Climate 411

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

By / 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, News, Policy / Comments are closed

An Inside Look at EPA’s Carbon Pollution Hearings

By / Bio / 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, News, Policy / Read 1 Response

Court Hears Oral Argument on Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

By / 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 Health, News / Read 2 Responses

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

By / 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 Health, News / Read 1 Response

EPA’s Historic Proposal to Limit Carbon Pollution from Power Plants

By / Bio / Published: March 27, 2012

Today we are making history. 

Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first-ever nationwide emission standards to limit dangerous carbon pollution from new coal- and gas-burning power plants. 

Today we take the first critically important step towards addressing the climate-destabilizing pollution emitted by power plants. 

Today we take a vital step towards protecting Americans’ health and strengthening our economy.

With these standards and EPA’s landmark clean car standards, we’re beginning to address the clear and present danger of carbon pollution from the two largest emission sources in our nation.

Power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the carbon pollution emitted in America. U.S. power plants are one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the world. 

Power plants are responsible for 40% of carbon pollution emitted in the U.S.

We have the technology and the know-how to change this.

The carbon pollution emission standards proposed by EPA today would halve the carbon emissions from a new coal-fired power plant over its lifetime. 

These standards will help further the progress we are making towards a cleaner, more secure future for energy in America. We will use our nation’s electricity resources more efficiently to cut energy costs for families and businesses, mobilize Made in the USA technologies and fuels for cleaner energy generation, and ensure that America will lead the global race to a clean energy economy.

States, communities and businesses across our nation are already leading the way:

  • 29 states have adopted policies to expand reliance on cost-effective clean energy resources.
  • States including Washington, Montana, Oregon, Minnesota, New York and California have adopted (or are now putting in place) limits on dangerous carbon pollution from fossil-fueled power plants.
  • A McKinsey & Company report found that we could meet our nation’s growing electricity needs by using existing resources more wisely — and could cut energy costs for American families and businesses at the same time.
  • Innovative businesses like Solar City are creating new solutions and technologies to deliver cleaner, safer energy. Solar City, founded in 2006, is installing solar systems that lower utility bills with no upfront investment by the customer. Solar City has 20,000 projects in 14 states that are either completed or underway– including a one billion dollar project to put solar systems on military housing.
  • Hundreds of U.S. companies are capitalizing on new, multibillion-dollar market opportunities to make our electric grid as smart, flexible, and innovative as the internet — enabling a wholesale shirt to clean, community-based energy resources.

There are also fundamental shifts in the energy market that are driving a change in our electricity supply.

Much has been written about the structural market shift to natural gas, which has been enabled by new drilling technologies. Some have tried to deny this market shift and claim that EPA’s clean air protections are stopping new coal plants, but the truth is that basic economics — low natural gas prices— are driving these decisions.  But don’t take our word for it. Check out these quotes.

  • Jim Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, which provides electricity to the Carolinas, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. He told the National Journal:

The new climate rule is in line with market forces anyway. We’re not going to build any coal plants in any event. You’re going to choose to build gas plants every time, regardless of what the rule is.

  • Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Company, recently told investors on an earnings call on January 25, 2012:

Four years ago…we were about 70% of our energy from coal and about, I don’t know, 16% from nuclear, about 12% from gas and the balance from hydro.  In the fourth quarter — this was really surprising to me, maybe not surprising considering how cheap gas is now – our energy production was 40% coal, 39% gas. … Now moving forward, given where gas prices are, we will continue to see much more gas production.

Inexpensive natural gas is the biggest threat to coal. Nothing else even comes close.

The immense natural gas resources recently made commercially accessible in the United States must be developed responsibly if we are to protect our water and ecosystems, and prevent wasteful leakage that will undermine the carbon pollution advantages of natural gas.  But America can meet this urgent challenge.

We also know how to harness the power of the wind, the sun, and geothermal resources. By making the energy foundation of our economy cleaner and more diverse, we will improve our national security, improve public health, and protect our climate.  Today we took a big step down that road.

The stakes are high.

Climate impacts are already affecting American communities, and scientists tell us that the impacts will intensify as atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions rise.

The United States Global Change Research Program has determined that if carbon pollution emissions are not reduced, it is likely that American communities will experience increasingly severe impacts, including:

  • Rising levels of dangerous smog in cities — which will lead to an increased risk of respiratory infections, more asthma attacks, and more premature deaths
  • Increased risk of illness and death due to extreme heat
  • More intense hurricanes and storm surges
  • Increased frequency and severity of flooding
  • Increases in insect pests and in the prevalence of diseases transmitted by food, water and insects
  • Reduced precipitation and runoff in the arid West
  • Reduced crop yields and livestock productivity
  • More wildfires and increasingly frequent and severe droughts in some regions

I mentioned earlier that American states, communities and businesses are already taking steps to address these threats. Starting today, they don’t have to do it alone. With today’s announcement, our entire country will fight the widespread and varied threats we face from climate change.

I think EPA deserves a standing ovation for that.  

Please join me in supporting EPA’s efforts to protect our families, our communities, and our economy from these threats. 

The resistance to these standards by entrenched fossil fuel-dependent industries will likely be fierce, but together our voices can move these vitally important policies forward. 

Also posted in Economics, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, News, Policy / Read 1 Response

Day Two of Landmark Clean Air Cases: Courtroom Arguments Wrap Up

By / Bio / Published: February 29, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. heard its second and final day of oral arguments, today, in a landmark group of cases about EPA’s critical climate protections.

Today’s arguments focused on EPA’s actions to require cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from the largest sources, like power plants — while shielding smaller sources.

I was at the courthouse again today. Here’s a look at some of the highlights:

The judges began by examining EPA’s decision to initially focus climate protections on the largest sources of pollution. The judges closely questioned the Solicitor General of the State of Texas about how this focus on large sources harmed the state.

In a pointed exchange, Chief Judge Sentelle noted that the remedy Texas seeks — invalidation of the large-source thresholds — would seem to cause Texas injury where, under EPA’s current program, none exists. 

The Chief Judge underscored the seeming irrationality of this position, noting that Texas’s argument:

[D]oesn’t even make good non-sense.

The questioning then turned to EPA’s long-standing rules describing the workings of the permitting system for the largest sources of pollution. Those rules are more than 30 years old.

In this series of exchanges, Judge Tatel focused on provisions of the Clean Air Act that capture “any air pollutant” within this program. He questioned the Petitioners about how this language, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, could possibly allow the agency to exclude greenhouse gas pollutants.

Like yesterday, the judges closely examined EPA’s legal authority. Today, they pointedly questioned both Petitioners and EPA. 

It was another fascinating day in the courtroom with important implications for protecting human health and the environment from the clear and present danger climate pollution poses.   

Now, we’ll all have to wait for the court’s decisions –probably sometime in the summer. We’ll bring you updates as soon as anything happens.

In the meantime, you can read more about the EPA’s endangerment findings and the attacks on EPA’s climate change protections on our website, or from my earlier blogs posts – a preview of the case, or a look at yesterday’s proceedings.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Climate Change Legislation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed