense in delaying important health protections for a few companies that have failed to make investments in cleaning up their fleets. AEP, for example, has only installed scrubbers on about half of its coal fleet.

Furthermore, why delay important health protections when utility companies have record amounts of cash on their balance sheets that could be used to modernize their generating fleets, creating millions of good paying, skilled construction jobs?

A recent Ceres analysis shows that the top 20 electric generators in the U.S. have record cash reserves exceeding $35 billion. This capital is sitting on the sidelines precisely because many companies have been anticipating this new rule, and are ready to invest, as the country struggles with high unemployment.

Recent polling sponsored by Ceres shows that the American public is not interested in further delays. The nationwide poll shows that by a wide margin, voters of both political parties and in all regions of the U.S. support the EPA’s new rules to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants. Two-thirds of the respondents – 67 percent – oppose Congress delaying implementation of the air pollution rules, according to the national survey of 1,400 voters.

So, with most companies standing ready to deploy private capital that creates jobs, and a public that strongly supports the Toxics Rule, it makes more sense to move forward than to postpone or delay.

Report: cleaner gasoline means less smog in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast; more NOx reduction in the region than under EPA cross-state rule

2011-11-21T06:24:00.001-08:00

There is an interesting report out this morning by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management: http://bit.ly/uhrdOZ

It shows that cleaner, low-sulfur gasoline would bring immediate improvements in smog levels throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. A tidbit that I found very interesting (see fact sheet, below): that reducing the sulfur content of gas would actually cut more smog-forming nitrogen oxides in the region than would EPA’s Cross-State pollution rule. (Though both are definitely needed.)

There are some interesting state-by-state statistics here for folks outside DC.

This is the second report in past few weeks on the topic. (You may recall the excellent report issued Oct. 31 by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies: http://www.4cleanair.org/documents/NACAATier3VehandFuelReport-EMBARGOED-Oct2011.pdf ). That report noted the cleaner air could be had for less than a penny a gallon of gas. What a bargain!

(The oil companies, naturally, have argued the cleanup would cost more. But they are mixing apples and oranges, because their cost assessments are padded with the supposed expense of additional changes to gasoline – vapor pressure – that EPA is not contemplating.)

We hope the EPA will read these reports and get moving! After all, President Obama promised action on this issue more than a year ago.

As always, please let me know if you have any questions.

FACT SHEET

Assessment of Clean Gasoline in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic States

A new report available at:
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/nescaum-tier-3-low-s-gasoline-20111121.pdf/

by
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
November 21, 2011

• Many areas of the Ozone Transport Region[1] (OTR) will not achieve or maintain the health-based national air quality standard for ozone (0.075 ppm, 8-hr average) after full implementation of current pollution control programs.
• The USEPA is expected to propose a “Tier 3” motor vehicle rule setting more stringent emission limits for cars and light-duty trucks in early 2012 and finalize the proposal in late 2012.
• The USEPA rule would include tailpipe standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (PM), which the USEPA intends to harmonize with California vehicle standards.
• The proposed rule is expected to include a requirement to lower gasoline sulfur content to an average of 10 parts per million (ppm) from its current average of 30 ppm.
• Lowering the sulfur content of gasoline allows pollution control equipment (3-way catalysts) on cars and trucks to operate more effectively by reducing sulfur “poisoning” of the catalysts.
• Emission reductions from introducing 10 ppm low sulfur gasoline would occur immediately from the existing motor vehicle fleet, without the need for fleet turnover, due to improved catalyst performance on existing vehicles.
• On a regional scale, NOx emissions have the largest impact on ground-level ozone (smog) formation during high pollution episodes.
• On-road gasoline vehicles are the largest source of NOx emissions in the OTR.
• Over 51,000 tons of NOx from gasoline vehicles could be reduced annually in the OTR in 2017 with the introduction 10 ppm low sulfur gasoline.
• Exposure to smog can:
- Reduce lung function, and aggravate asthma and other chronic lung diseases
- Cause permanent lung damage from repeated exposures
- Increase risk of premature death
• The amount of NOx reductions achievable in the OTR from 10 ppm low sulfur gasoline is about three times greater than what will be achieved in the OTR from power plant pollution controls under the USEPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Both measures will be needed to help meet the 0.075 ppm ozone health standard.
• NOx also is a major contributor to other health and environmental problems in the OTR, such as fine particulate matter, acid rain, poor visibility, and nitrogen over-enrichment in coastal bays and estuaries (e.g., Chesapeake Bay).
• The public health benefits of reducing smog and sulfate particles from introducing 10 ppm sulfur gasoline in the OTR are estimated to be in the range of $230 million to $1.2 billion dollars annually. In contrast, the cost of lowering sulfur in gasoline is estimated to be in the range of $143 - $400 million annually. The estimated benefits are conservative, and do not include benefits from reducing other harmful impacts of NOx, such as acid rain and nitrogen over-enrichment in coastal bays and estuaries.
• The cost-effectiveness of low sulfur gasoline in reducing NOx emissions is estimated to be in the range of $2,500 - $7,000 per ton of NOx removed. This compares very favorably to other pollution control strategies already implemented or under consideration in the OTR, some of which have cost estimates exceeding $10,000 per ton of NOx removed.
• Failure to obtain cost effective NOx reductions from gasoline motor vehicles, the largest source of NOx emissions in the OTR, could require additional controls on other local sources at higher cost.
• Because 10 ppm low sulfur gasoline would be a national program, it will also have benefits in areas outside the OTR, along with reducing pollution transported into the OTR from motor vehicles operating in the Midwest and Southeast.

[ 1 ] The Ozone Transport Region was created by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and covers the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast region encompassing CT, DE, DC, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, and the northern VA counties in the DC metropolitan area.

Public Power companies: it'll take us longer to add a scrubber than it did to build the Hoover Dam (oh really??)

2011-11-18T10:21:00.000-08:00

We are becoming accustomed to some pretty darned outrageous claims by industry groups and their advocates as we draw closer to the mid-December plan by the US EPA to (finally!) set mercury/toxic pollution standards for coal fired power plants.

And here’s one that really takes the cake. Public power companies (remember when we used to think of them as good guys?) are now telling the White House that it would take them 77 months to install needed pollution controls. See the letter below.

Are you kidding me? By comparison, private companies built the legendary Hoover Dam in less than five years! http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/storymain.html

You want a little more mundane comparison: Constellation Energy added all needed pollution controls (thanks to Maryland state requirements) to its Brandon Shores coal power plant In a mere 26 months. So this argument, based on a “survey” of member companies (I bet not by Gallup) is baloney.

Slicing a bit more of the baloney: the letter notes that someone during a recent White House meeting (and I would bet that person was not from EPA) asked how many public power plants are in areas that currently “attain” national clean air standards for smog and soot.

First all, that isn’t even relevant, because these mercury/toxic standards are aimed at reducing mercury and related toxics, not smog!

Secondly, as we all know (read yesterday’s piece in the NY Times if you haven’t) the White House wouldn’t let EPA set national smog standards at an appropriate level because of political considerations. National clean air standards for fine particle soot aren’t set at the right level either. (The Bush administration’s too-weak plan was thrown out by a federal court as being arbitrary and capricious; the Obama administration has been too chicken to advance a new standard even though a new report notes it could prevent 35,000 premature deaths a year http://earthjustice.org/soot )

So arguing whether these dirty facilities are in “attainment” areas or not is just a typical DC lobbyist game. It’s a delaying tactic. No wonder these jokers claim it would take them longer to add a scrubber than it took to build the Hoover Dam!

**

November 16, 2011

Mr. Dominic Mancini

Branch Chief of Natural Resources and Environment
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
The Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503

Dear Mr. Mancini:

I write to thank you on behalf of the American Public Power Association (APPA) for the November 3, 2011 meeting regarding the proposed U. S. EPA NESHAP for mercury and its anticipated significant impact for the nation’s public power utilities. APPA’s 2,000 state and community-owned utilities own approximately 200 coal-fired units with an aggregate generating capacity of 31 GW. APPA writes this letter to both thank you and the attendees of the meeting as well as to notice the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) docket of our meeting (docketed at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_11032011).

While estimates of the number of retrofits to meet EGU MACT regulatory requirements, closures of existing coal plants, and replacement of most of those coal plants with new natural gas plants vary, the sheer scale of the efforts will be enormous. Given this scale, the issue of providing sufficient compliance time in order to maintain an adequate and reliable supply of electricity is APPA’s top priority.

A survey of our members illustrates that 99% of public power’s coal-fired plants need 77 months to comply. A survey of our members shows this is necessary to conduct system planning, convene public meetings, obtain financing, construct, install and calibrate for use all the required control technologies (baghouses, Activated Carbon Injection, Dry Sorbent Injection, scrubbers, and in some cases, to install a second baghouse).

APPA is very concerned with the time gap that will exist for publicly elected officials and utility managers between the 48th month currently allowed and the actual date of completion without a mechanism to prevent the utility from operating their coal fired power plant in criminal noncompliance or under the risk of citizen suits. APPA’s primary purpose in meeting with your staff was to augment the detailed comments submitted to the U. S. EPA (docket) on August 3, 2011 and to explain these unique
and significant factors that the U. S. EPA and the OMB should consider when finalizing the mercury NESHAP.

While regulatory accommodations to provide additional time are rare given the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) statutory language, the U. S. EPA did provide additional compliance time for the Marine Tank Vessel Loading regulation because of labor feasibility. The statute also provides for Presidential Exemptions (extensions) through Executive Order. In addition, APPA recommended in our comments an administrative mechanism for providing additional compliance time using the Title V permitting program
that we believe is within U. S. EPA’s authority under the CAA. This mechanism would provide the necessary time for improving air quality while also preventing our member communities from in criminal non-compliance with the CAA and shielding them from citizen suits. APPA believes that our Title V permit mechanism is a preferred approach but we are certainly open to the use of Presidential Exemption(s) or other mechanisms that achieve the same goals. We believe strongly that whatever mechanism is adopted should be included the final EGU MACT rule.

APPA’s original comments also addressed a wide range of issues that stretched well into technical concerns regarding particulate matter, monitoring, and recommendation for mercury only (no acid gas)
controls. In addition, we addressed our timing and technical concerns under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBREFA), Executive Order 12866, and all relevant aspects of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

We also noted that existing Executive Orders (e.g. EO 12866 OIRA) provide "Regulatory Principles" that include requiring that U. S. EPA consider how regulatory requirements might significantly or uniquely
affect small communities and governmental entities. In Sections 1(5) and 1(9) the EO outlines requirements to design regulations in the most cost-effective manner to achieve the objective and to minimize those regulatory costs and burdens that uniquely and significantly affect such governmental
entities. "In addition, as appropriate, agencies shall seek to harmonize Federal regulatory actions with related State, local and tribal regulatory and other governmental functions". The EO states in Section J(ll)
that "Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, (including individuals, businesses of differing sizes) and other entities, including small communities and governmental entities),
consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations".

Another key recommendation in our comments was to urge inclusion in the final rule of a subcategory to address the area source control options to regulate mercury at smaller power plants < 100 MW.

At the November 3rd meeting, APPA was asked how many of the overall coal-fired power plants in our membership are in attainment areas. Following our meeting, APPA reviewed the CSAPR and Ozone/PM/SO2 county maps and we cross-referenced the U. S. EPA maps and county lists with the EIA
database for our member utilities’ coal-fired power plants. We have determined that 62 of our 65 coal-fired power plants covered by (EGU MACT) or 95% are in attainment areas under current NAAQS standards. Forty-five of the 65 power plants are affected by the CSAPR rule. (We did not include
co-ownership of units with investor or cooperatively owned utilities in this breakdown due to insufficient data).

Additionally, APPA’s members have 23 units at 20 utilities that are <25 MW representing approximately 121 MW and will be regulated under the separate ICI Boiler MACT rule. APPA believes that based upon the preponderance of the public power coal-fired units in attainment areas, that OMB and U. S. EPA’s inclusion of the subcategory and a mechanism for timely compliance through the utility’s Title V permit without risks of criminal noncompliance or citizen suits provide no opportunity to expand the number of nonattainment areas or expose the public to hazardous air pollutants.

There is one other issue that we did not raise at the meeting that we would like to mention here. We urge the U. S. EPA and OMB to reject a proposal recommended by regional transmission organizations for establishment of a so-called “reliability safety valve”. This proposal discriminates between regions of the country and would allow certain generating units not planning to retrofit to receive waivers for compliance from mercury NESHAP. The market conditions prompting this proposal are better addressed
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission through changes to the design and operation of those markets.

APPA believes that these recommendations comport with the guiding principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and do not compromise the integrity of the CAA’s reduction of health risks
from human health exposure from mercury resulting from coal combustion. Our suggestions offer practical opportunities for the U. S. EPA and OMB to reduce the most significant and burdensome impacts to the utility sector. We appreciate your consideration of our recommendations. We would be
happy to provide any additional information.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Crisson

President & CEO

MC/TP/JN

cc:

Ms. Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U. S. EPA

Ms. Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. EPA

Ms. Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change

Mr. Bob Wayland, U. S. EPA

Mr. Tom Gillis, U. S. EPA

Ms. Karen Thundiyil, U. S. EPA

Ms. Cortney Higgins, OMB

Mr. Drew McConville, Council on Environmental Quality

Ms. Manisha Patel, Council on Environmental Quality

Mr. Michael Drummond, Council on Environmental Quality

Mr. Stiven Foster, Council on Environmental Quality

Mr. Glen Sheriff, Council on Environmental Quality

Mr. Rob Johansson, Council of Economic Advisors

Mr. Bruce Rodan, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Mr. Ali Zaidi, White House Domestic Policy Council

Mr. Mike Clark, OMB

Mr. Kevin Neyland, OMB

A fabulous New York Times editorial on clean air and politics

2011-11-18T06:23:00.000-08:00

Politics and Clean Air

President Obama’s decision in September to scuttle stricter national standards for smog may well go down as the worst environmental decision of his administration — unless, of course, even more damaging retreats lie ahead. The decision was a setback for public health, a victory for industry, which had lobbied strongly against the standards, and a public embarrassment for the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, who had proposed them.

The White House insisted that the decision had been made on the merits and that the standards would throw people out of work by burdening industry with costly new rules at a time of economic uncertainty. It also insisted that industry pressure and politics did not play a role. Finally, it argued, the rules could be revisited and strengthened in two years (after the election), when new science would be available.

This page was not impressed by those arguments then and is no less skeptical of them now in light of John M. Broder’s exhaustive account in The Times on Thursday of the steps that led up to the decision. The article paints a picture of an aggressive campaign by industry lobbyists and heavyweight trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute that began soon after it became clear that Ms. Jackson was determined to tighten the rules governing allowable ozone levels across the country.

The standards governing ozone — the main component of harmful smog — are supposed to be set every five years. But because the standards proposed by the Bush administration in 2008 were seen as inadequate by the scientific community and had been challenged in court, Ms. Jackson decided to set her own standards, tough but achievable. Their health benefits would approximate their costs, and they would not begin to bite for several years, giving industry time to prepare.

Until the very last moment, she believed that Mr. Obama would go along. But as The Times’s article made clear, she had very few friends in the White House and many opponents — not least William Daley, the president’s chief of staff, who had been incessantly lobbied by business and by state governors fearful that the rules would cost jobs.

In one telling moment during internal negotiations, E.P.A. experts laid out the numbers on the lives that would be saved and the illnesses avoided by the proposed rules. At which point, Mr. Daley asked: “What are the health impacts of unemployment?” — a question the article describes as “straight out of the industry playbook.”

Defending its record, the White House cites tougher fuel economy standards and promises to move ahead with new rules governing mercury and other toxic emissions. It is also required under law to begin addressing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. But the very same forces that killed the ozone rule are now mobilizing to delay or weaken these other rules. This time, Mr. Obama should let science and public health, not his electoral prospects, be his guide.

Former EPA policy chief slams White House for timidity

2011-11-17T10:59:00.001-08:00

[an excerpt from Greenwire]Published: Thursday, November 17, 2011 U.S. EPA's former policy chief is accusing the Obama administration of failing to mount a forceful defense of environmental regulations in the face of fierce partisan attacks.Lisa Heinzerling left EPA after a two-year stint last December, just after the 2010 midterm elections put Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives.Now back in her teaching job at Georgetown Law Center, Heinzerling -- who played a key role in crafting the administration's greenhouse gas regulations -- has leapt back into the fray with a paper written for the American Constitution Society, a left-leaning legal group. The paper is to be officially released Monday.Heinzerling expressed concern in particular at the language in President Obama's January 2011 executive order that required agencies to examine regulations and conclude whether any could be "more effective or less burdensome." The administration, she writes, has "focused almost entirely on the costs, and not the benefits of regulations," a sentiment shared by many environmentalists...The administration has failed to mount a vigorous defense of the health, safety and other benefits of regulation, she says...Heinzerling says the White House "appeared to make public health and welfare protections subservient to alleviation of regulatory costs."The White House should be doing more, she says, to teach the public about why regulations are needed and what the outcome would be if they were rolled back, including the cost in lives."Cancers of all kinds, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and more are prevented by environmental rules," Heinzerling writes.The administration "could be saying more" about the "whole range of consequences that can flow" from a lack of regulation, she adds.

AARP, take note: House Republicans revive "senior death discount" in effort to sidetrack EPA coal power plant cleanup

2011-11-16T06:53:00.001-08:00

Well, we are coming down to the wire as coal power lobbyists and their congressional proxies are throwing virtually everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to delay EPA’s upcoming mercury and toxic pollution standards for electric power plants. The standards are due in mid-December and are currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The latest salvo came in a letter yesterday from Reps. Andy Harris (R-MD and a favorite of the coal mining lobby) and Paul Broun (R-GA – or in this case should that be R-Ga Power, a generous campaign contributor?). http://science.house.gov/letter/letter-sunsteinThe letter echoes some of the talking points spread around town by very clever coal power lobbyists, including those representing Georgia Power and its parent Southern Company (for instance, that EPA has inflated the health benefits of power plant cleanup and is “double counting” them). But the most bizarre portion of this letter revives the so-called “senior death discount” – a practice that would assign a lower value to the life of a senior citizen than someone younger. The prior Bush administration considered such an idea but then abandoned it after a public outcry and advertisements such as the one above. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0508-09.htmHarris and Broun revive this discredited idea. Perhaps this is an attempt to pander to OMB regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, who has spoken favorably of the concept. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/26/nation/na-sunstein26iIs AARP taking note? Beneath its highly legalistic veneer, this letter embodies a callous immorality by condemning EPA for trying to prevent the death and disease caused by coal power plant emissions. It is a pretty obvious effort to throw sand into the regulatory gears.

Another labor vs enviro fight? Unions seek delay in EPA power plant toxic cleanup

2011-11-13T12:43:00.001-08:00

With some still reeling by the decision over the Keystone XL pipeline, another labor vs. enviro battle may be shaping up. The White House OMB web site notes that union lobbyists visited OMB last week to discuss EPA’s upcoming mercury and toxic pollution cleanup standards for coal-fired power plants. EPA has said it intends to issue the standards by mid December.http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_11082011 The union reps brought along a copy of comments they filed earlier with EPA, urging delays in the cleanup timetable. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/oira_2060/2060_11082011-1.pdfThere is evidence, by the way, that EPA has taken some heed of this. EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy recently said states should consider extending the three-year compliance window by a year. However, we do not expect EPA to follow another union request to delay the whole rule by six months to a year. (EPA did recently delay it by a month. As our friends with American Lung Association have noted, every month of delay equates to as many as 1,400 premature deaths, by EPA’s calculation.)Will he White House feel that it must now throw a bone to the unions, still smarting over the Keystone decision? We will be watching closely.

Beware of buying a lemon! Car dealers visit White House, with dreams of killing EPA, California authority over vehicle greenhouse gases

2011-11-13T11:59:00.000-08:00

Of course, what they auto dealers DIDN'T say is that they want to kill off EPA and California authority over greenhouse gases precisely because those agencies have been effective and have moved the bar. The dealers obviously long for the old days when they could more easily influence the U.S. Department of Transportation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_11092011

Meeting Record
Meeting Record Regarding: CAFÉ/GHG Emissions
Date: 11 / 09 / 2011
Name Affiliation Client (if applicable)
Chandana Achanta OMB
David Regan National Auto Dealers Assoc.
David Wagmer NADA Used Car Guide
Rob Johansson CEA
Gary Guzy CEQ
Lori Stewart EPA
John MacNeil OMB/NRD
Drew McConville CEQ
Douglas Greenhaus National Auto Dealers Association
Andy Koblenz National Auto Dealers Association
Rich Theroux OMB
Odette Mucha OMB
Dom Mancini OMB/OIRA
Bill Charmley EPA
Michael Harrington NADA
Kevin Neyland OMB/OIRA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/oira_2060/2060_11092011-1.pdf

Rand Paul dirty-air plan gets clobbered in the Senate 41-56

2011-11-10T09:59:00.000-08:00

Sen.Rand Paul's dirty-air resolution to nullify EPA's "good neighbor" pollution rule was clobbered today in the Senate, 41-56, as six Republican senators (Alexander-TN,Ayotte-NH,Brown-MA,Collins-ME, Kirk-IL and Snowe-ME) broke ranks to oppose his resolution. Here is the vote count: http://1.usa.gov/s9j4zX

Perhaps the high point of the debate was the floor speech by Senator Lamar Alexander, who denounced the plan, which he said would just mean more "dirty air" from Kentucky blowing into his state. Alexander said he "wants to see the Great Smoky Mountains, not the Great Smoggy Mountains."

Paul had little to say as a rejoinder except the mindless mantra about "job-killing" EPA coined by the polluter-funded Americans for Prosperity.

In his haste to help polluters, Sen. Joe Manchin of W VA gets the wrong Nelson

2011-11-09T08:44:00.000-08:00

Check the first press release below with a revised version. This is legislation aimed at helping tax-dodging corporate polluters delay cleanup --at the expense of tens of thousands of premature deaths.

From: Press (Manchin) [mailto:Press@manchin.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:40 AM
Subject: MANCHIN AND COATS INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN "FAIR COMPLIANCE ACT" TO PROTECT AMERICAN JOBS, PREVENT SPIKES IN ENERGY COSTS FOR CONSUMERS
For Immediate Release:
November 9, 2011
Contact: Emily Bittner
(202) 224-3954

MANCHIN AND COATS INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN “FAIR COMPLIANCE ACT” TO PROTECT AMERICAN JOBS, PREVENT SPIKES IN ENERGY COSTS FOR CONSUMERS

Commonsense bill would give utilities reasonable timelines with
benchmarks to comply with two EPA rules

Washington, D.C. – Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.) introduced the bipartisan “Fair Compliance Act” today to create reasonable timelines and benchmarks for utilities to comply with two major Environmental Protection Agency rules to protect jobs and keep utility rates stable. The legislation would extend the compliance deadline for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) by three years and the deadline for the Utility MACT rule by two years – so that both would fall on Jan. 1, 2017.

Additional cosponsors include Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

“I’ve always said government should be your partner, not your adversary – and that’s not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, it’s a commonsense idea,” Senator Manchin said. “With millions of jobs on the line in this country – and especially in my state of West Virginia – it just makes sense to work to make sure we don’t lose any more jobs in putting these rules in place. I’m proud to bring together Republicans and Democrats on this commonsense solution to a real problem.”

“The current EPA rules and unreasonable deadlines will be devastating for Hoosiers and every ratepayer in America,” Coats said. “After visiting with Indiana utilities and power plants, it is clear that the current EPA timeline will result in more job loss and skyrocketing rates. While I support a complete overturn of these rules, this bill is a bipartisan commonsense solution that gives states and utilities the time needed to plan and prepare.”

The National Economic Research Associates (NERA) estimates net employment losses of 1.44 million across the country as a result of the current EPA rules and deadlines. By 2016, NERA estimates that American ratepayers will see an average increase of 11.5 percent. In some regions of the United States, increases of up to 23.5 percent may occur.

Background:

The Utility MACT rule requires a decrease in mercury emissions at power plants. The CSAPR requires utilities to reduce power plant emissions that may cause air-quality complications in neighboring states.

The Manchin-Coats bill would provide utilities with an extension of time and synchronize the implementation schedule for complying with the rules. The bill would extend the date of compliance for Utility MACT by two years and for CSAPR by three years changing the deadline for both rules to January 1, 2017. Under the current EPA rules, the compliance date for Utility MACT is January 1, 2015. The deadline for Phase I of the CSAPR is January 1, 2012 and Phase II is January 1, 2014. The Manchin-Coats bill would postpone Phase I until January 1, 2015 and Phase II of CSAPR until January 1, 2017. The compliance date is the date by which a utility either must have installed emissions controls or retired the pant.

The bill also would require utilities to submit implementation plans to ensure compliance occurs. To safeguard the reliability of the electric grid and avoid brownouts, utilities would need to submit their implementation plans to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

Please see the attached fact sheet for additional information.
**
________________________________________
From: DiJulio, Tara (Coats) [mailto:Tara_DiJulio@coats.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 11:19 AM
To: DiJulio, Tara (Coats)
Subject: REVISED RELEASE: Manchin and Coats Introduce Bipartisan "Fair Compliance Act" to Protect American Jobs, Prevent Spikes in Energy Costs for Consumers
Please refer to this version of the release. Note: The bill is cosponsored by Senators Bob Corker and Ben Nelson.

For immediate release
November 9, 2011

Contact:
Emily Bittner (Manchin) 202-224-3954
Tara DiJulio (Coats) 202-224-5623

Manchin and Coats Introduce Bipartisan “Fair Compliance Act” to Protect American Jobs, Prevent Spikes in Energy Costs for Consumers

Commonsense bill would give utilities reasonable timelines with benchmarks to comply with two EPA rules

Washington, D.C. – Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.) introduced the bipartisan “Fair Compliance Act” today to create reasonable timelines and benchmarks for utilities to comply with two major Environmental Protection Agency to protect jobs and keep utility rates stable. The legislation would extend the compliance deadline for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) by three years and the deadline for the Utility MACT rule by two years – so that both would fall on January 1, 2017.

Additional cosponsors include Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

“I’ve always said government should be your partner, not your adversary – and that’s not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, it’s a commonsense idea,” Senator Manchin said. “With millions of jobs on the line in this country – and especially in my state of West Virginia – it just makes sense to work to make sure we don’t lose any more jobs in putting these rules in place. I’m proud to bring together Republicans and Democrats on this commonsense solution to a real problem.”

“The current EPA rules and unreasonable deadlines will be devastating for Hoosiers and every ratepayer in America,” Coats said. “After visiting with Indiana utilities and power plants, it is clear that the current EPA timeline will result in more job loss and skyrocketing rates. While I support a complete overturn of these rules, this bill is a bipartisan commonsense solution that gives states and utilities the time needed to plan and prepare.”

The National Economic Research Associates (NERA) estimates net employment losses of 1.44 million across the country as a result of the current EPA rules and deadlines. By 2016, NERA estimates that American ratepayers will see an average increase of 11.5 percent. In some regions of the United States, increases of up to 23.5 percent may occur.

Background:

The Utility MACT rule requires a decrease in mercury emissions at power plants. The CSAPR requires utilities to reduce power plant emissions that may cause air-quality complications in neighboring states.

The Manchin-Coats bill would provide utilities with an extension of time and synchronize the implementation schedule for complying with the rules. The bill would extend the date of compliance for Utility MACT by two years and for CSAPR by three years changing the deadline for both rules to January 1, 2017. Under the current EPA rules, the compliance date for Utility MACT is January 1, 2015. The deadline for Phase I of the CSAPR is January 1, 2012 and Phase II is January 1, 2014. The Manchin-Coats bill would postpone Phase I until January 1, 2015 and Phase II of CSAPR until January 1, 2017. The compliance date is the date by which a utility either must have installed emissions controls or retired the pant.

The bill also would require utilities to submit implementation plans to ensure compliance occurs. To safeguard the reliability of the electric grid and avoid brownouts, utilities would need to submit their implementation plans to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

Click here for a copy of the legislation.
Click here for a fact sheet with additional information.

As expected, power lobbyists troop to White House over EPA mercury/toxic standards

2011-11-09T07:01:00.000-08:00

Please note three recent meetings, listed below. Some of the real heavy hitters attended the Halloween meeting.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_11072011b

Meeting Record
Meeting Record Regarding: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
Date: 11 / 07 / 2011
Name Affiliation Client (if applicable)
Bob Wayland (via phone) EPA/OAR
Karen Thundiyil (via phone) EPA/OP
Glenn Sheriff (via phone) CEQ
Steven Foster (via phone) CEQ
Bruce Rodan (via phone) OSTP
Cortney Higgins OMB/OIRA
Dom Mancini OMB/OIRA
Manisha Patel CEQ
Darian Ghorbi OMB/OIRA
Janet Anderson VanNess Feldman
Stephen Fotis VanNess Feldman
Jay Hudson Santee Cooper
Brian Moeck Platte River Power Authority
Ali Zaidi DPC
Rob Johansson CEA
Nat Keohane NEC/DPC
Christine Kymn OMB/OIRA
John MacNeil OMB/NRD
Michael Drummond CEQ

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_11032011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_10312011

Meeting Record
Meeting Record Regarding: NESHAP from Coal—and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units—Appropriate and Necessary Finding
Date: 10 / 31 / 2011
Name Affiliation Client (if applicable)
Dominic Mancini OMB/OIRA
Drew McConville CEQ
Manisha Patel CEQ
Christine Kymn OMB/OIRA
Steven Foster CEQ
Darian Ghorbi OMB/OIRA
Rob Johansson CEA
Ali Zaidi DPC
Ann Loomis Dominion
Tom Farrell Dominion/EEI
Tom Kuhn Edison Electrical Institute
Kirk Johnson National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Glenn Sheriff CEQ
Cortney Higgins OMB/OIRA
Bob Wayland (via phone) EPA/OAR
Kevin Calligan (via phone) EPA/OAR
Karen Thundiyil (via phone) EPA/OAR
Vanessa Wang CEQ
Kevin Neyland OMB/OIRA
Cass Sunstein OMB/OIRA
Brian Wolff EEI
Heather Zichal DPC

White House begins review of power plant mercury/toxic standards as well as ghg proposal

2011-11-08T05:24:00.001-08:00

Brace yourself for a spate of meetings as lobbyists line up to put a final word in.

AGENCY: EPA-AR RIN: 2060-AP52

TITLE: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: Yes
** RECEIVED DATE: 11/07/2011
LEGAL DEADLINE: Judicial

AGENCY: EPA-AR RIN: 2060-AQ91

TITLE: Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard for Electric Generating Units
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 11/07/2011
LEGAL DEADLINE: Judicial

Dirty power companies AEP, Duke among big corporations that paid no taxes

2011-11-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

As Congress continues to wrestle with polluter-driven plans to block cleanup of dirty coal-fired power plants, a new report finds that some of the biggest and most politically influential polluters -- American Electric Power and Duke Energy -- paid no U.S. income taxes between 2008 and 2010. (These corporate tax dodgers paid a heck of a lot on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence congressional opinion!)

Here is a link to the report: http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2011/11/corporate_taxpayers_corporate_tax_dodgers_2008-2010.php

Below is an excerpt of a good Reuters piece on this.

Will the Senate pay attention next week as AEP tries to whip up support for Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) resolution to block EPA's "good neighbor" power plant cleanup?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

Thirty companies paid no U.S. income tax 2008-2010: report

Thu, Nov 3 2011
By Kevin Drawbaugh

(Reuters) - Thirty large and profitable U.S. corporations paid no income taxes in 2008 through 2010, said a study on Thursday that arrives as Congress faces rising demands for tax reform but seems unable or unwilling to act.

Pepco Holdings Inc, a Washington, D.C.-area power company, had the lowest effective tax rate, at negative 57.6 percent, among the 280 Fortune 500 companies studied.

The statutory U.S. corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world; but over the 2008-2010 period, very few of the companies studied paid it, said the report.

The average effective tax rate for the companies over the period was 18.5 percent, said Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, both think tanks.

Their report also listed General Electric Co, Paccar Inc, PG&E Corp, Computer Sciences Corp, Boeing Co and NiSource Inc as among the 30 that paid no taxes...

Corporations will say rightly that the loopholes that let them slash their taxes were perfectly legal, the report said.

"But that does not mean that low-tax corporations bear no responsibility ... The laws were not enacted in a vacuum; they were adopted in response to relentless corporate lobbying, threats and campaign support," the report said...

PRESSING FOR MORE

As Congress and the Obama administration struggle with a sluggish economy and high deficits, corporations are pressing Capitol Hill for more tax breaks and a lower corporate rate.

Taxes are on the agenda of the congressional "super committee" tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in additional budget savings by November 23, but it is so far deadlocked across a familiar divide -- Republicans refusing any tax increases, Democrats defending social programs...

MANY TAX BREAKS

What are some of the tax breaks that corporations enjoy? One big one is accelerated depreciation that lets them write off equipment faster than it actually wears out. Deductions on executive stock options help. So do tax breaks for research and development and for making products in the United States instead of overseas. Offshore tax shelters play a role, too.
Power group Duke Energy Corp was one of the 30 companies listed as paying no income taxes in 2008-2010.

Chief Executive James Rogers told Reuters that Duke cut its taxes thanks to accelerated depreciation, which he said helped the company build new plants and hire construction workers.

Rogers is a frequent spokesman for a coalition of large multinationals seeking a tax break that would let them bring foreign profits into the United States at a reduced tax rate.

Others among the 30 companies included power producer American Electric Power Co Inc (AEP), chemicals company DuPont and toymaker Mattel Inc.
Like Duke, AEP said it benefited from accelerated depreciation.

Senate rejects bid to delay toxic pollution standards by 47-53 vote

2011-11-03T14:12:00.000-07:00

Here is how the Senate vote went. A "yea" was for a Republican plan for "jobs" and infrastructure legislation that included a roll back of clean air controls.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00196

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---47
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---53
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Sneak attack! US Senate to vote this pm on bill to roll back toxic pollution controls

2011-11-03T07:28:00.000-07:00

I realize many folks in DC are focused on Solyndra and charades over the “farm dust” issue (the Washington Post skewered EPA opponents quite effectively yesterday), but here is an important issue flying under the radar. I want to make sure you are aware of it.

This afternoon at about 3 pm, the US Senate is scheduled to vote on nefarious legislation that would roll back EPA toxic pollution controls for industrial boilers and cement plants as well as require congressional approval for any major rules in the future. (The so-called REINS Act, for you insiders.) See the Senate schedule at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-112scal-2011-11-03/html/CCAL-112scal-2011-11-03-pt0.htm

The legislation is S 1786 introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It is a Republican alternative to the latest Democratic jobs bill, which is aimed at funding highway and infrastructure projects. (S 1769).

The Hatch bill is a variation on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) war on clean air, including some of the dirty-air provisions previously approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. It is a dirty-air wolf in sheep’s clothing.

It appears to be part of a Republican strategy to put some potentially vulnerable Democratic senators on the spot. It may also be a way to pave the way for subsequent efforts to attach dirty-air provisions to “must-pass” spending or budget legislation.

We do not anticipate this radical attack on clean air to pass. But we and others will be watching the votes, for example, of embattled Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown: will he vote in lockstep for more toxic pollution from boilers and cement plants – or to protect Massachusetts kids?

Clean Air Watch Dirty Dog of the Month goes to AEP CEO and Chairman Michael Morris

2011-11-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

As usual, we have a wealth of candidates for our Clean Air Watch Dirty Dog of the Month award for dubious achievements in the world of air pollution.

