Climate 411

One Step Closer to Breathing Easier: We Reach a Key Deadline for Reducing Soot

By Mandy Warner / Published: September 6, 2012

Many of us have just returned from our last summer road trips over the Labor Day weekend, and now we’re settling back into work. So here’s some good news for the unofficial start of fall:

We can all breathe a little easier knowing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one step closer to finalizing new limits on soot.

The comment period on EPA’s proposal to strengthen the national limits on soot closed last Friday.

Soot — also known as particulate matter — is a deadly pollutant that contributes to asthma attacks, heart attacks, and a host of other respiratory problems.

The more we have learned about soot, the more we have become aware that our national standards are not strong enough to protect our health. That’s why EPA has proposed updated standards – and the deadline for comments means we’re moving toward the moment when final, tougher standards go into effect.

So if, like roughly 30 million other Americans, you drove somewhere last weekend, you can take some comfort in knowing that the big rig in front of you emitting black plumes of smoke may eventually be a thing of the past.

Soot is emitted largely by power plants and diesel vehicles and equipment (including some of those older big rigs). But many highly cost-effective, American-made technologies exist for power plants and diesel engines that will help states meet new, better soot standards.

We’ve already made some progress. The brand-new diesel trucks that are rolling off the assembly lines today are meeting rigorous modern emission standards for soot, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. They’ll help states meet more protective air quality protections as the newly manufactured diesel trucks replace those on the road today.

Plus, last year the Administration enacted new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles like semis, buses and garbage trucks. Those new fuel efficiency standards will save truck owners money — which is why they have garnered broad industry support.

But we still have more to do, and the proposed new soot standards will help us finish the job.

A broad coalition of health, environmental, moms, and environmental justice groups support the proposed new standards. They wrote a letter urging EPA to strengthen standards for soot, based on the latest science:

Strengthening the particulate matter health standards as demanded by science could prevent thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks, and visits to the hospital and emergency room each year.

Hundreds of physicians and health professionals also sent a letter in support of stronger standards to EPA on Friday.

These proposed new soot standards are more important than ever in light of a recent decision by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel to send the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule back to EPA.

The Cross-State Rule would have helped lower soot and ozone pollution from power plants significantly compared to the policy currently in place. New, strong soot standards are vital to providing lasting clean air protections.

New, strong soot standards will also get states moving to reduce this deadly pollutant. That means we all have a stake in strong new soot standards — so that all Americans can breathe easier.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy, What Others are Saying / Comments are closed

Why It Matters: the Senate Vote on a Toxic Resolution

By Mandy Warner / Published: June 21, 2012

When the Senate voted down  S.J Res. 37 by a margin of 53 to 46 yesterday, we at EDF cheered.

The measure would have nixed the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that were just finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Those new standards are one of the most important steps EPA has ever taken to clean up our air and protect public health.

EDF’s own Fred Krupp summed up the bipartisan vote this way:

[They] voted against S. J. Res 37. That means they voted for cleaner, healthier, safer air for all Americans. They voted to let EPA do its job, and reduce the mercury and other toxic pollution emitted from power plants into the air we breathe. They voted to save up to 11,000 lives each year, to help prevent neurological damage in babies, and to make it safer to eat fish caught in American waters.

But there’s a lot more to say about why this vote was so critical – and why these standards are so important.

First, let’s look at the standards themselves.  

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, and other noxious toxins that can be emitted by power plants.

The kinds of pollution covered by the standards are all extremely hazardous to human health. Mercury, for instance, impairs brain and neurological development in babies – including those exposed before birth.

The main way people are exposed to mercury is through eating contaminated fish. All 50 states have mercury fish consumption advisories, meaning that mercury has gotten into waterbodies like lakes and ponds and made the fish in those waters potentially unsafe for humans to eat.

That’s why pregnant women are warned about eating certain kinds of fish. But still, one in ten American women of child-bearing age have potentially dangerous levels of mercury in their bloodstream, and about 400,000 babies are born here every year who were exposed to unsafe levels of mercury in the womb. 

The power sector is the largest source of many toxic emissions, including mercury. Coal-fired power plants emit 50% of all the mercury pollution in our air, as well as 77% of all acid gases, and 62% of all arsenic.

Other sectors have long since reduced emissions of toxic pollutants like mercury. Cost-effective (and American made) pollution-control measures, like scrubbers, are available for power plants too.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have been in the works for 20 years. Once they’re finally in effect, the standards will ensure that approximately 90% of the mercury in coal burned by power plants is not emitted to our air.

