Climate 411

The Cost to Meet Clean Air and Environmental Standards Comes Down (Again)

By Mandy Warner / Published: June 11, 2013

It is almost getting old for us to write about this … but it needs to be repeated.

As power plant pollution control projects continue, we are seeing – yet again — that the cost of meeting clean air standards, like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants (MATS), has fallen.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped some major power companies and other opponents from trying to undermine clean air and environmental standards.

However, this past quarter American Electric Power (AEP), NRG, and FirstEnergy each told their investors that their anticipated costs for meeting environmental standards dropped.

As you can see on our chart, AEP has lowered its estimated costs of following environmental standards by half, from a high of $8 billion down to $4 to $5 billion.

AEP was the top emitter of mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide in 2011 among the top 100 power producers in the U.S.

And … AEP is a leader in the lawsuit to halt the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

As our chart also shows, FirstEnergy has lowered their cost estimate for complying with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by nearly 70 percent.

FirstEnergy’s estimate dropped from a high of $3 billion down to $925 million (which is $50 million lower than they estimated last quarter).

FirstEnergy was the sixth highest emitter of mercury in 2011 among the top 100 power producers, and is also challenging the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in court.

The third company on our chart, NRG, has lowered its costs for complying with environmental standards from $730 million to $530 million, a reduction of more than 25 percent.

NRG was the fourth highest emitter of mercury in 2011 among the top 100 power producers.

These three companies are just a few of the power companies that have decreased their cost estimates for complying MATS and other environmental standards in recent years.

The tens of billions of dollars in expected health benefits from the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards has not decreased, though.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will provide crucial emission reductions of toxic pollutants including mercury, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, and chromium.

It will save thousands of lives every year, prevent heart attacks and asthma attacks, and help protect the hundreds of thousands of babies born in America every year who are exposed to unsafe levels of mercury in the womb. And that is priceless.

It’s important that we keep in mind these misguided “sky is falling” claims about environmental compliance costs as EPA carries out its responsibilities under the nation’s clean air laws to address carbon pollution from power plants.

The time tested history of the Clean Air Act is quite the opposite – the sky is clearing, and at far less than the costs predicted by industry.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Economics, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Stronger Ozone Standards Will Secure Healthier, Longer Lives for Millions of Americans

By Elena Craft, PhD / Published: June 6, 2013

(Originally posted yesterday on EDF Voices)

For some time, public health and medical experts have been clear that the Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality standard for ozone, the primary ingredient in smog, isn’t doing enough to protect Americans from serious health risks.

Unfortunately, before EPA even proposed new health standards in response to rigorous science, the American Petroleum Institute (API) attacked with sky is falling claims that 97% of businesses in America would shut down.

This is quintessential beltway politics: fact free and designed to hide the real issues.

As a health scientist, I think the facts matter. And the bottom line is that EPA has a responsibility to adopt health standards anchored in science. So let’s take a closer look at what the science tells us.

Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog and is the single most widespread air pollutant. Ozone is linked to premature deaths, increased asthma attacks and breathing problems, as well as increased emergency room and hospital admissions. This pollutant poses an especially serious risk to children, seniors and people with lung diseases like asthma and bronchitis.

The Science is Sound

The science on ozone’s health effects is rock solid. Evidence from more than 1700 peer-reviewed scientific reports (which continues to be reinforced by new data) clearly shows that our current ozone standard isn’t doing the job of protecting the public health. We need to strengthen that standard.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) – the body that makes science-based recommendations to EPA – has issued multiple statements indicating that the current ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) is unacceptable with regard to protecting human health.

And new research, including recent reports demonstrating a significant increase in pulmonary inflammation in healthy individuals exposed to 60 parts per billion (ppb) ozone, supports this analysis and highlights the urgent need for a more health-protective standard.

Need for an Adequate Margin of Safety

By law, EPA must set national health-based standards that protect human health with “an adequate margin of safety.” To do this, the agency considers factors including the nature and severity of the health effects involved, the size of the at-risk populations, and the scientific uncertainties that must be addressed.

How do these factors add up in the case of ozone?

The nature and severity of the health effects involved: It is hard to imagine health effects more severe than death or the inability of a person to breathe without a struggle, especially if it’s a small child who has to be rushed to the emergency room.

The size of the at-risk population: Nearly 34 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma during their lifetimes and estimates predict that number will grow by more than 100 million by 2025. Nearly 12 million people suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a disease that causes serious, long-term disability and kills more than 120,000 Americans each year. And that’s only a partial list of those at increased risk from ozone.

The degree of uncertainties that must be addressed: Evidence continues to accumulate of effects in healthy people at exposures as low or lower than 60 ppb. Thus, if uncertainty is part of the decision making process, then EPA is obliged to adopt a standard even more protective than the one recommended by CASAC.

Here We Go Again: Unfounded Claims Concerning Economic Impacts

These kinds of sky is falling prognostications are not new. As far back as 1997, when EPA was considering one of the first revisions to the ozone health standard, Senator Spencer Abraham (R. MI) was among many who claimed that the new standards would have devastating economic impacts. “Dry cleaning establishments, hair salons, and other small businesses will not be able to absorb the increased costs imposed by these regulations,” the Senator said.

Those claims proved to be entirely false. In fact, in fact, Texas has made the case that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has gone up even as ozone controls strategies have been adopted, resulting in cleaner air across the state.

Old scare tactics die hard. That’s why today API and others are again trying to stop reform of the ozone standards by making the same sort of unfounded claims that all businesses will close the doors. But environmental protection is, or should be, a health issue, not a political football. And it’s on the ground of health that that The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Public Health Association and the American Thoracic Society have all endorsed CASAC recommendations for new ozone standards.

In the end, EPA should not be swayed by “sky is falling” claims, whether from the petroleum industry or any other group. We urge EPA not to delay adoption stricter ozone standards. To do so would be to needlessly threaten the health of millions of Americans.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, News / Comments are closed

In Philadelphia, a Strong Show of Support for Cleaner Cars and Cleaner Air

By Mark MacLeod / Published: April 25, 2013

In the first opportunity for the public to comment on EPA’s proposed Tier 3 standards, the message was clear – people want cleaner air.

Tier 3 is the term the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is using for its proposed national vehicle emissions and fuel standards. They are designed to reduce the soot, smog and other types of dangerous pollution that come from the tailpipes of our cars and trucks.

You can find extensive details about the Tier 3 standards in my most recent post.

Yesterday, EPA held the first of two public hearings on Tier 3 in Philadelphia.

My colleague, Caroline Paulsen was there to add her voice in support of the proposed standards. Here’s her eyewitness report:

It was an impressive turnout at the Sonesta hotel in Philadelphia, where EPA held the hearing, and most people in the large crowd were there to testify in favor of the proposed Tier 3 gasoline and vehicle standards.

It was a very busy day, with back-to-back five-minute testimonies starting at 10:00 a.m. During the five to six hours that I was there, only two people testified against the Tier 3 standards, so those are promising odds for us.

I was struck by the incredible range of people testifying in favor of Tier 3. Among the many people I noticed there were doctors and other health experts, business leaders, religious leaders, state government officials and moms – as well as environmentalists, of course. People were there representing General Motors, Chrysler, Honda, Mercedes Benz, the Auto Alliance and the Global Automakers. The American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society were there, along with the Sierra Club, NRDC, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Consumers Union and the Blue Green Alliance were represented as well – all of them supporting the Tier 3 standards and the vast benefits we can expect from them.

I was especially impressed by the testimony I heard from a doctor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Dr. Gary Emmett talked enthusiastically about the need to cut air pollution for the sake of the asthma patients he sees every day, and about how low-income and minority populations often suffer the most from air-pollution induced illnesses like asthma.

When it was my turn to testify, I talked about how the Tier 3 standards will prevent thousands of deaths each year, and will provide billions of dollars in public health benefits— all for about a penny a gallon.

I talked about how America’s passenger cars and trucks are the second largest source of the nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds that form ozone, better known as smog. Our cars and truck also emit more than half of all carbon monoxide, and contribute significantly to particulate matter pollution. The Tier 3 standards will allow us to make huge strides towards cleaning up that pollution.

I ended by saying that Environmental Defense Fund is proud to join the auto manufacturers, the auto workers, the emissions control technology industry, the health experts, the environmental organizations, the state and local air pollution control agencies, the consumer groups, and the public who all agree that cleaner passenger cars and trucks are an important step forward for a healthier and stronger America.

All in all, it was inspiring to be there representing EDF.

You can read Caroline’s full testimony here.

EPA will hold a second public hearing in Chicago next week. Check back for an update on that.