Top contenders – and worth dishonorable mention -- include Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who led an unsuccessful court effort to delay EPA’s upcoming mercury/toxic air pollution standards for electric power plants. (Could there be a link to campaign contributions from American Electric Power and DTE, whose powerful DC lobbyists have been orchestrating the campaign to block the cleanup?)

Another strong contender: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is convening a hearing of his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform this afternoon to muscle EPA to delay the toxic standards. http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1488%3A10-27-2011-qlights-out-ii-another-look-at-epas-utility-mact-ruleq&catid=12&Itemid=20

But then we considered: Why give an award to puppets -- when a puppeteer is available?

And so the Clean Air Watch Dirty Dog of the Month award for November 2011 goes to American Electric Power Chairman and CEO Michael Morris.

Under Morris’ leadership, AEP, for decades one of America’s most notorious polluters, has spurred efforts in Congress and elsewhere to delay EPA’s toxic power cleanup effort.

What drives a guy like Morris to promote an agenda that would literally shorten thousands of peoples’ lives? (And, as our friends at the American Lung Association point out, every month of delay translates into 1,400 premature deaths from dirty air http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/epa-mercury-air-toxics.html )

Why the corporate bottom line, of course.

Morris reminded us of this just last week in an earnings call with investors. http://seekingalpha.com/article/302417-american-electric-power-s-ceo-discusses-q3-2011-results-earnings-call-transcripts

And what good news he had – corporate earnings were UP – and AEP is so flush with cash that—while crying poor in DC -- it even raised its dividend!

But let’s take a look at a few other things Morris said.

We begin to -- some time ago, we began to have conversations with members of Congress, and we're quite pleased to see what the House Republicans have done. Also encouraged by yesterday or earlier this week's announcements by a bipartisan group of senators, both Democratic and Republicans sides of the aisle, addressing the coal ash issue, which is really a piece of legislation that was occasioned by a TV event at the TVA. That isn't the basis for continued regulatory change and we tried to point that out.

Whoa, Mike. A “tv event!!”

This wasn’t Geraldo, but a 2008 environmental disaster as millions of cubic feet of toxic ash gushed from a ruptured dike in Tennessee . And three long years later, the cleanup continues. http://www.tva.gov/kingston/index.htm.

Yes, some “tv event.”

During last week’s call, Morris failed to mention that AEP has no fewer than 44 ash ponds (see page 26 at
http://www.aepsustainability.com/docs/2011_AEP_CAReport.pdf )
, including 11 that the EPA rates as having “high hazard potential.” http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/

A few other things Morris said:

We're comfortable that some of the decisions that the EPA has made to date have moved into appropriate direction, and we will continue to have that dialogue. Because ours is one that takes away the risk of reliability impact and the unnecessary expense that may be associated with some of these rules. I think that particulate matter subset of the HAPs MACT Rule is a perfect example. For a company like ours, where we today capture 99.7% of all PMs, we're going to be required to go to 99.9%.

We are not sure what the “unnecessary” expense would be, though we don’t think Morris was referring to health care expenses for people breathing his company’s toxic fumes. As for his “99.7%” claim, We rather doubt that applies to his company’s control rates for toxic mercury, or for sulfur dioxide, which can morph into deadly fine particle soot downwind.

One other Morrisism from the question and answer portion of the call, as he argued for delaying cleanup of his company’s smokestacks:

There's just a better approach to take to this, and you get to the same environmental conclusion. The healthcare effects, we've got medical folks who say they're not real. They've got medical folks who say, they're absolutely real. Whether or not that ends or wins the argument, it's almost immaterial. What we're trying to do here is be rational.

He’s got “medical folks” who say there are no “real” healthcare effects from dirty air? Wonder what they get paid? Someone should investigate.

One could argue it’s good news that Morris is stepping down from the company as President and CEO later this month, but we have some doubt the corporate culture will change. After all, this is the company that ran racist, Arab-bashing cartoons in the 1970s while trying to avoid cleanup of its smokestacks. http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2011/04/aep-ad-from-1970s-touting-coal-burning.html

We do want to cite a Clean Air Hero of the Month: John Walke, senior attorney and director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This guy does so much to further the cause of clean air that it makes us dizzy, but we’ll cite just a few quick examples (and apologies for what we omit):

Writing a successful legal brief opposing efforts by Morris and his puppets to delay the power plant cleanup.

Testifying to Congress about the dangers of legislation that would rob EPA of the ability to limit big-particle pollution (yes, including our old friend, fly ash): http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/102511/Walke.pdf
Writing an important blog post summarizing the problems associated with that legislation: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/this_week_i_testified_before.html

He could be named a hero every month.

Callous head of AEP calls TVA ash tragedy a "tv event" !!!

2011-10-28T08:36:00.000-07:00

During an investor’s call Oct. 26, Mike Morris, head of American Electric Power, talked about how he was encouraged by actions in Congress, and claimed the “coal ash issue” was “occasioned by a TV event at the TVA.” As if the toxic Kingston ash spill was some media stunt!!! See below:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/302417-american-electric-power-s-ceo-discusses-q3-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript

... We continue to meet and have dialogue with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, all of the RTOs that are affected at least by our fleet and the impact that those rules may have on our fleet, as well as on the FERC. We begin to -- some time ago, we began to have conversations with members of Congress, and we're quite pleased to see what the House Republicans have done. Also encouraged by yesterday or earlier this week's announcements by a bipartisan group of senators, both Democratic and Republicans sides of the aisle, addressing the coal ash issue, which is really a piece of legislation that was occasioned by a TV event at the TVA. That isn't the basis for continued regulatory change and we tried to point that out.

EPA flies white flag again -- this time over big-particle pollution...

2011-10-17T12:04:00.000-07:00

....cleverly packaged by opponents as benign-sounding “farm dust.”

EPA noted in letter to Congress that it plans to propose no change in the existing standards for big-particle pollution, or “PM 10”
http://www.epa.gov/pm/pdfs/20111014Stabenow.pdf

Compare to what EPA’s science advisers had said, in arguing that existing standards are too weak. EPA summarized the scientists’ advice in a recent policy assessment document:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/20110419pmpafinal.pdf

p 3-23

3.2.2 CASAC Conclusions and Recommendations
Following their review of the first and second draft PAs, CASAC provided advice and recommendations regarding the current and potential alternative standards for thoracic coarse particles (Samet, 2010c; Samet, 2010d). With regard to the current PM10 standard, CASAC concluded that “the current data, while limited, is sufficient to call into question the level of
protection afforded the American people by the current standard” (Samet, 2010d, p. 7). In drawing this conclusion, CASAC noted the positive associations in multi-city and single-city studies, including in locations with PM10 concentrations below those allowed by the current
standard. In addition, CASAC gave “significant weight to studies that have generally reported that PM10-2.5 effect estimates remain positive when evaluated in co-pollutant models” and concluded that “controlled human exposure PM10-2.5 studies showing decreases in heart rate
variability and increases in markers of pulmonary inflammation are deemed adequate to support the plausibility of the associations reported in epidemiologic studies” (Samet, 2010d, p. 7). Given all of the above conclusions CASAC recommended that “the primary standard for PM10
should be revised” in order to increase public health protection (Samet, 2010d, p. ii and p. 7).

**
The full letter by the scientists is at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/CCF9F4C0500C500F8525779D0073C593/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-015-unsigned.pdf

Fine-particle soot found to cause lung cancer in non-smokers

2011-10-11T10:41:00.000-07:00

This is a study that has just appeared in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Case Medicine

Abstract at http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/201106-1011OCv1

Here are a few quick excerpts from the full study (which requires a paid subscription):

DISCUSSION

This large prospective study showed clear positive associations between mean long-term ambient fine particulate matter air pollution concentrations and lung cancer mortality in lifelong never smokers. Each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentrations was associated with a 15-27% increase in the relative risk of lung cancer death after detailed adjustment for a number of potential confounders including passive smoking, occupational exposures, and radon. The
association was similar in men and women and across categories of attained age and educational attainment but was stronger in those with a normal BMI or a history of asthma or any CLD at enrollment. Findings were robust to the adjustment of a variety of socio-demographic ecological covariates at different time points in the model.

Strengths of this study include the examination of lung cancer mortality in a large cohort of 188,699 lifelong never smokers to eliminate potential residual confounding by cigarette smoking status; an extended 26-year follow-up time period (1982-2008) with a total of 1,100 observed lung cancer deaths; detailed prospectively collected individual-level lung cancer risk factor data;
and the availability of ecological measures of residential radon concentrations and sociodemographic characteristics to examine potential confounding by radon and community-level factors.

Although previous studies examining associations between PM2.5 and lung cancer adjusting for cigarette smoking history have generally reported positive findings, there remains concern regarding potential residual confounding by cigarette smoking status; previous studies of non-smokers were also limited by the small numbers of lung cancer cases...

Ambient fine particulate matter comprises a diverse group of air pollutants that may be deposited and retained in the deep branches of the respiratory system, the chemical composition of which varies widely and may include a variety of adsorbed organic compounds, transition metals, ions, and minerals capable of inducing toxic biological effects Long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution may lead to increased lung cancer risk through inflammatory injury,
reactive oxygen species production, and oxidative damage to DNA. Genotoxic and
mutagenic effects have also been demonstrated in laboratory studies.

Oops, never mind: EPA standards won't affect power companies as much as predicted earlier

2011-10-11T06:50:00.000-07:00

Estimate of US coal plant retirements from rules changes cut by consultancy

(An excerpt from the Platts news service:)

Up to 40 GW of additional coal plant retirements over the next two decades will result from regulations proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, consultancy ICF International said Monday in its third quarter Energy Outlook.

The report is a far cry from the consultancy's first quarter report, which estimated that 68 GW of coal-fired plant retirements would occur over the same period due to the series of expected regulations...

"I think everybody's projections are evolving as the regulations change and as we learn about what will be contained in the forthcoming regulations," said Managing Director John Blaney, who helped oversee publication of the report...

Another, newer realization by the authors is that the coal plant retirements won't affect coal consumption by utilities as much as previously thought.

"It's a couple of things," Blaney said. "First, most of the retirements are among smaller and older [plants] that are already running at lower capacity factors, so they'll have proportionally less of an impact on demand than expected. And some of the existing plants will ramp up to meet extra demand."

(Here is more on the report: http://www.icfi.com/news/2011/third-quarter-2011-integrated-energy-outlook )

Clean Air Watch Smog Watch Survey: smog problems up in September

2011-10-05T09:19:00.000-07:00

[for some additional context, check http://cleanairwatchpressroom.blogspot.com/2011/10/clean-air-watch-smog-survey-smog.html ]

“Code Orange” or “Code Red“ Smog Days were up by nearly a third in September 2011 compared to the previous year.

Total “Code Orange” or “Code Red” (monitored readings above 75 parts per billion ozone) Smog Days in September 2011

1,038

Compared to 785 in September 2010

A 32% increase

Total Smog Days through September 30, 2011

5,313

Compared to 3,908 in 2010 through September

36 percent increase

22 States with “Code Orange” or “Code Red” problems in September 2011

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Compared to September 2010 (24 plus DC)

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Georgia
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia

Total number of states with “Code Orange” or “Code Red” Smog Days in 2011, through September: 39 plus DC

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Clean Air Watch presents its first Dirty Dog of the Month award

2011-10-03T05:21:00.000-07:00

By popular demand, Clean Air Watch is debuting a new monthly feature – a dubious achievement award in the universe of air pollution. Think of it a bit like the “darts and laurels” section of the Columbia Journalism Review.

As a watchdog organization, we think it appropriate to carry on the metaphor by designating the recipient as the Clean Air Watch Dirty Dog of the Month.

And there are so many possible “award” winners this month:

• For starters, how about House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who instigated the so-called TRAIN Act, the “worst air pollution bill ever to reach the House floor.”
http://bit.ly/oxmw4q

Or perhaps some of those who sponsored amendments that made a foul –air bill even more odiferous? For instance:

• Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), the former coal-train lobbyist whose amendment would block EPA cleanup of deadly power plant emissions?
• Or Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH), who amendment would completely re-write the Clean Air Act by forcing the EPA to set national clean air standards based partly on “what is best for industry’s bottom line, rather than what is best for public health. With this change, Americans would never know whether the air they are breathing is truly healthy.” http://bit.ly/ofMF6Y
• Or perhaps Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX), who – carrying the legislative gas can for the oil industry – amended the legislation to preempt important upcoming EPA standards to reduce the smog-producing emissions from gasoline and new passenger vehicles. http://bit.ly/o0Ut1X

Nornally, any or all of these miscreants would deserve the dart.

But this has been an unprecedented occasion.

In this case, the White House broke a campaign promise, sabotaged the hard-working professionals at EPA, encouraged the opponents of clean air, left many millions of Americans stuck breathing dirty air longer – and then tried to cover up the misdeeds with misleading information and half-based political “spin.” All out of political cowardice and the obvious assumption that environmentalists have no options when going to the polls in 2012. More on this theme at http://bit.ly/q0HmwD

And so the Clean Air Watch Dirty Dog of the Month Award goes to President Barack Obama, with dishonorable mention to White House Chief of Staff William Daley, and OMB regulatory czar Cass Sunstein.

For a little history and context, consider the campaign pledge the Obama-Biden team made in 2008:

“Unlike President Bush, they will listen to his scientific advisers on air quality standards. And they will reverse the Bush administration’s attempts to chip away at our nation’s clean air standards.”

http://bit.ly/n2MWDv

Unfortunately, the President conveniently forgot this pledge when it came time for EPA to reconsider the critical national air quality standards for ozone, or smog, after industry groups trouped to the White House with politically tinged maps of the U.S. http://1.usa.gov/nJLxYY

As has been well reported, the President ordered the EPA to stop its responsible and legally correct attempt to right the Bush administration’s wrong.

To make matters worse, the White House then issued misleading information about when the EPA would have another crack at righting the Bush wrong. The President asserted that EPA continuing review of the issue “will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013.” http://bit.ly/rojXpn

But that isn’t true. As EPA noted in a recent memo to its regional workers, the agency intends at this point only to “propose” a decision on the ozone question in the fall of 2013. A final decision would not happen until July 2014 at the earliest. http://bit.ly/nREHTa These deadlines, of course, could slip also. After the travesty we’ve just witnessed, do we really expect the EPA would be permitted to make such a decision only months before the mid-term elections?

As for Daley, he deserves special opprobrium. He became the duct-work carrying the business lobby’s dirty-air stink into the Oval Office. Daley treated the whole issue as if it were some sort of Chicago back-room deal. It could become an interesting parlor game to guess which Business Roundtable corporation he will join after leaving “public service.”

And – et tu, Sunstein? Well, we know he was once on the staff of the Harvard Lampoon, but this is no joke. He was Daley’s knife-wielding partner behind closed doors and then became the front man trying to cover up the mess. Perhaps his most outrageous comment, as reported September 14 by Politico Pro: “There was no political overriding of the science; in fact, this was a judgment on the merits, it was not a political judgment.”

Oh, please! This may be the most blatant lie I’ve seen since Seinfeld’s Mr. Peterman called out George Costanza. (“George, you're obviously lying, anyone can see that!” http://bit.ly/oPw6C4)

Yes, we know and appreciate that the White House team now says the President would veto the dirty-air TRAIN Act. On the other hand, the shameful White House behavior in the smog case emboldened the TRAIN leaders to attack the Clean Air Act. So don’t claim too much credit for rattling the saber at legislation that may never even come up in the Senate. We will be much more positive if EPA is permitted to move ahead with plans to reduce mercury and toxic emissions from power plants.

Finally, we don’t want this to be an entirely negative review. So we will offer the laurel to those who did stand up for clean air. (We will refrain from calling them Clean Air Rescue Dogs, though you can if you insist.)

During the TRAIN debate in the House of Representatives, some traditional clean-air champs such as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) remained faithful friends and deserve more praise than they will perhaps ever receive.

But we would like this month to single out for praise four Republican members of the House who broke ranks with their leadership – a tough task in this mob-scene environment – and voted against the dirty-air TRAIN bill.

They are:

Rep. Charles Bass, New Hampshire
Rep. Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rep. Robert Dold, Illinois
Rep. Nan Hayworth, New York

Your constituents – and the nation – should salute you for having the guts to do the right thing.

EPA scientists: Yes, Mr. President, smog can kill!

2011-09-30T08:58:00.000-07:00

You will recall the EPA was recently bushwacked by the White House on the smog issue.

But the EPA scientists continue to work away on the issue, with plans at this point to make a decision on national smog standards by mid-2014. (Yes, we know the President said 2013, but he was wrong.) That deadline, of course, could slip if politics intervene again.

As part of its ongoing review, EPA today published the “second draft" of its “integrated science assessment” of smog and its impacts.

You can find it here: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=226363

The bottom line: smog not only hurts your health – it can kill. It also poisons the environment and is a potent greenhouse gas.

So even though the President was concerned about the economics of smog control (forgetting that pollution cleanup creates jobs), this report is a graphic reminder that smoggy air carries a terrible health and environmental cost. Senior citizens in particular ought to take note! Your life could be getting cut short while this review continues.

In a quick “background” cover note, EPA states:

New material has been included in this draft, but many of the overall conclusions remain generally the same as the last NAAQS review which was completed in 2008. For example, in relation to short-term exposures, new evidence for O3-induced health effects strengthens the body of evidence for associations with respiratory morbidity and mortality. Also, the current ambient O3 concentrations in many areas of the US are sufficient to impair growth of numerous plant species. Within an ecosystem, O3 can alter timber production, water availability in watersheds and carbon sequestration; and, it can affect ecosystem biodiversity. In addition, as was concluded in the last NAAQS review, O3 can affect the climate by acting as a climate-forcing greenhouse gas. In contrast to the last review, there is now evidence suggesting that respiratory morbidity and mortality are associated with O3 long-term exposure.