The standards will also:

  • Prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths—every year
  • Prevent 130,000 childhood asthma attacks every year
  • Prevent 5,700 hospital visits every year
  • Prevent thousands of heart attacks every year
  • Prevent thousands of bronchitis cases every year

But S.J. Res 37 would not only have nixed the new standards, it would also have prevented EPA from issuing a rule that is “substantially the same” in the future.

Fred called it a “scorched earth” policy.

It was certainly drastic — a resolution that would jeopardize EPA’s ability to ever protect Americans from the mercury and other toxic air pollution emitted by power plants.

And it was unnecessary. The main arguments against the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards were not grounded in reality. 

Opponents said the standards would cost too much and would kill jobs. Actually, the benefits of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are expected to outweigh the costs by at least 3 to 1, and as much as 9 to 1.

And the new standards are estimated to create up to 117,000 jobs between now and 2015.

Opponents also claimed the standards would threaten America’s electrical supply. Wrong again.

Independent analyses by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Congressional Research Service confirm that industry can comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards while maintaining the reliability of our electric system. And EPA’s compliance framework establishes a clear and orderly process for securing an extended compliance pathway where needed and will allow utilities to make a smooth transition to cleaner generation.

In fact, numerous power companies have already indicated they can comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards on time. In a December opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, the leaders of PG&E, Calpine, NextEra, Public Service Enterprise Group, National Grid USA, Exelon, Constellation Energy Group, and Austin Energy explained how they, and many companies, have long prepared for these clean air standards.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards received a monumental level of public support: 

  • More than 800,000 Americans submitted comments to EPA in support of these new life-saving protections.
  • The U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the standards, saying that “clean, healthy air and water are fundamental American rights.”
  • Scientists support the standards – including dozens from Ohio universities who sent a letter to their state’s congressional delegation opposing S.J. Res 37.
  • Other organizations publicly supporting the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards include: faith, public health, and clean energy groups; power companies; the NAACP; environmental organizations; and groups representing sportsmen, mothers and fathers, Latinos, small businesses, and consumers.

If S.J. Res 37 had passed, it would have been disastrous for both public health and the environment. Fortunately, a group of 53 Senators from both parties stood up to be counted for clean air yesterday. We should all be grateful to them for their vote.

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

An Inside Look at EPA’s Carbon Pollution Hearing — the Chicago Report

By Robert Collier / Published: May 29, 2012

If you already read my colleague Mandy Warner’s blog, you know that I had the great honor of representing EDF in Chicago last Thursday at one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) hearings for its first-ever proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants.   

EDF's Rob Collier testifies at EPA's Chicago hearing on carbon pollution

It was a day that will always stand out as a milestone in my life.

And, now that I’ve had the Memorial Day weekend to reflect on everything that happened, I wanted to share some of the stories I heard and the fascinating details I noticed.

Here’s what the Chicago hearing looked and felt like:

It was a day of incredible support for EPA’s efforts to control carbon pollution in America. I watched dozens of people testify, and give EPA a symbolic “standing ovation” for taking such a historic step.

In fact, there was such support around the Midwest that EPA had to open a second concurrent hearing room to accommodate all of the speakers – just like at the D.C. hearing.

(That’s no surprise. States and cities across the Midwest are carrying out homegrown clean energy solutions that strengthen economic prosperity and job creation, improve our energy security, and provide a healthier environment. You can read more in this new paper [PDF]that examines some of the clean energy policies put in place in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin — and the associated private sector economic activity.)   

Back to Chicago, and the day of the hearing:

In the early morning, the room was slow to fill up — primarily because the huge line of people who wanted to get in had to wait through delays as everyone went through a metal detector.

By about 9:00 a.m., a steady stream of people was filtering into the room from towns around Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Those people were concerned citizens with a variety of backgrounds: nurses; doctors; ecologists; physicists; economists; union workers; veterans; parents; grandparents; business leaders and students.

And, almost without exception, all of these people spoke in favor of EPA’s common sense proposal to reduce the huge amount of carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuel power plants.

In fact, during the almost eight hours I spent listening to testimony, I only heard one person speak against EPA’s proposed standards. Clean air advocates carried the day by a wide margin.

Because I work for EDF, I testified about how carbon pollution and climate change are critical issues for the protection of human health and our environment. You can read my full testimony here [PDF]. 

But others’ testimony reminded me how much those issues affect every aspect of our lives.

People spoke about carbon pollution as a national security issue, an economic problem and a spiritual issue, as well as a public health and environmental threat.

