Archive for the ‘Air pollution’ Category

Study: More emission cuts needed to reduce acid rain

Friday, January 20, 2012

There’s a new report on acid rain out this week from the folks at the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the agency’s press release:

Measurable improvements in air quality and visibility, human health, and water quality in many acid-sensitive lakes and streams, have been achieved through emissions reductions from electric generating power plants and resulting decreases in acid rain. These are some of the key findings in a report to Congress by the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, a cooperative federal program.

The report shows that since the establishment of the Acid Rain Program, under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, there have been substantial reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from power plants that use fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil, which are known to be the primary causes of acid rain. As of 2009, emissions of SO2 and NOx declined by about two-thirds relative to levels in the 1990s. These emissions levels declined even further in 2010, according to recent data compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Because emission reductions result in fewer fine particles and lower ozone concentrations in the air, in 2010 there were thousands fewer premature human deaths, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits annually leading to estimated human health benefits valued at $170 to $430 billion per year.

(more…)

EIA: Unscrubbed coal plants account for most SO2

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

As I’m catching up on all the news I missed being mostly unplugged for about two weeks, one thing that jumped out at my today was the above map, brought to us by the folks at DOE’s Energy Information Administration. The agency reports:

Coal-fired electric power plants make up the largest source of national sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) calls for a 53% reduction in SO2 emissions from the electric power sector by 2014. To meet this goal, plant owners can implement one of or a combination of three main strategies: use lower sulfur coal in their boilers, retire plants without emissions controls, or install emissions control equipment—primarily flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers. Plants with FGD equipment generated 58% of the total electricity generated from coal in 2010, while producing only 27% of total SO2 emissions.

Of course, then I saw this story from BNA:

A federal appeals court temporarily blocked an Environmental Protection Agency rule targeting power plant emissions that cross state lines, leaving an existing air pollution reduction program in place for at least several months (EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1302, stay ordered 12/30/11).

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is expected to be on hold through at least the spring while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit weighs legal challenges to the rule. In the meantime, a predecessor program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, will continue to regulate interstate transport of power plant emissions.

Here’s another chart from the EIA:

 

EPA rules will hit ‘oldest and dirtiest’ power plants

Monday, December 19, 2011

In this photo taken Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011, pigeons fly past as the stacks of Dominion’s power plant tower over a nearby neighborhood in Salem, Mass. More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and another 34 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey. Together, those plants produce enough electricity for more than 21 million households, but their demise is unlikely to cause homes to go dark.  (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

We’re still waiting this morning for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to announce its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, but in the meantime, Dina Cappiello at The Associated Press had a lengthy story that reports:

More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.

Together, those plants — some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country — produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found. But their demise probably won’t cause homes to go dark.

The fallout will be most acute for the towns where power plant smokestacks long have cast a shadow. Tax revenues and jobs will be lost, and investments in new power plants and pollution controls probably will raise electric bills.

The survey, based on interviews with 55 power plant operators and on the Environmental Protection Agency’s own prediction of power plant retirements, rebuts claims by critics of the regulations and some electric power producers.

They have predicted the EPA rules will kill coal as a power source and force blackouts, basing their argument on estimates from energy analysts, congressional offices, government regulators, unions and interest groups. Many of those studies inflate the number of plants retiring by counting those shutting down for reasons other than the two EPA rules.

(more…)

Obama EPA poised to finalize first rule to reduce toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Piles of coal are shown at NRG Energy’s W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station Wednesday, March 16, 2011, in Thompsons, Texas. The plant, which operates natural gas and coal-fired units, is one of the largest power plants in the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will begin regulating mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time, the latest in a string of new regulations that has Republicans bent on reining in the federal body. (AP Photo)

 

It’s coming down to the wire for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to finalize the first-ever limits on the emissions of toxic air pollutants from coal-fired power plants.  NPR’s Elizabeth Shogren explains:

More than 20 years ago, Congress ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate toxic air pollution. It’s done that for most industries, but not the biggest polluters — coal and oil-burning power plants.

The EPA now plans to change that later this week, by setting new rules to limit mercury and other harmful pollution from power plants.

… When President George W. Bush took office, the power industry persuaded his EPA to adopt soft limits on mercury, but federal courts said that regulation was too weak, so it never went into effect.