I’m happy that Caroline was in Philadelphia to voice EDF’s support of the proposal. And you can add your voice to the hundreds who are supporting cleaner cars and cleaner air. You don’t have to go to Chicago to testify in person — you can send an email to EPA instead. EDF’s web page is designed to make it easy for you to stand up for the Tier 3 standards.

So join us in support of this important proposal. Thank you.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Policy / Read 1 Response

Tier 3: What It Means and Why It Matters

By Mark MacLeod / Published: April 4, 2013

By now, you’ve probably seen lots of news headlines talking about the proposed updated Tier 3 standards.

Tier 3 is the shorthand term for national vehicle emissions and fuel standards that will help us make big strides towards cleaner, healthier air. They are designed to reduce the soot, smog and other types of dangerous pollution that come from the tailpipes of our cars and trucks.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just announced the proposed standards to enthusiastic responses from everyone from health advocates to automakers (including EDF, of course).

What exactly are the Tier 3 standards, and why are they so important? Here are answers to some common questions:

What’s the story behind the Tier 3 standards?

Cars and trucks are one of the biggest sources of air pollution in America. For years, EPA has been looking for ways to reduce the pollution associated with those motor vehicles.

In 2000, they created standards that would attack the air pollution problem at two of its sources at the same time – by reducing impurities in gasoline, so what you put into your car is cleaner, and by improving cars’ emission systems, so what comes out of your car is cleaner.

They called these standards Tier 2.

Now, EPA is proposing to update the standards. The new, improved version – called Tier 3 – will keep the proven approach of treating vehicles and fuels as an integrated system.

Starting in 2017, the new proposal would strengthen the earlier standards in order to reduce the pollutants from both gasoline and auto emissions standards in the most cost-efficient ways possible.

The proposed Tier 3 standards are also designed to work in harmony with America’ new clean car standards, which will improve fleet-wide fuel efficiency in new cars to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025, and with California’s state standards, which are already stricter than the national average.

How exactly would the Tier 3 standards work? 

Cars and light trucks are the second largest emitters of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds in the U.S. Those are the primary pollutants that form ozone.

According to EPA, the proposed Tier 3 standards would slash the level of those pollutants by 80 percent.

The proposed Tier 3 standards would also establish a 70 percent tighter particulate matter standard. Particulate matter, more commonly known as soot, is one of the most dangerous types of air pollution. It has been linked to asthma attacks, bronchitis, heart attacks and other types of heart and lung diseases.

The proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce other noxious types of air pollution as well, including carbon monoxide, benzene and butadiene. They would reduce fuel vapor emissions to near zero.

At the same time, the proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline by more than 60 percent, to no more than 10 parts per million of sulfur on an annual average basis by 2017.

Lower sulfur levels in gasoline will allow vehicles to run more efficiently.

It also means we’ll see immediate benefits once the proposed standards go into effect in the year 2017. That’s because older cars that are already on our roads will emit less tailpipe pollution –right away — thanks to the cleaner gasoline. (The cleaner emissions systems will be built into new cars, and we’ll see those additional benefits emerge more gradually as Americans buy those cars to replace their old ones).

What are the benefits of Tier 3?

Tier 3 would be good for public health and for the economy

By the year 2030, EPA estimates that Tier 3 would:

  • Prevent up to 2,400 premature deaths every year
  • Prevent 3,200 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits every year
  • Prevent tens of thousands of cases of respiratory illnesses in children every year

EPA also estimates that by 2030, Tier 3 would prevent 1.8 million lost school or work days each year, and would provide total health-related benefits worth up to $23 billion per year.

How much will Tier 3 cost?

We can reduce tailpipe pollution and provide healthier, longer lives for millions of Americans for less than a penny per gallon of gas.

How will America’s gasoline standard compare to other countries?

The proposed Tier 3 standards for sulfur levels in gasoline are similar to levels that are already required – and being achieved – in Europe, Japan, South Korea, and several other countries (as well as California, here in the U.S.).

Do businesses support Tier 3?

Many businesses do support updating the standards, including automakers and the emissions control industry.

Tier 3 would provide greater regulatory certainty for automakers; a national standard means the auto industry can build a car that can be sold anywhere in the country.