I heard scores of personal and moving stories about how air pollution impacts people’s lives.

There were heart-wrenching moments when mothers and fathers talked about watching their children struggle to breathe because of asthma or other lung diseases.

One elderly woman held up a photograph of her grandson and talked about his difficulty breathing and need to carry a nebulizer on his hip at all times. The audience gave her a rousing ovation.

Asthma attacks can be triggered by ozone pollution, and the warmer temperatures caused by climate change mean we’ll have more ozone pollution.

That’s one reason why EPA’s proposed standards for carbon pollution are so important. They’ll cut the amount of climate-destabilizing carbon pollution emitted by new coal-fired power plants in half, compared to traditional plants.

The crowd at the Chicago hearing seemed to know that. What I took away from the hearing were the messages of hope, excitement, and opportunity.

The day was definitely a resounding victory for clean air.

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

An Inside Look at EPA’s Carbon Pollution Hearings

By Mandy Warner / Published: May 24, 2012

It was an exciting day for clean energy at the downtown Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

That’s where EPA held one of its two public hearings on the first ever proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants. (The other hearing was in Chicago).

EPA’s registered speaker list was jam-packed. In fact, they had to run the hearings in two concurrent rooms to allow everyone a chance to speak.

Americans representing a wide variety of interests, and from all corners of the political spectrum, streamed into the rooms throughout the day to share their views on the proposed standards. It makes sense, because this is a vitally important issue for our public health and our environment.

Fossil fueled power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in America. They’re responsible for a staggering 40 percent of U.S. heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.

EPA’s proposed standards will effectively halve the lifetime carbon emissions from new coal-fired power plants relative to traditional coal plants, and they’ll provide a pathway for development of clean and low-carbon energy.

I had the privilege of testifying for EDF today. You can read my full statement here. (My colleague Rob Collier testified for EDF in Chicago, and will post about his experience soon).

I spent the morning with an incredible variety of speakers: faith leaders; doctors, nurses and other health experts; moms; veterans; entrepreneurs; conservation, clean air, and environmental advocates; and supporters of energy efficiency from labor and industry.

They all provided testimony to EPA supporting this huge step forward toward reducing the climate destabilizing pollution spewed from our power sector.

Some people spoke about how the higher temperatures caused by carbon pollution will enhance the formation  of ozone pollution — commonly known as smog — which exacerbates respiratory and other health problems. Other people talked about how their health has been affected by smog and its role in triggering asthma attacks.

The diversity of individuals participating was a testament to the far-reaching impacts of a changing climate.

There were a handful of detractors, of course, who tried to challenge the overwhelming science and prudent policymaking underpinning EPA’s action to address carbon pollution. But they were clearly outnumbered.

Today was a decisive victory for our side – for advocates supporting action against carbon pollution. 

Another sign of victory today – Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters told reporters that almost 1.4 million Americans have submitted comments to EPA supporting the new carbon pollution standards.

You can still be part of that victory. EPA is accepting comments on the proposed standards until June 25, and you can submit a comment through EDF’s website and help show the wide-support for efforts to reduce dangerous climate pollution. You can learn a lot more about the proposed standards on our website as well.

Testifying today was an incredible experience. I’m looking forward to Rob’s report from Chicago. I hope their hearing was as big a success as the one here in Washington, D.C.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Read 1 Response

Court Hears Oral Argument on Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

By David Lifland / Published: April 13, 2012

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. heard oral arguments on legal challenges to EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

As I wrote yesterday, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants in 28 eastern states.

EPA issued the rule to implement the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits emissions from power plants in one state that contribute significantly to harmful pollution levels in other states.

The courtroom was packed this morning, as attorneys challenging and defending the rule were questioned by Judges Rogers, Griffith, and Kavanaugh.

The questioning lasted more than two hours. 

Opponents of the rule were represented by two lawyers – one for states and one for power companies.

EPA was represented by three attorneys from the Department of Justice.

In addition, three lawyers spoke for intervenors supporting EPA: one for governments (nine states and several cities); one for power companies supporting the rule; and one for public health and environmental organizations — including EDF.

The court first explored one of the claims by the opponents: that EPA lacked the statutory authority to issue federal plans requiring emission reductions without first giving the states more time to submit their own proposed plans.

The opponents claimed that states couldn’t submit their own plans until EPA told them the exact amount of necessary emission reductions.

Judge Rogers pointed out that a similar prior rule was issued in the form of federal plans – and added that the statute doesn’t say that states have to wait for EPA to act before submitting state plans. 