Now, the court has set a deadline of Friday for the EPA to issue a new rule. The language the EPA wants would require quick action, stating that within three years, power plants that burn coal would have to cut more than 90 percent of the mercury from their exhaust.

They’d also have to slash arsenic, acid gases and other pollutants that cause premature deaths, asthma attacks and cancer. But even now, some power companies have been furiously fighting the EPA’s rule — especially its deadlines.

We’ve written about these rules — and the backlash against them by the local powers that be in coal country –  before here, here and here.  Earlier this week, the State Journal’s great reporter, Pam Kasey, had a local update on the story. Unfortunately, the headline probably overstated the case, perhaps leading people to again not understand that these AEP plants in West Virginia were going to close anyway, with or without the EPA rule. Pam’s story explains the situation more clearly:

In West Virginia, AEP has said it would shut down Appalachian Power Co.’s 1,105-MW Philip Sporn plant in Mason County and 439-MW Kanawha River plant in Kanawha County, along with Ohio Power Co.’s 713-MW Kammer plant in Marshall County. The plants represent more than 2,200 megawatts of coal-fired generating capacity in the state and about 240 jobs.

They accounted for about 7 percent of coal burned for power in the state in 2010 — not all of which is West Virginia coal. However, because they are old and inefficient, they accounted for only about one-tenth of one percent of West Virginia generation, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Asked whether these old plants wouldn’t be closing anyway, Appalachian Power Co. spokeswoman Jeri Matheney said they would, but not all together and so quickly.

And Pam did something much of the rest of the West Virginia media refuse to do … She explained the public health benefits of EPA’s proposal:

Mercury is a neurotoxin to which fetuses and children are particularly susceptible, while other targeted emissions cause cancer, chronic and acute respiratory disorders, and other illnesses.

The rule will require expensive upgrades to or installations of new emissions controls by Jan. 1, 2015, at an estimated 1,200 coal-fired units and 150 oil-fired units at 525 power plants.

When the agency issued its proposed rule in March, it estimated the 2016 cost of compliance at $10.9 billion. The 2016 benefits — realized primarily through 6,800 to 17,000 premature deaths avoided but also through the avoidance of 11,000 non-fatal heart attacks, more than 300,000 cases of respiratory illness including aggravated asthma and acute and chronic bronchitis, and 850,000 days of missed work — came to $59 billion to $140 billion.

My buddy Jim Bruggers at the Courier-Journal has recently reported:

Environmentalists are getting word that the White House may relax the EPA’s planned new rules on mercury and other toxic chemicals.

“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,” reports longtime clean air advocate Frank O’Donnell. “Power companies could emit almost 20 percent more mercury under the dirty power industry scheme being promoted by OMB bean counters.”

It’s worth remembering that, back in September, President Obama personally blocked EPA from implementing new regulations to reduce smog …

Production update: More bad news for coal industry

Monday, October 17, 2011

Perhaps Monday morning is as good a time as any to ponder what a world we live in.

On Friday afternoon, Rep. David McKinley’s press agents were promoting his legislation to strip EPA of its ability to regulate toxic coal as as a “jobs bill.” On the House floor, the West Virginia Republican said anyone who voted against his legislation was personally responsible for the loss of 316,000 jobs — a figure he got from a fairly questionable industry report, and a number contradicted by another recent report.

Earlier last week, officials from American Electric Power were telling lawmakers that new environmental rules deserved a huge part of the blame for increased electricity rates, but then adding this, according to the Gazette’s Phil Kabler:

Asked whether the environmental requirements were excessive, [AEP subsidiary Appalachian Power vice president Mark] Dempsey said, “There are plenty of studies that back up the reasons for the requirements placed on us.”

And then, there was a new announcement from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, adding more weight to the concern that our region’s political leaders need a plan for the coming declines in the coal industry.  As Platts explained:

The US Energy Information Administration expects a 3.9% decline in the electricity generation sector’s coal consumption in 2012, it said Wednesday.

That fall in demand is somewhat steeper than EIA’s expectations a month ago, in its September Short-Term Energy Outlook, when it forecast a 2.3% drop in consumption, data shows.