On the day the proposed standards were announced, Michael Stanton, president and CEO of the Association of Global Automakers said:

We have been anxiously awaiting this rulemaking because it is good for the environment and will help harmonize the federal and California programs for both vehicles and fuel …  With 15 million new vehicle sales a year, automakers need predictable national fuel quality at the retail pump. Ultra-low sulfur gasoline is already available in California, Europe, and Japan and will enable automakers to use a broader range of technologies to meet the significant environmental challenges facing the industry.

Gloria Bergquist, Spokeswoman for Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said:

This is a big step forward for this country to catch up to the clean fuels available in other industrialized nations. Automakers have already reduced vehicle emissions by 99 percent, and we’re working to go further while also delivering high quality, affordable vehicles to our customers.

And the United Auto Workers said:

This is one of the most cost-effective ways for us to get cleaner and healthier air while strengthening our domestic auto sector and creating thousands of new jobs … The proposed rule is a win for our economy and a win for public health.

Who else supports Tier 3?

Even before EPA unveiled its proposal, state and local officials, national recreation groups, health groups and the public – as well as the automakers and the emissions control industry — all announced their support for updating the standards.

EPA has compiled a list of what all those supporters are saying. It’s a very long list. You can read it here.

What happens next?

EPA will hold two public hearings about the proposed Tier 3 standards, the first on April 24th in Philadelphia and the second on April 29th in Chicago.

EDF will be sending experts to testify at both those hearings, and we’ll report back from them. EPA will also begin accepting public comments soon.

Where can I learn more?

Check out EPA’s website. And check back here for updates.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, News, Policy, What Others are Saying / Authors: / Comments are closed

EDF, Allies Ask Court to Defend Historic Mercury Pollution Rules

By Pamela Campos / Published: February 28, 2013

The court battle over our historic and life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards has now taken another step forward.

A coalition of  21 states, three cities, 19 medical, environmental, and civil rights organizations, and a number of energy companies filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new standards for toxic pollution from power plants.

Last week’s filings are the latest step in a decades-long effort to protect public health from burning coal and oil.

Here’s the history behind the long fight to clean up mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants:

EPA first concluded in 2000 that regulating toxic pollutants, including mercury, from power plants is “appropriate and necessary.”

It was hardly a surprise. Power plants are responsible for half of the mercury pollution, two-thirds of the arsenic emissions, and three quarters of the acid gases emitted in America.

More than a decade of political maneuvering then passed before EPA finally issued the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in 2012.

The standards limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and other gases that can be spewed into the atmosphere when coal and oil are burned for power.

The standards provide public health benefits that outweigh costs by a factor of nearly nine to one. They also allow flexibility and time needed for the standards to be implemented in an orderly manner.

But in spite of the overwhelming benefits of the standards, and the widespread support for them, some utility interests sued to stop them.

EPA filed briefs in support of its rules at the end of January. The standards’ supporters – including EDF — also joined the effort to protect them in court.

Why are so many different entities willing to fight in court to protect the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards?

Here are some of their reasons, in their own words, from the court briefs.

The health impacts of toxic pollution from power plants are serious. More than 300,000 newborns face the risk of learning disabilities due to prenatal exposure to mercury. These health risks also fall unevenly:

The health damage caused by air toxics is borne disproportionately by communities of color and the poor. Members of these disadvantaged groups are exposed to more hazardous air pollutants than other Americans because they are more likely to live in close proximity to coal-fired power plants. Their health suffers as a result.

Because of the long delay in setting standards at the federal level, many states have set their own limits on mercury from power plants. But states can’t control the air pollution from beyond their borders, as they told the court in their brief:

While many states … have enacted controls on EGU mercury emissions, those controls cannot rein in emissions originating outside our state borders. EGU mercury emissions have continued to pollute our waters, making fish consumption unsafe for pregnant women and children, and making local fish advisories our last option to protect our residents.

We have the technology to limit toxic pollutants from power plants — but not every power plant is using it, as the industry supporters of the rule point out:

Less than two-thirds of EGUs have scrubbers, and fewer still have configured their scrubbers to remove hazardous pollutants … Furthermore, much of the control equipment installed in response to Title IV [Acid Rain Program] and other programs fails to reduce hazardous pollutants reliably because it is not operated consistently.

(You can find more details and read the briefs themselves on our website)

Opponents have argued that EPA provided insufficient process in its nearly 15-year effort to issue the MATS standards.

They also argue that regulation of toxic pollution from power plants isn’t appropriate or necessary.