Some key conclusions:

The clearest evidence for human health effects associated with exposure to O3 is provided by studies of respiratory effects. Collectively, there is a very large amount of evidence spanning several decades in support of a causal association between exposure to O3 and a continuum of respiratory effects. The majority of this evidence is derived from studies investigating short-term O3 exposure (i.e., hours to weeks), although animal toxicological studies and recent epidemiologic evidence demonstrate that long-term exposure (i.e., months to years) may also be detrimental to the respiratory system. Additionally, consistent positive associations between short-term O3 exposure and total (nonaccidental) mortality have helped to resolve previously identified areas of uncertainty in the O3-mortality relationship, indicating that there is likely to be a causal relationship between short-term exposures to O3 and all-cause mortality. Recent evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between long-term O3 exposures and mortality. The evidence for these health effects indicates that the relationship between concentration and response is linear within concentrations present in the U.S., with no indication of a threshold of O3 concentrations under which no effect would be observed. The populations identified as being most at risk for O3-related health effects are individuals with influenza/infection, individuals with asthma, and older age groups.

There has been over 40 years of research on the effects of O3 exposure on vegetation and ecosystems. The best evidence for effects is from controlled exposure studies. These studies have clearly shown that exposure to O3 is causally linked to visible foliar injury, decreased photosynthesis, changes in reproduction, and decreased growth. Recently, studies at larger spatial scales support the results from controlled studies and indicate that ambient O3 exposures can affect ecosystem productivity, crop yield, water cycling, and ecosystem community composition. And on a global scale, tropospheric O3 is the third most important greenhouse gas, playing an important role in climate change

Where there's smoke: connecting the dirty-air dots

2011-09-29T07:02:00.000-07:00

In case you haven’t seen it, there was an excellent cover story this week in The National Journal which connects the dots between the coal and coal-power lobbies and the Republican-led congressional attack on EPA.

(The story seems to be publicly available now at http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/epa-the-world-in-microcosm-20110922 )

And, as things tend to happen in D.C., the dot-connecting continues.

I want to call to your attention an interesting episode that took place just before the House voting on the dirty-air legislation known as the TRAIN Act.

In this episode, 14 Republican members of Congress launched an unusual attack – not directly against EPA or Democrats, but against a series of power companies collectively known as the Clean Energy Group. There letter has been shopped around to the media, but just in case you haven’t seen it, here is a link: http://bit.ly/piHtFu

If you take a moment to read it, I am sure you will conclude, as I did, that the letter must have been ghost-written. The finger prints of the coal and coal-power lobbies are all over it. Indeed, the language of the letter appears to have come straight out of the word processors of the American Electric Power Company, with perhaps a tweak or two by Southern Company and the National Mining Association. The legal jargon and the details involving power industry politics clearly point to lobbyists for the coal and coal-power industries such as AEP as the true authors. (In fact, the letter self-servingly includes a defense of the heads of AEP and Southern Co.)

This episode of lobbying, money and energy politics is especially interesting because this letter may have continuing repercussions. The letter is still being shopped around town. If these members of Congress ultimately succeed, the breathing public will suffer.

And I believe the true goal wasn’t so much to affect the House vote on TRAIN – that was already in the bag – but to generate some steam for similar action in the Senate, where AEP has struggled since last April to line up sponsors for a power plant delay bill that it drafted. Note that the home page of AEP’s corporate web site still leads with a call to delay EPA’s rules, citing “reliability” concerns – the core of the argument made in the letter by the 14 members of Congress. http://www.aep.com/

As for connecting the dots, there are clear campaign contribution connections between the authors and AEP and its delay-seeking allies such Southern Company and the National Mining Association/Ohio Coal Association. More on that below.

First, let’s quickly review recent history.

You will probablly recall that AEP has been aggressively lobbying since at least last April for legislation that would delay the EPA power plant cleanup. It was seeking to line up Senators Manchin and Portman to spearhead this effort. The senators kept some distance after the connection was publicized.

AEP then uncorked a claim that EPA standards would lead to major plant shutdowns and related “reliability” concerns. http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1697
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was among those who directly challenged this assertion.

AEP also was linked to an effort to get utility regulators (NARUC) to go on record raising related “reliability” concerns.

This new letter raises similar concerns, citing the NERA consulting firm as an “independent” expert. Of course, the letter fails to note that AEP and other coal interests pay for NERA’s studies which raise the “reliability” concerns. NERA has done other paid work for AEP.

You might ask yourself the all-important question: why would these particular 14 members of Congress sign a letter that gets so deep into the weeds and jargon of utility politics?

Of course, 9 of the 14 are from Ohio, where AEP is the biggest power producer and has threatened to close plants. And AEP has complained bitterly about not only “reliability” but has also threatened big rate hikes. One is from West Virginia, which AEP also supplies (and has threatened to close plants). Two are from Texas, where the local power company (Luminant/Energy Future Holdings) is so upset at the cross-state rule that it has sued. (AEP also operates in Texas and has threatened to close a plant there.) One is from Oklahoma (yes, AEP ALSO operates there). And one is from Georgia, where the Southern Company affiliate Georgia Power operates. (The letter, as noted above, also defended Southern Company’s boss.)

But real glue is probably the money. Everyone who signed the letter has received campaign contributions from AEP, or other coal interests, including the coal-hauling railroad CSX, which is also lobbying for a delay in the standards.

For a look at some recent and relevant campaign contributions, note http://bit.ly/pACeFm

This is meant to be illustrative and not an exhaustive look at all the campaign contributions. But I think the money explains more than anything why these 14 members were on the same page.

The most bizarre argument made in the letter, of course, is that the cleaner power companies are “rent seeking.” In fact, it has been the coal lobby that has profited for decades at the breathing public’s expense.

The pity is that these 14 members of Congress allowed themselves to be used as tools for the dirty-air companies.

Inhofe's kooky climate nitpicking at taxpayer's expense

2011-09-28T05:48:00.000-07:00

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is out with a kooky blast this morning
http://1.usa.gov/omfpEm
assailing the US EPA's "endangerment" finding that global warming poses a threat to health and the environment.

As you may recall, the EPA finding triggered new greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles and other EPA climate requirements.

Inhofe, the Senate's most infamous climate science skeptic, launched his new attack after receiving a still-unpublished report by EPA's Inspector General -- a report that Inhofe himself asked for. (Taxpayers paid $300,000 for this report, by the way.) The report is supposed to come out later today, but Inhofe has already used it, with some success, as a pr vehicle.

The report purports to challenge the process EPA used to make its finding. EPA, as you may recall, reviewed prior reports by the National Research Council and other experts.

Once you cut through all the bs, this is just silly bureaucratic nitpicking. And it's particularly ironic given that Inhofe loves to bash bureaucrats. I guess not when he is using the bureaucracy and taxpayer's dollars for his own pr purposes.

The report notes, by the way, that EPA

EPA fulfilled the statutory requirements for notice and comment rulemakings
mandated in the Administrative Procedure Act and in Section 307 of the CAA [Clean Air Act]

and that the Office of Management and Budget

believes that EPA reasonably interpreted

its requirements.

House of Reps votes to gut the Clean Air Act

2011-09-23T10:21:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives voted this afternoon to gut the Clean Air Act.

It passed the so-called TRAIN Act – the mother of all dirty-air bills. It was mainly a party-line vote.

This legislation would overturn 41 years of the Clean Air Act – as well as a unanimous Supreme Court ruling – to change the process for setting national clean air standards for widespread dangerous pollutants such as smog and soot. This is a change that big polluters have been seeking literally for decades. (As a callow young-ish reporter, I watched a similar attempt fail in the early years of the Ronald Reagan administration.)

The bill would also block plans to clean up deadly pollution from coal-burning power plants. This portion of the bill alone would mean tens of thousands of premature death from dirty air.

We can only hope that this vile polluter wish list ends up in the shredder. As you know, the White House has threatened a veto.

A more pressing concern is that all or part of this legislation could be attached to deficit, spending or other “must-pass” legislation.

As you know, some of the sponsors of this bill erroneously claimed yesterday that Clean Air Watch and other health and environmental groups supported this polluter dream. The bill sponsors have also mischaracterized this legislation as a mere “study” -- as if it were benign. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a polluter wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Indeed, this has been a bonanza for polluter lobbyists. I am told quite reliably that many of the members had virtually no idea what they were voting on. They were simply following slogans.

To see some examples of the misrepresentations, note that my friend, John Walke, with NRDC outlines some of the other bogus claims made during the debate:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/correcting_outright_misreprese.html

House Republicans "regret this error" in claiming that environmental groups support the dirty-air TRAIN Act

2011-09-22T17:10:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2011
CONTACT: Press Office
(202) 226-4972

Correction: Strong Support for TRAIN Act
Job Creators Urge Passage of H.R. 2401

***An earlier list included some groups that had not sent in letters of support. We regret this error and welcome additional support of H.R. 2401.***

Below is the list of supporters of the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act. Copies of some of the letters can be found here.

Aluminum Association
American Chemistry Council
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
American Forest & Paper Association
American Foundry Society
American Iron and Steel Institute
American Petroleum Institute (with 22 Signatories)
American Public Power Association (APPA)
Americans for Tax Reform
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
Associated Builders and Contractors
Associated General Contractors
Association of American Railroads
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Brick Industry Association
Coalition for Affordable American Energy
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Detroit Regional Chamber
Generators for Clean Air
Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA)
Industrial Minerals Association – North America
International Foodservice Distributors Association
Let Freedom Ring
Metalcasters Alliance for Government Affairs
Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Michigan Manufacturers Association
Midwest Power Coalition
National Association of Chemical Distributors
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
National Federation of Independent Businesses
National Industrial Sand Association
National Mining Association
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA)
National Rural Electric Cooperative Assocation (NRECA)
North American Die Casting Association
NVEnergy
OGE Energy
Pacificorp
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
Portland Cement Association
Public Service Company of New Mexico
Railway Tie Association
Salt River Project
Small Business Association of Michigan
Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates
The Fertilizer Institute
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
Tucson Electric Power Company
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
WEST Associates (public utilities)
Western Business Roundtable

###

ENERGY & COMMERCE ONLINE | PRESS RELEASE PERMALINK

House Republicans Falsely Claim Clean Air Watch, other enviro groups support dirty-air act

2011-09-22T16:55:00.000-07:00

from The Hill newspaper:

Republicans circulate false list of TRAIN Act supporters
By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman - 09/22/11 07:45 PM ET

The House Energy and Commerce Committee's GOP leadership inaccurately claimed Thursday that a number of green groups support legislation to delay – perhaps indefinitely – a pair of Environmental Protection Agency power plant pollution regulations.

On Thursday evening Republican committee staff a list of more than 100 groups that “have sent letters to Congress supporting passage” of the legislation, known as the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act.

The list includes a number of groups that have strongly opposed the bill, including the Texas chapter of Public Citizen, Clean Air Watch, the Clean Air Task Force and Clean Water Action.

“Depending on how charitably you’re feeling about the people who put the list together, it’s either a lie or a mistake,” Clean Water Action spokesman Jonathan Scott told The Hill.

Clean Air Watch President Frank O’Donnell was shocked when told by The Hill Thursday that his organization was on the list.

“Clean Air Watch unequivocally does not support that legislation. Any inference to the contrary is an obvious error,” Clean Air Watch President Frank O’Donnell said. “Is Lady Gaga on there too?”

O’Donnell’s group is one of the most outspoken critics of Republicans’ push to delay and block various EPA regulations.

“It’s the dirtiest of dirty air acts,” O’Donnell said, referring to the TRAIN Act.

Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, was equally perplexed.

“I don’t think we support the train act. In fact we oppose it,” he said when reached by phone Thursday night.
Stuart Ross, the communications director of the Clean Air Task Force, said his group does not support the bill. Ross said he would seek a retraction and an apology from Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) office.

“There is no way we would sign a letter in support of the TRAIN Act,” he told The Hill. “The TRAIN Act is one of the most aggressive and toxic bills ever introduced on the floor of the House from an environmental and public health standpoint.”
The list does include a number of groups that support the TRAIN Act, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute.

State and local clean air agencies urge Congress to reject "TRAIN" dirty-air act

2011-09-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

It took some real courage for these agencies to stand up to the bullies in Congress and tell the truth about the appalling damage the “TRAIN” act would cause.

Here is a link to the letter, with some highlights below:

http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/TRAINFINALNACAALetter092111.pdf

Above all, NACAA fears that H.R. 2401 will create potentially indefinite
delays in issuing important U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules
that are designed to prevent thousands of premature deaths and many more cases
of sickness throughout the country each year. H.R. 2401 would prohibit EPA
from taking final action on several critical rulemakings until six months after a
report is issued by a committee formed under the Act. For at least two of these
rules – the “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” (MATS) for power plants and the
“Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” (CSAPR) – this would mean a postponement of
at least 15 months and 19 months, respectively, in enactment of the crucial public
health protections afforded by these regulations. Furthermore, H.R. 2401 would
eliminate the statutory deadlines for ever issuing these regulations.

The public health consequences of these postponements are staggering: using EPA’s own data, if H.R. 2401 were enacted, the 15- and 19-month delays in the finalization of MATS and CSAPR could result in over 30,000 premature deaths, with an additional 25,000 deaths expected with every further year of delay...

In summary, NACAA is extremely concerned that H.R. 2401, if adopted, will create
regulatory delays that could lead to thousands of premature deaths, remove important regulatory tools upon which states and localities depend, impose additional costs on government as well as small businesses, create regulatory uncertainty, cause job losses and de-fund an important and cost-effective air pollution control program.

White House threatens to veto dirty-air TRAIN act...

2011-09-21T08:44:00.000-07:00

It is talking tough now http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr2401h_20110921.pdf

but what happens if the Republicans and dirty Dems roll some of this into "must-pass" spending and/or deficit legislation?

Will the WH still have the guts to do the right thing? It didn't on the smog decision.

House of Representatives readies vote on festival of dirty air: some things to look for

2011-09-20T06:09:00.000-07:00

Some of you outside the Beltway may not be aware of this (and even some inside the Beltway may not be aware of everything) so here is a quick heads up:

The House of Representatives is readying a vote on a festival of dirty air -- what my friend John Walke of NRDC has termed the “worst air pollution bill ever to reach the House floor.” http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/oppose_train_act_the_worst_air.html#.TniIJ6hmJ2w.twitter

The so-called TRAIN act is expected to come up for a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives this Friday. As a preliminary matter, the House Rules Committee will examine the legislation – and perhaps add some dirty-air amendments – this afternoon. http://rules.house.gov/Legislation/legislationDetails.aspx?NewsID=489

This legislation started out as a “study” (obviously written by the coal lobby and perhaps some coal-burning power companies) aimed at delaying critical EPA standards to reduce deadly pollution from coal-burning power plants.

But this legislation has gotten even worse as it makes its way through the system. As John notes, it was already changed by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) in such a way that it could permanently block needed power plant cleanup. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/image_uploads/Amendment_TRAIN_WhitfieldRoss_07.12.11.pdf

And even more trouble looms this afternoon as the Rules Committee examines possible amendments that could make the legislation even worse.

For example, this amendment http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/R_02_xml919111355325532.pdf suggested by Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) would block the EPA from moving ahead with much-needed standards to reduce the sulfur content of gasoline – permitting cleaner and more advanced motor vehicles and reducing the smog-forming pollution from every car on the road today.

Do I need to point out that the Kinzinger-Gonzalez plan was ghost-written by the oil industry, which opposes the fuel cleanup?

And an even more dangerous amendment has been put into the proverbial hopper by Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH)
http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/LATTA035919111118421842.pdf

This amendment is a direct attack on the heart of the Clean Air Act. It would overturn a Supreme Court decision and mandate that the EPA consider “feasibility and cost” when writing national air quality standards.

EPA today is supposed to set national clean-air standards based on science alone so we can know if the air is actually clean or dirty. And, yes, this amendment unfortunately may have been given some impetus by the recent cowardly and deceitful decision by the Obama White House to block EPA from setting new national standards for ozone. The White House has already floated the threat of a veto against the base “TRAIN” legislation. It will be interesting to see if the White House has enough guts to oppose the Latta amendment this afternoon.

EPA under attack again yet tomorrow... but what about the dirty air?

2011-09-13T11:22:00.000-07:00

Stabbed in the back by the White House on the smog issue, the EPA has become everyone’s favorite political whipping post. (One of the most painful bits of demagoguery came from Rep. Greg Waldren, R-OR, who accused the agency of being “on a jihad against jobs.”)

We saw it again today when a House Energy and Commerce panel voted to interfere with EPA plans to clean up deadly toxic emissions from industrial boilers and cement plants.

And tomorrow morning, the panel will be at it again. The target this time: pending and proposed standards to clean up electric power plants.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=8896

Based on the background information released by the subcommittee http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/091411/MEMO.pdf , we expect the focus will be to allege that EPA is trying to promote electricity blackouts.

There has already been plenty out there to refute this bogus charge (this study, for instance, http://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/MJBA%20Reliability%20Report%20Update%20June%207%202011.pdf and this one http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2011/07/rick-perry-take-note-utility-analyst.html)

But we still expect most of the witnesses will attack EPA. We know, for example, that the Texas witness on the second panel will basically espouse the Rick Perry view (on EPA, presumably not about Merck or Social Security).

But we also anticipate some mud-slinging from other witnesses for the prosecution, including the public service commissioners from Georgia, Missouri and West Virginia.

We thought it might make sense to put any such charges in context by taking a snapshot of this summer’s smog in those three states. The information, which we compiled as part of our Smog Watch survey http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2011/09/smog-watch-survey-finds-widespread-smog.html tracks the episodes of smog across America this year.

It turns out that Georgia has already had 39 days of “Code Orange” dirty air this year, through August. Missouri has had 27 days of “Code Orange” or “Code Red,” while West Virginia has had six days or “Code Orange” smog. (West Virginia’s air has improved significantly in the past 15 years because of limits on summer smog-forming emissions from power plants.) See below.

These statistics, of course, understate the true extent of the smog problem because they are based on the scientifically deficient Bush smog standards.

The bottom line here is that the leaders of this congressional panel are neglecting the consequences of dirty air in their quest to score political points.

**
2011 Ozone “Code Orange” and “Code Red” days in Missouri, West Virginia and Georgia
These are days in which at least one air pollution monitor in the state found unhealthful ozone readings based on the 2008 ozone standards set by the Bush administration of 75 parts per billion. All are “Code Orange” (ozone between 76 and 95 ppb) except where noted as “Code Red” (above 95 ppb).

Missouri – 27 days
April 13
June 1
June 2
June 7
June 9
June 30
July 1
July 5
July 10
July 15
July 16
July 18
July 22
July 25 [CodeRed]
July 26
July 28
July 29
July 31
August 1
August 2
August 5
August 6
August 18 [Code Red]
August 19
August 24
August 29
August 31

West Virginia – 6 days
June 6
July 1
July 2
July 6
July 21
August 1

Georgia –39 days
May 9
May 12
May 20
May 21
May 28
May 31
June 2
June 3
June 4
June 6
June 7
June 8
June 9
June 10
June 11
June 12
June 13
June 14
June 15
June 17
July 1
July 2
July 5
July 7
July 13
July 18
August 1
August 3
August 5
August 10
August 12
August 16
August 17
August 19
August 24
August 25
August 26
August 28
August 29
August 30

State and local air pollution authorities oppose House plan to block needed cleanup of toxic boilers and cement plants

2011-09-12T13:17:00.000-07:00

These are honest people. The anti-EPA zealots in the House should listen to their advice http://bit.ly/mRpIqr

Smog Watch Survey Finds Widespread Smog Problems

2011-09-12T06:48:00.001-07:00

CLEAN AIR WATCH SMOG SURVEY 2011
(though August 31)

States with “Code Orange” or “Code Red” smog problems in 2011 (smog levels worse than the weak standards set by the Bush administration in 2008) through August 31:
(39 plus DC)
Alabama*
Arizona*
Arkansas*
California*
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida*
Georgia*
Illinois*
Indiana*
Kansas*
Kentucky*
Louisiana*
Maine
Maryland*
Masssachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi*
Missouri*
Nevada*
New Hampshire
New Jersey*
New Mexico*
New York*
North Carolina*
Ohio*
Oklahoma*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island
South Carolina*
Tennessee*
Texas*
Utah*
Virginia*
West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
*=problems in August
Total “Code Orange” or “Code Red” smog days: 4,275 (1277 in August)
**

Compared to 2010 through August 31:

STATES WITH PROBLEMS

2010 (40)

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Total smog days 3,123 [912 in August 2010]

Great editorial in Newark Star Ledger on Obama's smog blunder

2011-09-05T07:20:00.000-07:00

President Obama caved on safer smog standards
Published: Sunday, September 04, 2011

By Star-Ledger Editorial Board

Tens of thousands of people are dying prematurely each year from breathing dirty air. Many more fall ill with asthma, bronchitis or heart attacks. But major polluters don’t want to talk about the smog that’s killing them.

They’d rather spin this into an economic threat. Dirty industries know they can exploit unemployment anxiety by howling that stronger standards under the Clean Air Act would lead to job losses.

And sadly, their Republican friends in Congress now have President Obama running scared. On Friday, he caved in to business lobbyists, abandoning his plan to tighten clean air rules to meet the standard set by scientists. Instead, he accepted the weaker rules set by President George W. Bush, who had simply ignored the counsel of his own scientists.

Putting off safer standards until after the 2012 election may be politically convenient, but it’s a huge loss to public heath. This policy isn’t based on solid arguments, or even public support. Nearly every industry, from food makers to airlines, must incur costs to make sure their products are safe. It’s just a part of doing business.

Americans know that. A national poll of likely voters from all parties, taken in June, found that 75 percent support stronger smog standards, and 66 percent believe scientists — not Congress — should establish clean air standards, according to the American Lung Association.

Safer smog standards would have saved as many as 4,300 lives and avoided as many as 2,200 heart attacks every year, advocates say. Cleaner air cuts down on missed work days, emergency room visits and hospital stays, saving billions in public health costs.

And despite all the alarmist talk from lobbyists about today’s fragile economy, the compliance costs wouldn’t have kicked in for several years, at the earliest.

Don’t forget the Clean Air Act also creates jobs.

Pollution control products are a multibillion-dollar industry. Scrubbers that clean smokestacks, diesel filters that trap smoke from trucks and catalytic converters that filter out harmful auto exhaust are all made by workers right here in the United States.

So let the EPA do its job and set standards based on science. The public deserves the truth about the quality of its air, not political games.

Mail to Clean Air Watch: reader would like to "beat some sense into you"

2011-09-04T06:14:00.000-07:00

Periodically we like to acknowledge some of the email we receive at Clean Air Watch. The item below was sent yesterday regarding our view of the cowardly and possibly illegal (see at
http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/2011/09/ozone-madness.html )
Obama decision to prevent the EPA from protecting people's health from smog.

[email]:

I see in the weekly Standard that you called the decision to shelve the latest EPA regulation “political cowardice”.
Apparently you "progressives" have no problem with destroying jobs and businesses to further your Marxist agenda.

You are aware that the air in this country is cleaner than any time in our history, aren't you? You are nothing more that a enviro-terrorist
hell bent on destroying the country. I would love to meet you face to face so I could beat some sense into you. Moron.

John Dendy
Atlanta

EPA gets failing grade for failure to strengthen carbon monoxide air standard

2011-08-15T11:22:00.000-07:00

This decision is disappointing. EPA does not deserve a passing grade for this one. EPA followed the wishes of the oil and car companies rather than the advice of the public health community.

The science advisers actually had urged the agency to consider tougher standards:

“[i]f the epidemiological evidence is given additional weight, the conclusion could be drawn that health effects are occurring at levels below the current standard, which would support the tightening of the current standard.” Taking this into account, the Panel further advised that “revisions that result in lowering the standard should be considered” (Brain and Samet, 2010b).

We can only hope this is not a precedent for the more crucial ozone decision.

Here is what our friends at the American Lung Association say about this:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Mary Havell
August 15, 2011 202-715-3459
mhavell@lungusa.org

EPA’s Decision to Retain Weak Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Standards
Fails to Protect Public Health
Targeted Roadside Monitoring Network to Let Public Know
Where Unhealthy Air Exists in Communities

Statement of Charles D. Connor, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Lung Association

WASHINGTON (August 15, 2011) –The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today reaffirmed the current the national air quality limits for carbon monoxide air pollution, and missed the opportunity to strengthen this standard. This is a disappoint ing step, and a sad 40th anniversary for these weak national standards, set in 1971. In this decision, EPA did not accept the Agency’s own evidence that the 1971 standards cannot protect public health, which is the sole purpose of the air quality standards. Nor did the EPA follow the recommendation by independent expert scientists who advise them, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to adopt stronger, more protective standards.

EPA did target the monitoring for this dangerous pollutant, a critical step to let the public know where unhealthy levels of this dangerous pollutant are in their communities. More than 45 million people who attend school, live near, commute, or work on or near transportation routes have their health placed at risk by exposure to carbon monoxide and other traffic pollutants. Lack of adequate monitoring has meant that they cannot adequately know the threats to their health, and has limited research and cleanup.

All areas in the nation currently comply with the 1971 standards. Levels have dropped significantly since the 1970s, thanks to reduced emissions from vehicle exhaust. Yet large, repeated epidemiological studies provide evidence that the public is harmed by carbon monoxide at levels currently found in our nation. EPA noted multiple epidemiological studies that found links between CO exposure well below the existing standards, and harm to public health, including increased risk for hospital admissions for children with asthma and for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as increased risk to people with cardiovascular disease.

Millions of Americans are unprotected by the current air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Children with asthma and adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be free to work or play outdoors without fear that air pollution will trigger asthma attacks or worsen their ability to breathe and send them to the hospital. People who live near or work on or near busy highways should not risk their lives and their health.

What the h is happening with EPA air standards for carbon monoxide?

2011-08-15T04:32:00.001-07:00

As you may recall, EPA was under a court deadline to make a decision by last Friday on whether to revise national air quality standards for carbon monoxide.

The OMB web site notes that OMB cleared the rule for takeoff on August 12. But so far, EPA has been silent. (Though it issued press releases for nine other issues that day – see below.)

As we reminded people recently, EPA’s science advisers urged the agency to set tougher new national outdoor air standards for this pollutant. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/99283699B101E63D8525773D003DEED9/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-013-unsigned.pdf

The scientists noted that air pollution levels of carbon monoxide have dropped over time (thanks largely to catalytic converters on cars). But they still urged tougher standards that reflect modern research.

But the EPA proposed in February to keep existing standards. Is that the final decision – blowing off the science advisers as did the much-criticized Bush EPA? Does that account for the lack of fanfare?

And is this a precedent for the much more controversial ozone standard? Let’s hope not.

**
EPA Press Releases Issued 8/12/2011

============================
1. EPA Update on Yellowstone River Oil Spill (Silvertip Pipeline), August 12th, 2011 2. EPA Announces 2011 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grants in Traverse City, Michigan 3. Lincoln, Neb., Selected to Receive Green Design Assistance 4. EPA to Begin Air Sampling at the Capital City Plume Site in Montgomery, AL 5. EPA Seeks Input on the Development of Drinking Water Perchlorate Regulation 6. EPA Issues Rule on Carbamate Wastes 7. EPA Partnering with State Capitals on Green Design and Economic Revitalization 8. EPA Provides District of Columbia with Green Design Assistance 9. EPA and National Park Service to Host Community Dialogue about Environmental Justice at Clark Atlanta University

What our friends at the Safe Climate Campaign say about new fuel economy deal

2011-07-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

SAFE CLIMATE CAMPAIGN
Dan Becker
Director, Safe Climate Campaign
Contact: Dan Becker
202-328-0007
For Immediate Release

Statement On The Obama Administration’s Emissions And Mileage Standards

While the president’s proposal is a significant acceleration in the fight against global warming and oil addiction, it was weakened by auto industry lobbying.
Automakers have seeded it with loopholes that weaken the oil, pollution and gas-pump savings.

Specifically, automakers demanded and won standards that are weaker for trucks than for cars and even weaker for large pick-ups. They got credits for air conditioning, electric vehicles and even something called “active transmission warm-up.”

An auto industry that owes its survival to taxpayer bailouts ungratefully flouted the public’s demand for fuel efficiency and less pollution, fighting for loopholes until the bitter end. We will use every opportunity, including the mid-term review that the automakers demanded, to strengthen the standards.

In the year before these new standards become final, we call on the Obama administration to close the loopholes, and on the auto industry to make greater use of technology, to tamp down emissions and improve mileage. That is the only way we will begin to fight our oil addiction, spend less at the pump, clean up our atmosphere and help make the American auto industry competitive in the global market.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council estimate that in 2030 the standards will save as much as:

280 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,
1.5 million Barrels per day of gasoline,
$80 billion at the gas pump.

# # #

The Safe Climate Campaign is an environmental organization that advocates strong measures to fight global warming.

EPA proposes new air standards for "fracking" -- standards that will save industry money

2011-07-28T12:06:00.000-07:00

For an agency that is frequently attacked as "job killing," this new EPA proposal should make people sit up and take note.

EPA has proposed new clean air requirements that not only would reduce pollution but save industry money!

These are proposed air standards for "fracking" and related oil and gas extraction activities.

As EPA notes:

An estimated 11,400 new wells are fractured each year; another 14,000 are re-fractured to stimulate production or to produce natural gas from a different production zone.

As you may know, gas extraction is causing new smog problems in places like Wyoming and Utah that historically were pretty "clean."

EPA's proposal would

cut smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions by nearly one-fourth across the oil and gas industry, including a nearly 95 percent reduction in VOCs emitted from new and modified hydraulically fractured gas wells. This significant reduction would be accomplished primarily through use of a proven technology to capture natural gas that currently escapes to the air. That gas would then be made available for sale.

The estimated revenues from selling the gas that currently goes to waste are significant – so much so that today’s proposed rule is anticipated to quickly result in a net savings of nearly $30 million annually, while significantly reducing pollution from this expanding industry.

I wonder if any of EPA's critics will now say something nice about the agency?

Big oil plans new assault on smog standard with ad campaign, etc

2011-07-27T08:37:00.000-07:00

Below is an item making the rounds of the DC press corps. The oil industry is planning a new phase of its propaganda campaign against EPA setting national smog standards that might actually be based on science and protect people's health.

According to this advisory, the American Petroleum Institute will unveil a new "study" which undoubtedly will exaggerate the cost of meeting tougher new smog standards. (The industry has a 40-year track record of being dead wrong about the costs of clean air controls.)

And a new "ad campaign." Undoubtedly more mindless propaganda. Somehow I doubt the ad campaign will talk about industry's pretty healthy profits. (Conoco Phillips just reported healthy earnings today.)

The Obama administration has shown weakness on this. And the oil companies obviously believe they can exploit that.

**

API releases new study on EPA’s ozone NAAQS regulations ahead of meeting
with White House officials
Conference call with reporters on Thursday, July 28, at 10:00 am Please join API officials for a press conference call prior to a meeting on EPA’s ozone NAAQS regulations between API and The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Dr. Anne E. Smith, an economist with NERA Economic Consulting, will present the results of a new study challenging EPA’s cost benefit analysis for the proposed ozone rule. API will comment on the most recent delay in the EPA final rule and also announce a new ad campaign going into the final days of the ozone NAAQS debate.
There will also be a question and answer session.
What: Conference call on EPA’s ozone NAAQS regulations

Who: Howard Feldman, API director of scientific and regulatory policy
Khary Cauthen, API director of government affairs
Anne Smith, senior vice president of NERA Economic Consulting

When: Thursday, July 28, 2011

10:00 am ET

Phone: (800) 374-2418
Conference ID: 869 95 212

Please RSVP by replying to carrollc@api.org or by calling API media relations at 202-682-8114.

This call is open to credentialed media only.

Rick Perry take note: utility analyst reports Texas can meet cross-state pollution rule simply by running scrubbers more!

2011-07-27T05:59:00.000-07:00

As you may recall, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was among those loudly attacking the recent EPA “cross-state” pollution rule designed to reduce drifting power plant pollution. “Heavy-handed and misguided” is how the potential presidential candidate described it.

But now it appears that Perry himself may have been misguided – and certainly heavy-handed.

A new research report by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. concludes that Texas could comply with the standards simply by turning on existing scrubbers! See highlights below.

It now appears as if the complaints by Perry and other Texas officials were ill-informed to say the least. It’s a classic case of industry-generated hysteria without a basis in fact.

Industry has whipped up the same kind of hysteria about EPA’s upcoming smog decision. This case study should be a lesson.

Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.,

U.S. Utilities: Can Texas Comply With The Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule? Yes, If Existing Scrubbers Are Turned On
U.S. Utilities
July 20, 2011
Hugh Wynne (Senior Analyst) • hugh.wynne@bernstein.com • +1-212-823-2692
Highlights

• On July 7th, 2011, the EPA published the final version of its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), a regulation that will cap the annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in 23 eastern states, and set limits on summer emissions of NOx in an additional five states. The states covered by CSAPR account for over three quarters of U.S. coal fired generation.

• The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule finalizes regulations issued in draft form on July 6, 2010. The EPA's draft regulation was entitled the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR). While CSAPR imposes annual SO2 and NOx emissions limits on Texas, CATR did not.

• After the release of the rule, Texas' utilities, regulator and politicians, as well as sell-side analysts on Wall Street, claimed that the rule could potentially cause widespread retirements and costly upgrades.  Energy Future Holdings warned investors that due to CSAPR it would "likely incur material capital expenditures and operating costs and experience material revenue decreases due to reduced generation."

 Bryan Shaw, Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, argued that, "This rule
will impose great costs on coal-fired power plants, causing some to shut down or curtail operations, threatening the state's electrical capacity reserve margins needed to avoid power disruption during times of peak demand."

 On Wall Street, sell-side analysts calculated that CSAPR puts 4.6 GW of lignite coal-fired capacity in Texas at risk of retirement.

• The EPA, by contrast, contends that in formulating CSAPR it set the 2012 SO2 budget for Texas at a level that can be achieved simply through the continuous use of existing flue gas desulfurization equipment.

• In this research note, we analyze the potential for the state of Texas to comply with CSAPR without costly upgrades or plant closures.

 We have analyzed the hourly SO2 emissions rate for each coal fired unit in Texas that is equipped with an SO2 scrubber. By plotting the distribution of these hourly emissions rates, we have determined the number of hours that each scrubber is in operation. We then assessed the impact on SO2 emissions of running these existing scrubbers continuously.

 We also assessed the emissions reductions potentially achievable by coal fired units that currently lack SO2 scrubbers. Specifically, we determine the level of SO2 emissions these units have historically achieved when burning lower sulfur coal.

• We find that if coal fired generating units in Texas were to run their existing scrubbers continuously, and if unscrubbed units were to achieve the SO2 emissions rates they have historically when burning lower sulfur coal, the state of Texas could likely comply with its SO2 budget under CSAPR in 2012.

Investment Conclusion

In this research note, we analyze the potential for the state of Texas to comply with CSAPR without costly upgrades or plant closures. We find that if Texas utilities were simply to run their existing scrubbers continuously, and switch unscrubbed units to lower sulfur coal, Texas could likely comply with its SO2 budget under CSAPR in 2012.

Individual Texas utilities, however, may find that under these circumstances their 2012 emissions of SO2 may exceed their allocation under CSAPR of SO2 allowances. We have therefore analyzed the impact on individual utilities of the need to purchase (or the opportunity to sell) SO2 emission allowances, assuming a price per ton of $700, as per the EPA's modeling.