Meanwhile, the EIA is expecting US coal production to decline by nearly 24 million st, or 2.2%, to about 1.045 million st in 2012 as domestic consumption and exports fall and inventories at electric power plants decline. In September, the agency expected 2012 output to be level with 2011′s levels at around 1.061 million st.

By region, output in Appalachia is expected to fall 5.6% to 319.7 million st in 2012. Production in the Interior is expected to drop 7.9% to 145.8 million st. Western production is projected to improve 1.4% to 579.6 million st.

Another indication that the Obama EPA’s power plant pollution rules aren’t the end of the world

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

The coal industry and coal-fired utilities continue to complaint that the Obama EPA’s proposals to reduce power plant air pollution are the end of the world … but here’s what Platts reported yesterday:

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.

The ICF news release is here, reporting:

Contrary to some projections that indicate environmental regulations will severely impact U.S. coal production, ICF projects that U.S. coal production and prices will remain stable. In particular, demand for low sulfur Powder River Basin coal and low-cost, high-sulfur Illinois Basin coal is expected to be strong.

Platts explained:

The current report bases its estimate of impact by taking into account the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Utility MACT, coal combustion residuals rule, a cooling water intake rule and a future CO2 rule. ICF estimates that the CO2 rule will be in effect by 2020, and assess a carbon price of $15/ton.

The new prediction falls below those forecasted by other analysts and industry insiders, which is partly because of analysts’ changing notion of the regulation details.

John Blaney, managing director of ICF, said:

I think everybody’s projections are evolving as the regulations change and as we learn about what will be contained in the forthcoming regulations.

And:

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.”

Coal plant rule update: Smog, mercury and coal ash

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

This April 6, 2006 file photo shows the Four Corners Power Plant, one of two coal-fired plants in northwest New Mexico, near Farmington, N.M. Owners of the 48-year-old plant, one of the nation’s largest of its kind, are being sued by a coalition of environmental groups over allegations the plant has failed to install the best available equipment to control pollution. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan, File)

There’s a flurry of news out today about coal-fired power plants, starting with word that the American Lung Association and other groups have sued over President Obama’s decision to block important new air pollution standards on smog. According to the press release from Earthjustice:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the stronger standards almost two years ago, but President Obama directed the EPA to drop the proposal on September 2, 2011. Rejection of the protective standards leaves in place weaker Bush-era ozone standards that leave tens of thousands of Americans at risk of suffering serious health impacts, according to leading medical organizations.

Earthjustice is representing the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Appalachian Mountain Club in this challenge.

Charles D. Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association, said:

The Obama Administration’s inaction in cleaning up ozone pollution, and its decision to ignore the strong recommendations of the scientific community, jeopardizes the health of millions of Americans. If the administration had followed the law, new smog standards would have saved lives and resulted in fewer people getting sick.

UPDATED: Our print story for tomorrow is posted online here.

(more…)

Counting up the costs of coal

Thursday, October 6, 2011

We had a little story in today’s Gazette about a new study that’s making the rounds of the environmental press. It’s by three economists (two from Yale and one from Middlebury College) and was published in the most recent edition of the respected journal American Economic Review. As we reported:

Air pollution from coal-fired power plants costs the U.S. more in health damage than those plants contribute to the American economy, according to a new study in a respected economics journal.

Coal plants produce the largest “gross external damages” — $53 billion annually — of any of the industries examined in the new study published in the latest issue of The American Economic Review.

The story continued:

According to the study, the gross external damages (GED) of coal-fired power plants cost about twice the annual value added to the economy by those facilities.

“Coal plants are responsible for more than one-fourth of the GED from the entire U.S. economy,” says the study. “The damages attributed to this industry are larger than the combined GED due to the three next most polluting industries: Crop production, $15 billion/year, livestock production, $15 billion/year, and construction of roadways and bridges, $13 billion/year.”

And:

If the potential costs of carbon dioxide pollution were included “the damages caused by oil- and coal-fired power plants are between 30 and 40 percent higher,” the study said.

“Although the damages from CO2 are large, they are not as large as GED,” the study said. “For the case of coal-fired power plants, CO2 causes an additional $15 billion in damages, which is relatively small compared to the GED of $53 billion.”

The study has gotten coverage from Treehugger.com, as well from Grist here and from Think Progress.  There’s also an interesting mention of it here from The Heritage Foundation.