EPA, EDF, and many other health, economic, and legal experts have strongly rebutted these arguments before – and now, the legal briefs they’ve filed do as well.

America has been hard at work limiting air pollution for more than forty years. We’ve made significant gains, and that progress has paid major benefits in terms of improved health and increased economic development.

EPA’s analysis found that Clean Air Act protections saved an estimated 160,000 lives between 1990 and 2012. By 2020, the economic value of those protections is expected to reach $2 trillion.

Another series of studies — An economic analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 1970 to 1990: Revised report of results and findings — found that U.S. GDP in 2010 was up to 1.5 percent higher because of the health-protective benefits of the Clean Air Act.

Limiting toxic pollution from power plants is one more example of just the type of environmental protection that works in everyone’s interest.

We’ll bring you updates on the court case as it goes forward.

Also posted in Clean Air Act / Read 1 Response

EPA Updates Standards to Reduce Levels of Deadly Soot Pollution in Our Air

By Mandy Warner / Published: December 14, 2012

America took a big step toward cleaner, healthier air today.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited updated standards for fine particulate matter.

EDF was among the many health and environmental groups applauding the life-saving new standards.

Fine particulate matter is often referred to as soot, although it actually comprises a broader array of fine particles. It gets into the air we breathe — some of it directly emitted from cars and trucks, some of it resulting from factories and power plants hundreds of miles upwind – and then can lodge in our lungs and cause a variety of heart and lung problems, especially in children and seniors.

In fact, soot is one of the deadliest types of air pollution. It can cause heart attacks, asthma attacks, and premature death. Recent studies have found that soot is potentially associated with autism as well.

A letter signed by over 650 health and medical professionals stated:

Fine particulate air pollution is cutting short the lives of tens of thousands of Americans each year. Studies have shown fine particulate air pollution is shortening lives by up to six months …

Numerous, long-term multi-city studies have shown clear evidence of premature death, cardiovascular and respiratory harm as well as reproductive and developmental harm at contemporary concentrations far below the level of the current standard ..

Infants, children and teenagers are especially sensitive, as are the elderly, and people with cardiovascular disease, lung disease, or diabetes. The new EPA standards should be set at levels that will protect these sensitive people with an adequate margin of safety, as required by the Clean Air Act.

States have a variety of tools to meet the updated and strengthened standards. They include:

  • Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – these national standards for power plants are already being implemented, and will help reduce soot as well as mercury
  • Lower Sulfur Gasoline for Cars — EPA could put these standards in place as soon as next year to help clean up soot
  • Air Toxics Rules for Cement Plants and Boilers — EPA is expected to finalize these soon. They will provide further soot emission reductions across the country
  • Diesel Emission Reduction Act — this highly successful, bi-partisan program can, if funded by Congress, reduce emissions from dirty diesel engines across the country while also providing economic benefits
  • Reducing Emissions from Shipping – the U.S. is part of an international program that will play an important role in reducing soot, especially for coastal areas
  • Cross State Air Pollution Rules — a robust cross-state air pollution program would reduce the power plant emissions that drift across state borders. Those emissions contribute to air quality problems, both locally and in downwind states. Over the summer, a deeply divided court struck down EPA’s “good neighbor” program that would have addressed this problem. We need a strong replacement program as soon as possible.

Those are just a few of the tools we can use to reduce the soot pollution in our air. They are all highly cost-effective, and broadly supported.

Many of them are being challenged in the courts and Congress, however — so we still have a lot of work to do. We must ensure that EPA can implement the programs that will reduce dangerous pollution like soot.

Some industrial interest groups are opposing the soot standards, but a lot more groups are cheering today’s announcement. The breadth of the support for this life-saving measure is tremendous.

Leading health groups including the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and the March of Dimes have all expressed strong support for stronger soot standards.

They’ve been joined by a wide variety of other groups, representing moms, African Americans, faith communities, doctors and health professionals, teachers, environmental justice advocates, state leaders, communications workers, Hispanics, nurses, conservation and sportsmen groups, and business communities.

It’s rare to see an issue that can bring so many different people together. But it seems all of them recognize the importance of clean air.

I find it inspiring to be part of such a broad coalition, united by the common cause of improving the health and lives of every American.

This holiday season, I am grateful for the promise of cleaner air for all Americans, for the opportunity to work on an issue that unites so many diverse people, and for the reminder that clean air is not just an environmental or health right but an essential human right.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, News, Policy / Comments are closed