Our analysis suggests that Energy Future Holdings would be required to buy SO2 allowances to cover its emissions, resulting in an incremental annual cost of $15 million. We calculate that Xcel Energy (XEL) would be required to spend $7 million to buy the required allowances.
We note that Xcel Energy (XEL), as a regulated utility, could pass through this cost to its customers, while Energy Future Holdings, as a competitive generator, would see its after-tax earnings reduced by an estimated $10 million annually.

On the other hand, NRG Energy (NRG) would likely benefit from the sale of excess SO2 allowances,
potentially adding $5 million to annual revenues. We calculate that American Electric Power (AEP) might also have an excess of allowances, worth $1 million annually to the company.

New York Times editorial: President Obama should support EPA on smog decision

2011-07-27T05:23:00.000-07:00

EDITORIAL
A Decision for Clean Air

Published: July 27, 2011

Federal mandates under the 1970 Clean Air Act have produced cleaner cars, fuels and factories, significantly improving the air Americans breathe. Yet the underlying standards setting limits on ground-level ozone, the main component of harmful smog, have remained unchanged since 1997 - even as science has made it abundantly clear that the standard is still not strong enough to protect public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency has drawn up new and tighter rules, but the final decision rests with President Obama. The White House is under relentless pressure from industry and some legislators to keep the current rules. Mr. Obama should support the agency.

The new rules would force large sections of the country to produce new cleanup plans to reduce pollution, requiring new investment in cleaner power plants and factories. "This is a jobs election. These are job killers," John Engler, the former Michigan governor, said last week as he and his colleagues on the Business Roundtable pressed their case with the White House.

Mr. Engler is wrong. Costs almost always turn out to be more manageable than industry forecasts, and new investments can mean more jobs, not fewer. The main issue is health, not jobs. The E.P.A. has a clear obligation under the law (reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2001) to set standards protecting public health "with an adequate margin of safety," based on the latest science.

The current ozone standards - 80 parts per billion - were set in 1997 by Carol Browner, then President Bill Clinton's E.P.A. administrator, after a similarly ferocious battle with industry. It was the best Ms. Browner could get at the time. Within a decade, new research showed that harmful respiratory effects occur at much lower levels. Experts began calling for a much more protective standard of between 60 parts to 70 parts per billion.

True to its practice of ignoring politically inconvenient science, the administration of George W. Bush set the standard at 75 parts per billion in 2008. This was immediately challenged in court by public health groups. Lisa Jackson, the current E.P.A. administrator, has now asked the White House to let her set the standard between 60 parts and 70 parts per billion, consistent with the science. Setting the number at the lower end of the range would obviously do the most good.

The White House is nervous about critics who claim that that E.P.A. is issuing too many new rules - on greenhouse gases, fuel economy standards and toxic pollutants like mercury. All of these rules are overdue, and protecting the environment and public health is the agency's job. President Obama cannot allow politics to trump science.

Senator Carper to EPA: "Move Quickly" on smog standard

2011-07-26T12:47:00.000-07:00

FOR RELEASE: July 26, 2011
CONTACT: Emily Spain (202) 224-2441

Sen. Carper Responds to Senate Letter to EPA Regarding Air Quality Standard; Reacts to EPA Decision to Delay Standard's Release

WASHINGTON – Today, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air, responded to a Senate letter urging the U.S. Environmental and Protection Agency (EPA) to not finalize its proposed air quality standards for ground level ozone. He also responded to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's decision to delay the release of the new air quality standard. Sen. Carper's statement follows:

"Our current ozone standard was put into place in 1997 and is outdated, ineffective and inadequate. Both the Bush and the Obama Administrations have concluded that this standard fails to sufficiently protect public health. Failing to update this ozone standard would continue to leave thousands of Delawareans – and millions of Americans – vulnerable to the harmful effects of ozone air pollution. Failing to update the ozone standard also creates challenges for states. This outdated standard leaves states in limbo about what requirements they need to meet and forces states to continue to postpone the significant decisions that need to be made to clean up our air.

"EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has told me and others that the pending lawsuit brought by 14 states and other environmental groups was too strong for her agency to fight. Instead of wasting taxpayer resources to fight a lawsuit, the EPA has worked with the courts and the petitioners on a time line for a new rule. Both the petitioners and courts have been very lenient in giving the agency additional time to finalize the ozone standard. Failure to finalize this standard would likely result in the EPA being quickly and successfully sued, which would take away the agency's ability to work with states to give them the flexibility they need to meet these requirements. The lawsuit will also likely require tighter timetables for implementation.

"I do not believe that we can continue to delay on this matter. I urge the EPA to move quickly to finalize its plans for the new ozone air quality standard so that our nation can finally move forward to make the ozone reductions we need to achieve cleaner, healthier air."

###

American Lung Assn. assails "untenable" latest smog decision delay by Obama Administration

2011-07-26T10:59:00.001-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Mary Havell
July 26, 2011 202-715-3459
mhavell@lungusa.org

President Obama’s Decision to Miss the Health Standard
Deadline is Untenable

Fourth Delay of Lifesaving Smog Standard Means Millions of People Must Breathe Dangerous Levels of Deadly Pollutant With No Relief In Sight

Statement of Charles D. Connor, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Lung Association

Washington, DC. (July 26, 2011) -- The American Lung Association is gravely disappointed President Obama will not complete the national air quality standard for ozone, or smog by the July 29 deadline. Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an unwarranted fourth delay in a year for that lifesaving clean air standard. This untenable delay means more will get sick and more will die. There is no possible acceptable excuse for this decision.

This past summer has seen day after day of unhealthy levels of the nation’s most widespread and one of the most dangerous air pollutants. Delay in setting the standard mean delay in putting clean-up measures in place that can reduce ozone and protect the health of millions of people.
Ozone air pollution causes premature death, asthma attacks, and difficulty breathing. Ozone can send people with lung disease, like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, to the emergency room and the hospital. The public has a right to know when the level of air pollution in their community can harm their health. An American Lung Association poll shows that the public strongly supports and expects the EPA to set the health standard for ozone smog.

Big corporate polluters and some in Congress have placed intense pressure on the White House, trying to weaken the standard or to ignore the Clean Air Act. We urge the President to recognize that the polluters’ tired and discredited arguments are no more valid now than they were when they first trotted them out decades ago. Protecting public health is the central tenet of the Clean Air Act. We urge the adoption of the strongest, most protective ozone standard under consideration: 60 parts per billion.

The Clean Air Act requires the establishment of a national air quality standard that defines the limit on the amount of ozone pollution that can be in the air nationwide. In 2008, the American Lung Association and others filed litigation in federal court on the inadequate and unlawful ozone standard set by the Bush Administration. We are again exploring with counsel our legal options.

###

White House begins review of national air standards for carbon monoxide

2011-07-24T08:11:00.001-07:00

Here is an item perhaps lost in the shuffle over big polluter opposition to any strengthening of national clean air standards for ozone, or smog:

The White House Office of Management and Budget has also begun reviewing a final EPA decision on national clean air standard for another widespread pollutant – carbon monoxide -- a pollutant deadly at high levels. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html (It is so toxic that the ancient Greeks and Romans used it to execute people.)

As you may recall, EPA’s science advisers urged the agency to set tougher new national outdoor air standards for this pollutant. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/99283699B101E63D8525773D003DEED9/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-013-unsigned.pdf

The scientists noted that air pollution levels of carbon monoxide have dropped over time (thanks largely to catalytic converters on cars). But they still urged tougher standards that reflect modern research.

But the EPA proposed in February to keep existing standards.

Public health experts have testified that EPA’s proposal blew it – and that agency should set tougher clean air standards.

DC hits "Code Red"... as polluters seek House help to cripple new smog standards

2011-07-22T05:25:00.001-07:00

At the very least, it is an irony of timing.

As you may be aware, our nation’s capital is under a “code red” smog alert today because of the continued heat and stagnant air. Check EPA’s official forecast for the day: http://airnow.gov/

(By the way, “Code Red” means the air is REALLY bad!. A “Code Orange” alert means the air violates the Bush administration’s smog standard, which is under official review because it is scientifically inadequate. No wonder there are reports of increased hospital admissions. As CBS Evening News reported last night, not only are more people heading to emergency rooms, they are sicker because of the filthy air.)

The polluters picked this very day to make a pitch to key House Republicans to kill EPA’s attempt to set new standards based on sound science. As Politico Morning Energy notes today:

Industry representatives are slated to meet Friday with E&C chairman Fred Upton and his deputy on energy issues, Ed Whitfield, to discuss the EPA's ozone standard, according to industry groups. The American Petroleum Institute requested the meeting and invited the same groups that met last week with EPA chief Lisa Jackson on the issue, including the American Chemistry Council, the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Forest and Paper Association, the National Petrochemical Refiners Association and the National Oilseed Processing Association.

Upton, Whitfield and friends are already seeking to delay cleanup of smog-producing coal-fired power plants.

Will they now try to meddle in the science of smog in order to help out industry buddies? We hope they stand down and let EPA set standards based on science, as we and many other groups noted yesterday in our letter to President Obama. http://t.co/B7yEzzg

A final note, for now: do you think the polluter big-wigs will share a cab to this meeting to cut down on smog-producing emissions?

Hundreds of health and environmental groups urge President Obama to let EPA set a strong smog standard

2011-07-21T09:45:00.000-07:00

http://bit.ly/oLOwwe

An Open Letter to President Obama from
Groups Protecting Public Health

July 21, 2011

Dear Mr. President:

The undersigned organizations and our members and supporters – representing the health,medical, consumer, faith, community-based, environmental -communities – urge you to protect public health and the environment by supporting more protective standards forground-level ozone (smog).
Ozone, the primary component of smog, is the nation’s most pervasive air pollutant. Millions of Americans live in areas where the air pollution exceeds the levels where adverse health effects
occur.

Studies show that on days with elevated levels of ozone pollution, people suffer more asthma attacks, increased respiratory difficulty, and reduced lung function. Ozone even causes premature death. The effects are worse for sensitive populations including children, the
elderly, and people with asthma and other respiratory illness.

We call for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set a primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone at the most protective end of the range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and a secondary standard sufficient to protect
forests and plants throughout the nation from ozone damage as recommended by CASAC and the National Park Service. These standards, based on health science, are required to be set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety.

After extensive review, CASAC on March 30, 2011, unanimously advised EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that the scientific evidence strongly supports a new primary ozone standard. The EPA estimates that setting a standard at the lower end of the range recommended by CASAC would save over 10,000 lives annually.

Throughout the years, the Clean Air Act has built a solid science and health foundation, making it one of the nation’s most effective public health laws. By saving millions of lives, avoiding millions of cases of pollution-related illness, and preventing millions of lost work
days, the Clean Air Act has also been an economic success story. The total benefits of the Clean Air Act between 1990 and 2010 exceeded total costs by an estimated 35 to 1.

Efforts to reduce ground-level ozone concentrations have also been successful, with levels declining in many cities, including Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Houston and Milwaukee over the last decade. But millions of Americans including children, the elderly and people of
color are still regularly exposed to smog levels that are unhealthy; as a result hundreds of thousands more are sick and tens of thousands die.

Now that the science is clear that the standards for ground-level ozone must be much tighter in order to protect public health, EPA has an obligation to follow the science. The agency should do so promptly by mid-summer as promised, in order to start the long overdue process
of delivering clean air to the American people.We urge you to act now and support truly protective ozone standards.

Sincerely,

Alabama
American Lung Association in Alabama
Cahaba Riverkeeper
Children's Environmental Protection
Alliance and Community Forums
Alaska
American Lung Association in Alaska
GillepsieHall Health and Wellness
Marketing
Western Resource Advocates
Arizona
American Lung Association in Arizona
Arizona Asthma Coalition
Arizona PIRG (Arizona Public Interest
Research Group)
Arkansas
American Lung Association in Arkansas
California
American Lung Association in California
California Public Health Association-North
California Thoracic Society
Center for Biological Diversity
Citizen's Coalition for a Safe Community
Coalition for Clean Air
COFEM - Consejo de Federaciones
Mexicanas
East Yard Communities for Environmental
Justice
Energy Independence Now
Environmental Law Foundation
Healthy Child Healthy World
KyotoUSA
Loma Linda University School of Medicine,
Division of Neonatology
Mercy Center for Lung and Esophageal
Surgery
Physicians for Social
Responsibility/Sacramento
Rose Foundation for Communities and the
Environment
SF-Bay Area Physicians for Social
Responsibility
San Francisco Asthma Task Force
Siskiyou County Public Health Dept.
Colorado
American Lung Association in Colorado
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Colorado Conservation Voters
National Environmental Health Association
Connecticut
American Lung Association in Connecticut
The Great Land Conservation Trust
Delaware
American Lung Association in Delaware
Pulmonary Associates, Newark Delaware
District of Columbia
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Heart Association
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Heart Association
American Lung Association in the District
of Columbia
American Public Health Association
American Thoracic Society
Clean Air Watch
Clean Water Action
Community Action Partnership
Earth Justice
Energy Action Coalition
Environment America
Environmental Defense Fund
ENE (Environment Northeast)
Friends Committee on National Legislation
League of Conservation Voters
National Association of County & City
Health Officials
National Hispanic Environmental Council
(NHEC)
Natural Resources Defense Council
Outdoor Alliance
Sierra Club
US Climate Action Network
Florida
American Lung Association in Florida
Common Ground for Conservation
Voces Verdes
Georgia
American Lung Association in Georgia
Atlanta Bicycle Coalition
Citizens for Progressive Transit
Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda
Earth Covenant Ministry
Environmental Community Action Inc
Environment Georgia
GEORGIA Women's Action for New
Directions
Mothers & Others for Clean Air
Hawaii
American Lung Association in Hawaii
Idaho
American Lung Association in Idaho
Climate Solutions
Illinois
American Lung Association in Illinois
Citizens Against Ruining the Environment
(CARE)
Doctors Council SEIU
Easter Seals
Eco-Justice Collaborative
Environment Illinois
Environmental Law & Policy Center
Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coalition
Respiratory Health Association of
Metropolitan Chicago
Southeast Environmental Task Force
Indiana
American Lung Association in Indiana
Indiana Toxics Action Project
Save the Valley
Valley Watch, Inc.
Iowa
American Lung Association in Iowa
Iowa Environmental Council
Kansas
American Lung Association in Kansas
Kentucky
American Lung Association in Kentucky
Louisiana
American Lung Association in Louisiana
Louisiana Bucket Brigade
Maine
American Lung Association in Maine
Bangor Area Public Health Advisory Board
Coastal Healthy Communities Coalition
The Choose To Be Healthy Partnership
Friends of Acadia
Healthy Aroostook
Healthy Communities of the Capital Area
Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine
Lamey-Wellehan Shoes
LIVE HEALTHY
Maine Medical Association
Maine People's Alliance
Maine Public Health Association
Piscataquis Public Health Council
Maryland
American Lung Association in Maryland
Crabshell Alliance
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Chesapeake Physicians for Social
Responsibility
Playworkz Learning Centers
Massachusetts
American Lung Association in
Massachusetts
Environment Massachusetts
Conservation Law Foundation
MA Association for School-Based Health
Care, Inc.
MassCOSH
Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition
Union of Concerned Scientists
Michigan
American Lung Association in Michigan
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Saginaw Black Nurses Association
The West Michigan Environmental Action
Council
Tri-County Asthma Coalition
Minnesota
American Lung Association in Minnesota
Environment Minnesota
Will Steger Foundation
Mississippi
American Lung Association in Mississippi
Missouri
American Lung Association in Missouri
Environment Missouri
Concerned Citizens of Perryville
StraightUp Solar
Montana
American Lung Association in Montana
Citizens for a Better Flathead
Climate Solutions
Montana Audubon
Montana Association of Cardiac and
Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Montana Conservation Voters
Montana Environmental Information Center
Montana League of Women Voters
Montana Nurses Association
Montana Public Health Association
Park County Environmental Council
Nebraska
American Lung Association in Nebraska
Nevada
American Lung Association in Nevada
New Hampshire
American Lung Association in New
Hampshire
Appalachian Mountain Club
Children's Alliance of New Hampshire
Crotix
Greenovations
Green New Hampshire Audubon
New Jersey
American Lung Association in New Jersey
Environment New Jersey
New Jersey YMCA State Alliance
New Mexico
American Lung Association in New Mexico
Environment New Mexico
WildEarth Guardians
New York
Adirondack Mountain Club
American Lung Association in New York
Clean Air Coalition of Western New York
Environmental Advocates of New York
Environment New York
Haven of Hope Foundation Inc.
Healthy Schools Network
New York City Environmental Justice
Alliance
New York State Thoracic Society
Pace Energy and Climate Center
Renewable Energy Long Island
Transportation Alternatives
Tri-State Transportation Campaign
UPROSE
US Environmental Watch
North Carolina
American Lung Association in North
Carolina
Clean Air Carolina
Cleveland County Asthma Coalition;
Shelby, NC
NC Conservation Network
NC League of Conservation Voters
Pitt County Memorial Hospital
R D Coates & Assoc
Western North Carolina Alliance
North Dakota
American Lung Association in North Dakota
Presentation Sisters
Ohio
American Lung Association in Ohio
Energy Action Coalition
Environmental Health Watch
Environment Ohio
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio Interfaith Power and Light
Ohio Public Health Association
Silvertip Productions, Ltd.
Oklahoma
American Lung Association in Oklahoma
Oregon
American Lung Association in Oregon
Climate Solutions
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Interfaith Network for Earth Concerns, A
Program of
Northwest Environmental Defense Center
Pennsylvania
Allergy Asthma and Immunology Section of
Penn State University
American Lung Association in Pennsylvania
The Center for the Celebration of Creation
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future
Clean Air Council
Conservation Consultants, Inc.
Group Against Smog and Pollution
Healthy Communities Partnership of
Greater Franklin County
Health Educators for Cultural Diversity
HMJ PATCH Program
InRegion Sustainability Consulting LLC
Mission Incorporated
Northwest Pennsylvania Green Economy
Taskforce (NWPAGE)
PA Public Health Association
PASNAP
Pennsylvania Coalition of Nurse
Practitioners
Philadelphia Physicians for Social
Responsibility
Sadler Health Center Corp
Students for Environmental Action
United Steelworkers Local 404
Veterinary Medical Specialists of
Pittsburgh, Inc.
Women for a Healthy Environment
Rhode Island
American Lung Association in Rhode Island
Environmental Justice League of Rhode
Island
Childhood Lead Action Project
Rhode Island State Nurses Association
RICOSH
South Carolina
American Lung Association in South
Carolina
Conservation Voters of South Carolina
South Dakota
American Lung Association in South
Dakota
Tennessee
American Lung Association in Tennessee
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Texas
American Lung Association in Texas
Downwinders at Risk
Environment Texas
Flower Mound Shares
FracDallas
Health Professionals for Clean Air
Trinity- First Weekday Ministries
Utah
American Lung Association in Utah
Breathe Utah
HEAL Utah
Utah Chapter of the American Academy of
Pediatrics
Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club
Utah Moms for Clean Air
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment
Wasatch Clean Air Coalition
Vermont
American Lung Association in Vermont
Idle-Free VT Inc.
Vermont Public Health Association
Vermont Public Interest Research Group
(VPIRG)
Virginia
American Lung Association in Virginia
Health Care Without Harm
Washington
American Lung Association in Washington
Climate Solutions
Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith
Power & Light
Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological
Disorders
Washington Asthma Initiative
West Virginia
American Lung Association in West Virginia
Wisconsin
American Lung Association in Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Lung Association of Wyoming
Midwest Environmental Advocates
Saving Our Air Resource
Wisconsin Environment
Wisconsin Asthma Coalition

Business Roundtable ramps up eleventh-hour scare campaign against EPA smog standard

2011-07-15T09:23:00.001-07:00

It should come as no surprise that the Business Roundtable is ramping up an eleventh-hour scare campaign in an effort to block tougher national air standards for ozone, or smog. See the hysterical e-mail below. As one of my friends put it, “lires and damned lies.”

(I guess the timing is no surprise as EPA Administrator Lisa Johnson is scheduled to sit down today with big business execs. It is interesting to note that this attack on EPA was sent not to Jackson, but to White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley. Really dirty pool to do this, don’t you think?)

A couple of quick rejoinders: There is no way the EPA standard would cost anywhere near a trillion dollars. Anyone want to bet on it?

And, no, the EPA action is not discretionary. The Bush administration ignored EPA’s science advisers as it caved in to the Business Roundtable and its ilk. As Jackson noted in a letter this week to Senator Carper, that standard was not based on science and so it was obviously illegal. EPA is only trying to fix the Bush mess in accordance with the law.

It’s no surprise the Business Roundtable wants to delay a decision until 2013. I’m sure most of its members are hoping the President in 2013 is named something other than Obama.

Daley ought to busy himself with other matters and not fall for this all-too-obvious ploy.

**

From: Larry Burton [mailto:rreynolds@businessroundtable.org]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:56 AM
To:
Subject: New Ozone Regulation Could Cost Nearly $1 Trillion Over Ten Years

Share This:

July 15, 2011

New Ozone Regulation Could Cost Nearly $1 Trillion Over Ten Years

U.S. Business Leaders Say ‘Single Most Expensive Environmental Regulation Ever Imposed on the U.S. Economy’ Threatens Job Creation, Economic Recovery

In a letter delivered today to President Obama’s Chief of Staff, William Daley, Andrew Liveris, Chairman & CEO of The Dow Chemical Company, writing on behalf of Business Roundtable, said:
• “…[E]stimated by EPA to cost anywhere between $20 and $90 billion annually…the ozone rule…threatens to seriously impede economic expansion by classifying literally hundreds of counties across the United States as nonattainment for ozone for the first time.”
• “…[T]hese counties risk losing jobs when businesses respond to the higher costs and uncertainty by closing marginal facilities and siting new facilities elsewhere, including outside the U.S.”
• “…[T]he ozone [regulation]…is discretionary and is not required by statute or court order.”
• “The next scheduled statutory review of the ozone standard is in 2013 and the scientific panel convened by EPA to review the latest scientific evidence is already half way through their work.”
• “We…urge the Administration to let this panel complete its work and recommend in 2013 whether the ozone standard should be changed.”

Business Roundtable (BRT) is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with nearly $6 trillion in annual revenues and more than 13 million employees. BRT member companies comprise nearly a third of the total value of the U.S. stock market and invest more than $114 billion annually in research and development – nearly half of all private U.S. R&D spending. Our companies pay more than $179 billion in dividends to shareholders.

BRT companies give nearly $9 billion a year in combined charitable contributions.

This email was sent to To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list.

manage your preferences | opt out using TrueRemove®.

Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.

Public health groups protest what appears to be AEP ghostwritten resolution for utility regulatory commissioners

2011-07-14T15:22:00.000-07:00

As you may know, battles over clean air often take place over a number of battlefields.

You will recall that American Electric Power, one of the dirtiest and most recalcitrant of the nation's power companies, has tried in vain to enlist Senate sponsors of a bill AEP wrote to delay vital EPA clean air standards for coal-fired power plants.

Now AEP appears to be trying to score on a different battlefield -- next week's summer meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in Los Angeles.

A utility commissioner from West Virginia (where AEP is influential),Jon McKinney, is sponsoring a resolution that seems to have come right out of the old AEP word processor.

Once you wade through all the "Whearases," you can see the game here is to get NARUC to endorse a scheme to permit dirty power companies to delay compliance with EPA clean air requirements, including its recent Cross-State Pollution Rule and its upcoming plan to limit mercury and toxic emissions from power plants. AEP obviously thinks an endorsement from NARUC would bolster its case in Congress. The resolution is quite explicit on this point.

Public health groups, having gotten wind of this dirty air-ploy, are protesting vociferously. A letter from public health groups is directly below, followed by the suggested dirty-air resolution:

American Lung Association
American Public Health Association
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Trust for America’s Health

July 14, 2011

VIA FACSIMILE
Chuck Gray,
Executive Director
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
1101 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Gray:
On behalf of the undersigned public health and medical organizations, we write to express our strong opposition to Resolution EL-3: Promoting Congressional Action for Increased Flexibility for the Implementation of EPA Rulemakings. Without question, this resolution will
delay improvements in public health and hinder the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) ability to implement the Clean Air Act.

During your deliberations next week, we ask that you take into account the tremendous public health costs associated with fossil-fuel power plants. The regulations that the EPA has recently finalized and proposed are years overdue. In the case of the Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics proposal, the standards for these plants are nearly 20-years past due. The updated
standards that EPA is implementing are designed to protect public health and reduce health care costs for all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes, including: cancer, asthma attacks, strokes, emergency department visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths.

The recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will improve air quality for more than half of the states. This rule will save up to 34,000 lives each year and prevent over 400,000 asthma attacks, 19,000 admissions to the hospital or emergency department and 15,000 nonfatal heart
attacks.

Implementation of and compliance with the proposed Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics Rule will result in the annual prevention of approximately: 17,000 premature deaths; 11,000 heart attacks; 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms; 12,000 hospitalizations and emergency room visits; and 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children.

Congress first required EPA to clean up toxic air pollution from industries in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Coal-using electric utilities have successfully delayed having to comply since then. It is time for these plants to get clean and for public health gains to be realized.

We ask you to support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken,delay or block progress toward the continued implementation of this vital law. We urge you to reject EL 3 and stand up for public health.

Thank you for considering our position. Should you want to discuss our position in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact Peter Iwanowicz of the American Lung Association at (202) 785-3355.

Sincerely,
American Lung Association
American Public Health Association
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Trust for America’s Health

cc: Garry Brown, Chair of the Electricity Committee
Jeanne M. Fox, Chair of the Energy Resource and the Environment Committee
Timothy A. Simon, Chair Natural Gas Committee

[and here is the resolution noted above:]

EL-3 Resolution on Promoting Congressional Action for Increased Flexibility for the Implementation of EPA Rulemakings WHEREAS, The Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) adopted a resolution on the Role of State Regulatory Policies in the
Development of Federal Environmental Regulations on February 16, 2011; including the following statements

! WHEREAS, NARUC at this time takes no position regarding the merits of these EPA rulemakings; and ! WHEREAS, Such regulations under consideration by EPA could pose significant challenges for the electric power sector and the State Regulatory Commissions with respect to the economic burden, the feasibility of implementation by the contemplated deadlines and the maintenance of system reliability; and
! WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that a reliable energy supply is vital to support the nation’s future economic growth, security, and quality of life; and WHEREAS, NARUC wishes to continue to advance the policies set forth in the resolution as it relates to the proposed EPA rulemakings concerning the interstate transport of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, cooling water intake, emissions of hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases, release of toxic and thermal pollution into waterways, and management of coal
combustion solids; and WHEREAS, The EPA may not have the flexibility to modify timelines, due to court set deadlines, to allow cost-effective phase-in of rulemakings; and WHEREAS, Typically, a retrofit timeline for multimillion dollar projects is 6+ years, considering that the retrofit projects will need to be designed to address compliance with
multiple regulatory requirements at the same time and requiring six distinct steps: Certificate of Convenience & Necessity, front end engineering, environmental permitting, detailed engineering, construction and startup; and WHEREAS, Timelines will also lengthened by the large number of multimillion dollar projects that will be in competition for the same skilled labor and resources; and WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that greater flexibility with the implementation of EPA regulations can lessen generation cost increases because of improved planning, selection of
correct design for the resolution of multiple requirements, and orderly decision making; and
WHEREAS, Many current generators that will be shutdown or repowered due to the new EPA rulemakings are located in constrained areas or supply constrained areas and will need time to allow for transmission or new generation studies to resolve reliability issues; and WHEREAS, NERC and regional RTO’s will need time to study reliability issues associated
with shutdown or repowering of generation; and WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that greater flexibility will allow time for these needed studies,
now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, convened at its 2011 Summer Committee Meetings in Los Angeles, California, supports efforts to promote State and federal environmental and energy policies that will enhance the reliability of the nation’s energy supply and minimize cost impacts to consumers by: ! Allowing utilities to coordinate the closure and/or retrofitting of existing electric generating units in an orderly manner that will ensure the continued supply of electricity
and that will allow power generators to upgrade their facilities in the most cost effective way, while at the same time achieving attainable efficiency gains and environmental compliance; and ! Allowing off-ramp for units that commit to retire or repower through 2020; and
! Allowing a phasing-in of the EPA regulation requirements between 2015-2020; and ! Establishing benchmarks, beginning in 2012, that ensure an orderly, cost effective compliance with the EPA regulation requirements,
and thereby, continuing emission reduction progress, but reducing capital costs, rate shock and other economic impacts while still providing that coal-fired units are “well controlled” by 2020; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the United States Congress, which represents the interests of the States individually and collectively, should enact legislation requiring the EPA to promulgate regulations reflecting the timeline and efficiencies embodied in this resolution to ensure the
reliability of the nation’s energy supply and balance economic growth, energy security, and environmental protection.
_____________________________________________
Sponsored by the Subcommittee on Clean Coal and Carbon Sequestration
and the Committee on Electricity
Adopted by the NARUC Board of Directors July xx, 2011

New report argues EPA underestimated benefits of utility mercury/toxic cleanup plan

2011-07-14T08:34:00.000-07:00

A good item out today from our friends with the Clean Air Council in Philadelphia:

New Study Uncovers Additional $10.5 Billion in Annual Benefits and Nearly 80,000 More Jobs from EPA’s Proposed Utility Toxics Rule

Delay Will Impose Billions of Pollution-related Costs on Businesses and Delay Investment in New Generation Resources

July 14, 2011 –Washington, DC – A study issued today finds that the benefits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Utility Toxics Rule (also known as the Utility MACT) are even greater than found in the conservative analysis done by the Agency.

The report, "Why EPA’s Mercury and Toxics Rule is Good for the Economy and America’s Workforce," authored by Charles J. Cicchetti Ph.D, a senior advisor to Navigant Consulting, Inc., finds that the Utility Toxics Rule will produce net benefits of up to $139.5 billion and create 115,520 jobs. The report shows that while the EPA’s benefit-cost analysis made reasonable calculations of the benefits of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) reductions, the Rule brings additional benefits that EPA did not monetize but should be considered.

"Although the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis already shows that the benefits of the proposed Toxics Rule dwarf its costs, I found that it also overestimates compliance costs, contrary to the claims of those calling for additional study and delay," said Cicchetti. "In my analysis of both the Toxics Rule and what is now being called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, I have identified a combined additional $16.5 billion in annual benefits to help the economy recover, including additional labor cost savings from avoided lost work days, reduced health and insurance costs, and increased employment."

Report findings on the Utility Toxics Rule include:

 Net annual benefits between $52.5 and $139.5 billion ($10.5 billion more than EPA’s analysis)
 Net job increases of 115,520 (79,550 more than EPA’s analysis)
 Healthcare savings of $4.513 billion (compared to EPA’s $3.445 billion)
Additionally, EPA’s analysis does not account for the $7.17 billion increase in gross domestic product and the $2.689 billion increase in tax revenues expected to result from the Utility Toxics Rule.

"The Clean Air Rules have been expected for almost 10 years and went through a detailed inter-agency review and cost-benefit analysis a few months ago. Now, under the guise of needing more analysis, some in Congress seek further delay to allow companies to continue to operate power plants without adequate pollution controls," said Joseph Otis Minott, Esq. of the Clean Air Council. "Dr. Cicchetti’s study proves that additional analysis uncovers even more benefits and fewer costs than the EPA’s conservative analysis. It is time for Congress to look out for the American people first and not the minority of power plants owners that failed to install pollution controls. Delaying the Utility Toxics and Cross-State Air Pollution rules harms the economy and the public’s health."

The proposed Toxics Rule would limit emissions of HAPs, including mercury; non-mercury metals such as lead and arsenic; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride, from coal-fired power plants. The rule is designed to reduce toxic air pollution and safeguard the public from the premature deaths, asthma attacks, heart attacks, hospital admissions and other avoidable illnesses it causes. Most plants comply or are well positioned to timely comply with the rule, but some owners have yet to invest in pollution controls.

"For some population groups, particularly the disadvantaged communities most often in close proximity to coal-fired power plants, exposure to hazardous substances can be poisonous in a direct manner," said Reverend Horace Strand from the Chester Environmental Partnerships (CEP) in Pennsylvania. "Lowering toxic emissions means fewer people dying early, more kids in school and more people able to go to work every day, which is particularly important at a time when so many people are still struggling."

Additionally, while the EPA measured employment losses from the perspective of employees, this report quantifies the losses incurred by employers since they typically pay for sick days and other benefits, in addition to wages for each employee. Beyond paying employees sick leave and related payroll taxes and benefits, employers also incur additional costs due to lost productivity. Also, while EPA included some reduced health and insurance costs in its analysis, it did not consider resulting reduced administrative expenses.

"The health benefits that the EPA’s Toxics Rule will provide are indisputable. When you add in the additional economic benefits of cleaning up or shutting down old, dirty power plants, it’s like paying Americans to have less mercury and acid gases in the air they breathe," continued the Clean Air Council’s Minott. ―As Dr. Cicchetti says in his report, the nation is seldom offered such a starkly obvious public policy choice as EPA’s Toxics Rule."

Given the significant proven health benefits of cleaning the air, EPA did not need to examine additional benefits besides mortality and morbidity for its study. Cicchetti’s study finds that although the health benefits are substantial, EPA does not quantify the overall value associated with HAP reductions arising from increased agricultural crop and commercial forest yields, visibility improvements, and reductions in nitrogen and acid deposition. It also does not account for costs associated with behavior to avoid the adverse health effects of HAP emissions.

"These benefits are in contrast to the excessive costs imposed by continued reliance on increasingly obsolete and uneconomic power plants, many of which are long past their useful lives and can no longer compete with newer cleaner technologies," noted John Kassel, President, Conservation Law Foundation.

In terms of EPA overestimating the compliance costs associated with the Toxics Rule, the study finds that many changes have already been made in the electricity industry to reduce harmful emissions and that costs are likely to be lower due to the country’s natural gas boom.

"This study shows we don’t have to choose between environmental progress and economic gain. EPA’s air toxics standards will create many billions in economic benefits and tens of thousands of new jobs, while protecting public health and the environment," said Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, based in Chicago. "Opponents of these standards have not provided comparable data to justify weakening or delaying them. This study provides valuable information that reinforces now is the time for these rules to be put into place."

For a link to the full report, please visit: www.cleanair.org.

About Dr. Charles J. Cicchetti
Dr. Cicchetti recently retired as the Miller Chair of Government, Business and Economics at the University of Southern California and currently serves as a Senior Advisor to Navigant and Pacific Economics Group. He previously was Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Deputy Director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University. He has written numerous books and articles on both Benefit/Cost Analyses and electricity economics.
About

EPA letter to Senator Carper underscores need for tougher new smog standard

2011-07-14T06:50:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent letter by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

http://bit.ly/qFS6TL

Deep in the smoggy heart of Texas

2011-07-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

From our friends at Downwinders as Risk:

For Immediate Release, July 14th 8am
For More Information: Jim Schermbeck - 806-787-6567 - schermbeck@aol.com

Before It's Even Finalized,
Group Says New State Smog Plan Has Failed

This summer's bad ozone numbers make it impossible
to meet 1997 standard by next year says Downwinders at Risk;
Group blames lack of state action on gas industry pollution

Tonight
Citizens' Rick Perry Bean Cook-Off begins at 6:00 pm
TCEQ's Hearing on DFW Smog Plan starts at 6:30
Arlington City Hall, 101 W. Abram

(Arlington)---Even as state officials prepare to submit their newest DFW air plan to the public and EPA for approval, a local clean air group says high ozone levels this month have already made it a failure.

"The state is going through the motions, but it's clear the assumptions it was depending on aren't playing out. Our ozone numbers are already worse than last year's," said Jim Schermbeck, Director of DFW clean air group Downwinders at Risk.