Judge Griffith told the opponents’ attorney:

You don’t have a strong plain text argument.

However, when the same issue came up later in the proceeding, Judge Kavanaugh questioned EPA’s counsel about whether it was practical for states to submit plans before EPA quantified the emission reduction requirements.

Another of the opponents’ major claims was that EPA acted “impermissibly” by:

  • Using an air quality impact trigger to determine which states should be covered by the rule
  • Then using a cost-effectiveness measure to define the required emission reductions
  • Then not going back to repeat the air quality impact analysis to see if the emission reductions would take the states below the trigger point for being covered under the rule

 Judge Rogers noted that the court had accepted a similar two-part methodology in previous cases. 

 And both Judge Rogers and Judge Griffith questioned whether the opponents had waived this claim by failing to raise it specifically during EPA’s rulemaking.

The opponents also argued that EPA had failed to sufficiently validate its air quality modeling — raising concerns about whether the required emission reductions based on that modeling were arbitrary. 

EPA’s counsel responded by describing how the air quality model was extensively validated for 2005 — the most recent period with data that could be used for the purpose.

EPA’s counsel argued that it was entirely reasonable for EPA to use the validated model to make projections for later years.

The opponents’ counsel argued that point vigorously — comparing EPA’s modeling to a car that is nice and shiny, but won’t start. 

EPA’s counsel won a big laugh in the courtroom with his response. He said that, after having shown that the car could drive to the 7-11, EPA was justified in believing that the car could drive a little further down the street to the Starbucks.

The judges were extremely attentive to what both sides had to say throughout the argument. They also asked each of the three lawyers representing EPA to briefly return to the podium a second time to address final points — after all the other attorneys had spoken for the last time.

It was an intense and fascinating morning for those of us in attendance.

Now, we all just wait for the court’s decisions … most likely this summer.

In the meantime, read more about the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, including its effects on your state. You can also read all the briefs filed in the case on our website.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, News / Read 2 Responses

Cross-State Goes to Court: Oral Arguments Start Tomorrow in Lawsuits about Clean Air Rule

By David Lifland / Published: April 12, 2012

Another big day in court looms for EPA’s clean air protections.

This time it’s the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that’s under fire.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral arguments in lawsuits over the rule – a rule that provides vitally important clean air protections for families across the eastern half of the United States.  

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule reduces the sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen pollution emitted from coal-fired power plants across 28 eastern states. That pollution drifts across the borders of those states, contributing to dangerous — and sometimes lethal — levels of particulate and smog pollution in downwind states.    

EPA issued the rule under the “Good Neighbor” protections of the Clean Air Act, which ensure that the emissions from one state’s power plants do not cause harmful pollution levels in neighboring states.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would reduce power plant sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and oxides of nitrogen by 54 percent from 2005 levels. These emissions and the resulting particulate pollution and ozone (more commonly known as soot and smog) impair air quality and harm public health — both near the plants and hundreds of miles downwind. 

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will provide healthier air for 240 million Americans in downwind states. EPA estimates that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, when fully implemented, will:

  • Save up to 34,000 lives each year
  • Prevent 15,000 heart attacks each year
  • Prevent 400,000 asthma attacks each year
  • Provide $120 billion to $280 billion in health benefits for the nation each year   

(Check the health protections for your state here)

Here’s the history of the case:

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was adopted on July 6, 2011, and compliance with the rule was scheduled to begin January 1, 2012. But opponents sued.

On December 30th, the court granted motions by several power companies and states to temporarily halt implementation of the rule. (The same court similarly halted EPA’s first interstate air pollution protection program — and then later affirmed EPA’s action after a complete review of the facts and law.) 

So — we go to court tomorrow.

Judges Rogers, Griffith, and Kavanaugh will hear oral arguments in the case beginning at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time.

EDF will be in court to support the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. And we certainly won’t be alone.

Nine states (Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont), the District of Columbia, five major cities (Baltimore, Bridgeport, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia), the American Lung Association, the Clean Air Council, NRDC, Sierra Club, and several major power companies (Calpine, Exelon and Public Service Enterprise Group) have all intervened in support of these crucial clean air protections.  

On the other side are: other power companies (AEP, Southern, GenOn, Luminant) and states such as Texas.

You can read all the briefs that have been filed in the case on our website.

And soon you can read more about it right here. I’ll be in the courtroom to listen to oral arguments, and I’ll post the highlights for you.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, News / Read 1 Response