(more…)

Groups challenge Obama EPA’s air pollution delays

Thursday, October 6, 2011

This just in:

Several groups today filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue letter against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the agency’s failure to identify communities throughout the nation that have unhealthy levels of ozone air pollution. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to formally identify the areas that are not meeting the ozone standards set in 2008 which limits ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion (ppb). Identifying these areas is essential to triggering clean-up plans for those regions with unsafe pollution levels.

Based on recent data, regions that should be designated as violating standards include Washington, D.C.; Baltimore; Los Angeles; Sacramento; San Diego; San Francisco; Dallas; New York City; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Atlanta; and more than two dozen additional communities across the United States. The EPA was originally required by law to identify these areas by March 12, 2010, in a formal process called designating nonattainment areas. It missed that legal deadline. While the agency granted itself a one-year extension for designating ozone nonattainment areas, until March 12, 2011, it also failed to meet this deadline.

(more…)

Report: Health benefits of Obama EPA’s air pollution rules would far outweight their costs

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Later this week, the House is set for a series of votes aimed at delaying several major air pollution rules, mandates inter-agency economic studies of such rules, and seriously erode EPA’s ability to cut back on toxic air pollutants.

The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011 is backed by Republicans, including Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley of West Virginia.

But contrary to complaints from the GOP and regulated industry that the EPA rules would harm the economy, a new report out this week from the Economic Policy Institute says:

… The regulations formulated by the Obama Administration will be of tremendous benefit to public health, and the combined compliance cost of the rules – both finalized and proposed – amounts to only about 0.1 percent of the economy, and thus are not a significant factor in the overall economy’s direction.

According to the report:

The Combined Effect of the Obama EPA Rules calculates the dollar value of the benefits and costs of new EPA rules, expressed in 2010 dollars, including the following:

* Setting aside the Cross-State Air Pollution rule, the combined annual benefits from all final major rules exceed their costs by $10 billion to $95 billion a year. The benefit/cost ratio ranges from 2-to-1 to 20-to-1.

– The net benefits from the Cross-State Air Pollution rule exceed $100 billion a year (this rule is treated separately because benefits accruing from action under the Bush administration and the Obama administration cannot be disentangled).

– The combined annual benefits from three major proposed rules examined here exceed their costs by $62 billion to $188 billion a year. The benefit/cost ratio ranges from 6-to-1 to 15-to-1.

– When fully in effect in 2014, the combined costs of the major rules finalized by the Obama administration’s EPA would amount to significantly less than 0.1% of the economy.

– Assuming the proposed rules are also finalized, when fully in effect in 2016 the combined costs of the major EPA rules finalized and proposed so far under the Obama administration would amount to about 0.13% of the economy.

Pay attention this week, and see if your local news coverage of the House debate discusses these conclusions …

On eve of President Obama’s jobs speech, industry goes after Sierra Club’s ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

As the nation waits to hear more details of President Obama’s new jobs plan, the National Mining Association sought today to inject its own agenda into the mix — issuing a news release criticizing the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign:

On the eve of the president’s address to the nation on job creation, a new report shows potentially 1.24 million jobs in 36 states have been destroyed by the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign aimed at stopping coal-based power plants. The finding, from an analysis released today by the National Mining Association (NMA), shows that while the Sierra Club boasts of stopping coal plant projects it is also destroying high-wage jobs for American workers in a struggling economy.

Aside from its news release, the NMA made public just two charts (see here and here) from the analysis, but said:

Applying coal plant employment data from the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to the Sierra Club’s own claims of halted power plant construction, the analysis shows Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign has targeted for destruction 116,872 permanent jobs and an additional 1.12 million construction jobs represented by the power plants they have prevented from being built. Examples include Illinois, where proposed power plants could have supported 126,612 total jobs there and in surrounding states, and Texas, where blocked power plant construction represented 122,065 total jobs and where potential shortages of electric power exists today.

(more…)

President Obama blocks EPA smog standards

Friday, September 2, 2011

Here’s the White House statement:

Over the last two and half years, my administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution. From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from outdated power plants to doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, the historic steps we’ve taken will save tens of thousands of lives each year, remove over a billion tons of pollution from our air, and produce hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for the American people.