Not succeeding would mean a second failure by the state in six years to reach a 1997 federal ozone standard that the Bush Administration determined was not protecting human health. A 2006 DFW plan failed in 2009, necessitating the current proposed plan, which is the subject of a public hearing on Arlington tonight.

In order for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to claim victory, no DFW ozone monitor can have a three-year running average any higher than 84 parts per billion (ppb). As of this month, that average would be 88.6.

"Right now, it would require a 2012 ozone level of no more than 79 ppb to get an 84 ppb average. Since monitoring began in the mid-1990's DFW has never had a summer ozone number that low," said Schermbeck.

Moreover, Schermbeck noted that since the TCEQ proposal is basically to watch as residents trade in their older, more polluting cars for newer, less polluting ones, there's no new control measures to significantly decrease ozone-forming emissions in the next year.

"Without new initiatives, there's little hope that DFW can make it to where it needs to be by the time it needs to be there."

Meanwhile, on Tuesday the EPA sent its latest proposal to reduce the federal ozone standard to between 60 and 70 ppb to the Office of Management and Budget, insuring that an announcement will be made in 30 days. That will trigger a new effort that will demand more direct pollution controls that are missing in the proposed TCEQ plan for the old standard.

Schermbeck said the DFW area had hit a wall in making air quality progress.

"We've been in a holding pattern for about five years now - since the last air plan brought down our ozone levels with a variety of pollution control measures. But our ozone levels now are still what they were in 2007. They're not going down. In fact, this year's numbers are going up."

Schermbeck said rising volumes of gas pollution is one of the reasons.

According to TCEQ's own estimates, by next year there will be more tons of smog-forming Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) produced by the gas industry sources than by all the vehicles in North Texas.

To spotlight this development, and the state's unwillingness to control the growth of this kind of pollution, Schermbeck's group and others are sponsoring a tougue-in-cheek "Rick Perry Bean Cook-Off" immediately prior to the start of tonight's public hearing.

During the Cook-Off, servers in Rick Perry masks will be dishing out "dry" beans and "wet" beans guaranteed to give their consumers a bad case of "Perry gas pollution." They'll be "Gas-B-Gone" relief in the form of a list of pollution control measures that sponsors say could get rid of 90% of gas industry air pollution in DFW while also producing more profits for gas operators.

Last summer, over 200 people attended a similar hearing and all but one speaker voiced frustration over TCEQ's unwillingness to take on industrial pollution affecting the DFW airshed.

EPA sends smog decision to the White House

2011-07-12T15:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/07/12/12greenwire-epa-closes-in-on-thrice-delayed-ozone-decision-89213.html

July 12, 2011

EPA Closes In on Thrice-Delayed Ozone Decision

By GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire

U.S. EPA has sent the White House a set of final rules to update the national air quality standards for smog, signaling that the Obama administration will make up its mind soon after pushing back the controversial decision three times.

The rules received by the White House Office of Management and Budget yesterday are expected to seek a stricter limit on the acceptable amount of ozone in the air. Administrator Lisa Jackson, who decided to revisit the George W. Bush-era standards as one of her first steps after being appointed, has repeatedly vowed to set a standard that is strong enough to protect public health...

EPA's scientific advisers suggested a standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion (ppb) in 2006 after reviewing the latest studies, but then-Administrator Stephen Johnson set a standard of 75 ppb, down from the previous standard of 84 ppb.

Jackson proposed a standard between 60 and 70 ppb in January 2010, saying that final rules would come out in August. That decision was pushed back to October, and then to December, and now to July 29.

Many business groups and congressional Republicans argue that the stricter standards would cost billions of dollars and require cleanups in many new parts of the country, pushing heavy industry away from the United States. They are urging EPA to wait until the next review wraps up in 2013.

But environmental groups, which were enraged by the last administration's decision, say the health benefits are reason enough for Obama to change course now.

"We sincerely hope and expect these standards will reflect the advice of EPA's science advisers and will better protect health than would the standards set by the Bush administration," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch.

Clean Air Watch reaction to and background on Cross-State pollution rule

2011-07-07T08:39:00.000-07:00

Clean Air Watch applauds the EPA for taking this vitally important step towards cleaning up dangerous power plant pollution that drifts across state lines. EPA has posted the new rule and related material online at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/

This is a real milestone. This is a long-overdue and much-needed step towards protecting the health of people in states downwind of big coal burning power plants. It will prove to be a life saver.

It’s an especially significant accomplishment given the irrational attacks on EPA from some polluter-inspired quarters in Congress. In terms of the costs and benefits, it’s a staggering bang for the proverbial buck.

But this is only one step in a much bigger journey. EPA needs to do much more not only to clean up these dirty dinosaurs, but to make sure that public health is protected from dangerous smog and soot.

As the Clean Air Watch Smogwatch Survey demonstrated earlier this week http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2011/07/clean-air-watch-smogwatch-survey.html , air pollution remains a very widespread problem.

And these new requirements will not solve all the problems.

Let’s put these standards in context before everyone gets all hyperbolic.

Coal-burning electric power plants have long been one of the biggest and worst sources of air pollution. Historically it has been a particularly big problem because much of the damage is caused downwind of the source. States (and breathers) on the downwind receiving end have limited recourse. That’s why a rule designed to crack down on drifting pollution is so critical.

The Bush administration tried to deal with this problem through what it called the “Clean Air Interstate Rule,” but a federal court ruled it illegal on technical grounds after Duke Energy and some other power companies sued. After appeals by environmental groups, the court left the rule in place but ordered the EPA to come up with an alternative. This EPA has produced the “Cross-State” rule as an alternative which it, and we, hope is on a sounder legal footing

You will note that in its own assessment of the rules (see below – comparison between EPA’s proposal from last year and today’s final), EPA compares the results to a baseline of emissions in the year 2005. However, you should be aware that despite the legal problems of the Bush rule, many power companies began installing pollution controls because they did expect a replacement would ultimately emerge. This new rule should lock in the already-achieved emission reductions and require more in some cases.

But please note these rules are aimed at essentially “old” targets – the 1997 national ozone standard and the 2006 national standard for fine-paticle soot. Both are outdated. (Even the industry-friendly Bush administration made the ozone standard somewhat tougher, and the current EPA has acknowledged the Bush standard is inadequate. EPA is also reviewing the soot standard with an eye towards making it tougher after a federal court ruled the Bush standard was “arbitrary and capricious” because the Bush crowd ignored EPA’s science advisers.)

In short, in order to make sure the public is truly breathing healthful air, EPA must do even more to crack down on drifting pollution.

And, as regards pollution from coal-fired power plants, EPA must follow through with its proposal to limit mercury and other toxic pollutants. That is really the big one when it comes to dealing with power plant emissions. (Note that EPA argues that coal use will actually INCREASE under the rules announced today. I doubt that will cool the anti-EPA fervor of coal-state members of Congress such as Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. EPA had said it’s proposal would slightly reduce coal use.)

There are a few quick notes below on how today’s final rule differs from last year’s proposal. (The final is scaled back slightly in some respects though the big-picture impact is basically similar. Several Northeastern states were exempted which some others – notably Texas – have to do more cleanup. If you need a reference point, a summary of the proposal is available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/TRPresentationfinal_7-26_webversion.pdf )

**

Transport /Cross-State Changes from Proposal

Proposal:

31 states and DC

Final:

28 states

Left out: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, DC

Impact:

Proposal: SO2 down 71% over 2005. Nox down 52% from 2005

Final: This “AND OTHER FINAL EPA AND STATE ACTIONS”: SO2 down 73%, Nox down 54% from 2005

From the proposal:
**
Body Count stuff (you can see the impact has been scaled back slightly in some respects):
Proposal:
Health Effect Number of Cases Avoided

Premature mortality 14,000 to 36,000
Non-fatal heart attacks 23,000
Hospital and emergency department visits 26,000
Acute bronchitis 21,000
Upper and lower respiratory symptoms 440,000
Aggravated asthma 240,000
Days when people miss work or school 1.9 million
Days when people must restrict their activities 11 million
EPA estimates the annual benefits from the proposed
rule range between $120-$290 billion (2006 $) in 2014.
– Most of these benefits are public health-related.
– $3.6 billion are attributable to visibility improvements in areas such as
national parks and wilderness areas.
– Other nonmonetized benefits include reductions in mercury
contamination, acid rain, eutrophication of estuaries and coastal waters,
and acidification of forest soils.
• EPA estimates annual compliance costs at $2.8 billion in
2014.
• Modest costs mean small effects on electricity
generation. EPA estimates that in 2014:
– Electricity prices increase less than 2 percent.
– Natural gas prices increase less than 1 percent.
– Coal use is reduced by less than 1 percent.

**
Final: BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE CROSS-STATE AIR POLLUTION RULE
The emission reductions from this final rule will have significant and immediate public health benefits. By 2014, this rule will annually prevent:
13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths,
19,000 cases of acute bronchitis,
15,000 nonfatal heart attacks,
19,000 hospital and emergency room visits,
1.8 million days when people miss work or school,
400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and
420,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms.

These emission reductions will also improve visibility in national and state parks, and increase protection for sensitive ecosystems including Adirondack lakes and Appalachian streams, coastal waters and estuaries, and forests.
The $800 million spent annually on this rule in 2014, along with the roughly $1.6 billion per year in capital investments already under way as a result of CAIR, are improving air quality for over 240 million Americans and will result in $120 to $280 billion in annual benefits. These estimates include the costs and benefits of the supplemental proposal.
EPA modeling shows that coal use will continue to grow under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

**
EMISSIONS:
Proposal:
Compared to 2005, EPA estimates that by 2014 this proposal and other federal
rules would lower emissions by:
• 6.3 million tons per year of SO2
• 1.4 million tons per year of NOX
o including 300,000 tons per year of NOX during the ozone season.

FINAL:
EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE CROSS-STATE AIR POLLUTION RULE
Compared to 2005, EPA estimates that by 2014 this rule and other federal rules will lower power plant annual emissions in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule region by:
6.4 million tons per year of SO2 (2005 emissions were 8.8 million tons)
1.4 million tons per year of NOX (2005 emissions were 2.6 million tons)
Including 340,000 tons per year of NOX during the ozone season.

EPA slams new polluter-friendly House budget scheme

2011-07-06T09:57:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Politico Pro

"The bill released today proposes funding cuts and extraneous policy riders that would undermine bipartisan, commonsense steps to protect the health and safety of the American people,” EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan says in a statement. “They would significantly undermine our ability to enforce laws that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and cut dangerous pollution that threatens the health of our families."

A festival of special interests: House spending bill would curb EPA ghg authority, give other deals to industry

2011-07-06T07:55:00.000-07:00

The new spending bill, to be voted on tomorrow by a House panel, is contains a long list of provisions to block effective EPA action to limit pollution.

It's a veritable festival of special interest provisions.

http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/INTERIOR-FY2012_-_Working_v20_xml.pdf

In addition to slashing EPA's budget, the bill would:

--Curb EPA's authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from smokestack industries.
--Order EPA to approve more polluting "flexible" air permits.
(EPA has been battling Texas Governor Rick Perry over this issue.)
--Block EPA from regulating toxic coal ash.
--Ease air pollution control requirements for offshore oil projects.
--Prevent federal regulators from moving forward with regulations intended to protect streams from mountaintop-removal coal mining.
--Limit EPA authority under the Clean Water Act.

Clean Air Watch Smogwatch Survey through June 2011: Grim News in June

2011-07-05T06:06:00.000-07:00

CLEAN AIR WATCH SMOG SURVEY 2011
(though June 30)

States with smog problems in 2011 (smog levels worse than the weak standards set by the Bush administration in 2008) through June 30:
(38 plus DC)

Alabama*
Arizona*
Arkansas*
California*
Colorado*
Connecticut*
Delaware*
District of Columbia*
Florida*
Georgia*
Illinois*
Indiana*
Kansas*
Kentucky*
Louisiana*
Maine*
Maryland*
Masssachusetts*
Michigan*
Minnesota*
Mississippi*
Missouri*
Nevada*
New Jersey
New Mexico*
New York*
North Carolina*
Ohio*
Oklahoma*
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island*
South Carolina*
Tennessee*
Texas*
Utah*
Virginia*
West Virginia*
Wisconsin*
Wyoming
*=problem in June 2011

Total smog days: 1682 (1237 in June)
**

Compared to 2010 through June 30:

STATES WITH PROBLEMS

2010 (40)

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Total smog days 1146 [567 in June 2010]

Excellent Washington Post editorial rebukes "wildly overblown" Republican attacks on EPA

2011-07-03T06:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-overblown-attack-on-epa-emissions-rules/2011/06/24/AGtjmZvH_story.html

An overblown attack on EPA emissions rules
By Editorial, Published: July 2

PRACTICALLY EVERY day on the campaign trail, Republican presidential hopefuls blast President Obama’s “job-killing regulations.” Atop their list are rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, one of which the EPA will finalize this week.

The would-be presidents aren’t alone. Since the Republicans took control of Congress, GOP lawmakers have repeatedly attempted to derail rules on the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, as well as new restrictions on conventional air pollutants that the EPA has regulated for decades — gases and particulates that contribute to asthma, heart attacks and other health problems. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have announced that they will introduce a bill in August designed to roll back pending regulations on toxic air pollutants from utilities and industrial boilers.

Yet predictions of EPA-induced disaster are wildly overblown, at best.
Bloomberg Government released a study on greenhouse gas regulation last month, finding that the first phase of the EPA’s efforts will cost little and produce little in terms of emissions reductions, since power plants are becoming more efficient and therefore producing fewer emissions anyway. Bloomberg found that forthcoming greenhouse gas rules might be tougher, but that, among other things, utilities will respond by simply burning more cheap natural gas instead of coal.

Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress pointed out that many coal power plants — the sort of facilities that an EPA crackdown on toxic air pollutants such as mercury would affect — already have relevant pollution control technologies installed or in construction. And dozens of those that don’t are old, inefficient, rarely used and, in many cases, slated for closure. Last year a Credit Suisse study found that EPA anti-air-
pollution rules might encourage some additional coal plants to shut down — but that the closures would actually help utilities in oversupplied power markets, not to mention improving ambient air quality.

There will, of course, be costs. But there will also be benefits. The EPA asserts that for every dollar spent on measures to cut particulate and ozone pollution, there will be $30 in economic benefits to public health — fewer sick days taken, fewer chronic illnesses, fewer early deaths. On greenhouse gases, a fair reading of the EPA’s new air pollution rules suggests that, if anything, they won’t do nearly enough to address the risks associated with climate change, perhaps cutting emissions a few percentage points relative to business as usual. And since the EPA is using an old statute to tackle carbon emissions, which it hasn’t done before, its effort to do even that will be subject to years of legal challenges.

Instead of blasting the EPA, Congress could craft climate policy that is both more efficient and more effective — upping energy research budgets and putting a price on carbon. But, judging from the rhetoric on the campaign trail and in the House, we aren’t optimistic that will happen anytime soon.

Excellent piece on fossil industry-funded mouth piece

2011-06-28T11:35:00.000-07:00

by our friend, Kert Davies of Greenpeace:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/dr-willie-soon-a-career-fueled-by-koch-big-oi/blog/35482

This fellow Soon recently has become one of big propadandists opposing EPA's attempt to reduce mercury and other toxics from coal-burning power plants.

White House report to Congress: EPA air standards worth more than any other federal rules

2011-06-28T05:25:00.000-07:00

As big polluters continue to bash the EPA, as some Republican presidential candidates call for the agency's elimination, and as President Obama's White House appears to in regulatory retreat as a way of trying to placate the critics,this new report appears to be pretty timely.

It is a report from the White House Office of Management and Budget on the costs and benefits of federal regulations. The OMB bean counters looked back at thousands of rules issued during the past decade.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf

And guess what they found: EPA air pollution control requirements bring the biggest benefits!

It should be clear that the rules with the highest benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the Environmental Protection Agency and in particular its Office of Air. More specifically, EPA rules account for 62 to 84 percent of the monetized benefits and 46 to 53 percent of the monetized costs.18 The rules that aim to improve air quality account for 95 to 97 percent of the benefits of EPA rules.

It is important to emphasize that the large estimated benefits of EPA rules are mostly attributable to the reduction in public exposure to a single air pollutant: fine particulate matter. Of its 20 air rules, the rule with the highest estimated benefits is the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, with benefits ranging from $19 billion to $167 billion per year. While the benefits of this rule far exceed the costs, the cost estimate for the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule is also the highest at $7.3 billion per year.

Perhaps others in the White House should read this report and take note.

Harvard researchers: smog can be lethal for diabetics and people with lung and heart problems

2011-06-24T09:17:00.000-07:00

While the EPA ponders whether to set scientifically appropriate new national health standards for ozone, a new study by Harvard researchers has a clear and compelling conclusion: “long-term ozone exposure is associated with increased risk of death.”

In other words, this dirty air is literally lethal.

The study, by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, has just been published in the online version of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Here is an abstract: http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/201102-0227OCv1

And here is the bottom line:

“Conclusions: This is the first study that follows persons with specific chronic conditions, and shows that long-term ozone exposure is associated with increased risk of death in these groups.”

There many millions of people in these groups, which include “persons hospitalized with chronic conditions that might predispose to ozone effects: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), and myocardial infarction (MI).”

The full article requires a subscription or purchased access, though I would imagine the good folks at Harvard would be willing to cough up a freebie for the media.

The publication comes as EPA is under political pressure (a lot of it inspired by the dreaded oil industry, and some of it reportedly coming from an address on Pennsylvania Avenue) to keep in place the scientifically inadequate standards set in 2008 by the Bush administration. The argument is that EPA can make any needed changes to the standard later.

As this new study graphically demonstrates, the national smog standards need to be made stronger now. Many more people will die if EPA is forced to make a politically-driven and scientifically deficient decision.