At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time. Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.

I want to be clear: my commitment and the commitment of my administration to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering. I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution. And my administration will continue to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act or dismantle the progress we have made.

Read more here, here and here.

Blackouts, brownouts and AEP’s Mike Morris: Grid manager says EPA rules not a ‘trainwreck’

Thursday, September 1, 2011

We’ve previously gone over here on Coal Tattoo the Congressional Research Service report that debunked the notion that EPA’s series of air pollution regulatory actions amount to some sort of  “train wreck” for the nation’s energy system.

Now, there’s an interesting report out from PJM Interconnection — the folks who manage the regional power grid — that examines the potential impact of EPA’s proposals on their operations.

The bottom line:

Even with almost 7,000 MW less coal capacity clearing for the 2014/2015 Delivery Year, PJM estimates the RTO will carry a reserve margin of 19.6 percent for the Delivery Year, including the demand and capacity commitments of FRR entities. Even with the potential retirement of coal capacity already announced by FRR entities, there are also announced commitments to replace a portion of that capacity with new gas-fired capacity such that the RTO would still carry a reserve margin at or above of the target 15.3 percent installed reserve margin. Add into the mix the potential for new entry from Demand Resources, as has been the trend in recent years, and resource adequacy does not appear to be threatened.

Thanks to Bill Howley at The Power Line blog, who brought this report to my attention and to Keryn Newman, who apparently brought it to Bill’s attention through a piece in the StopPathWV blog.

(more…)

Mayor Bloomberg to donate $50 million to help Sierra Club fight coal-fired power plants

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The big announcement is coming later this morning, but NPR’s Elizabeth Shogren had the scoop already:

The Sierra Club is getting a big boost in its effort to shut down coal-fired power plants. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is supporting the organization’s efforts with a donation of $50 million. The plants produce nearly half the nation’s electricity. But they also pump out lots of pollution that contributes to climate change, makes people sick and causes premature deaths.

Once efforts to embargo the story were out the window, The Washington Post went with their story, reporting:

Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune described the gift from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which will be spread out over four years, as “a game-changer, from our perspective.” The group will devote the money to its “Beyond Coal” campaign, which has helped block the construction of 153 new coal-fired power plants across the country since 2002.

Bloomberg and Sierra Club officials were to appear together later this morning outside a coal-fired plant in Alexandria, Va., for the announcement.

(more…)

NRDC report details toxic emissions from coal plants

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

A new report out this morning from the Natural Resources Defense Council concludes:

Residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida live in states with the most toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants, according to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The study used publicly-available data in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The analysis, entitled “Toxic Power: How Power Plants Contaminate Our Air and States” was jointly released today by NRDC and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR).

Among the key findings of the report:

– Nearly half of all the toxic air pollution reported from industrial sources in the United States comes from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

– Power plants are the single largest industrial source of toxic air pollution in 28 states and the District of Columbia.

In a press release, the NRDC said:

Despite the health benefits of reducing toxic pollution from power plants, some polluters and members of Congress are seeking to block EPA’s efforts to update public health protections. Last week, two House Committees voted for amendments by Ed Whitfield (R-KY)/Mike Ross (D-AR) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) to block for at least a year the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics standard. These amendments could move to the House floor as early as this week.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton (R-MI) has vowed to block EPA’s clean air safeguards. One of the nation’s biggest polluters, American Electric Power (AEP) based in Columbus, Ohio has drafted legislation to block the EPA and has argued against EPA’s current efforts.

Regarding West Virginia, the report said:

West Virginia’s electric sector ranked EIGHTH in toxic air pollution in 2009, emitting nearly 21.5 million pounds of harmful chemicals, which accounted for 84% of state pollution and 6% of toxic pollution from all U.S. power plants.

Trying to make sense of EPA’s Lisa Jackson on air pollution, jobs and the future of the coalfields

Friday, July 8, 2011

I was starting to think that maybe my good friend Sen. Joe Manchin was on vacation … I mean, hours and hours went by after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its final rules to combat cross-state air pollution, and Sen. Manchin hadn’t issued a news release yet.

So I was relieved when the release from Manchin’s overactive press office finally reached my inbox at nearly 7 p.m. last evening:

“The continued jobs-destroying overreach of the EPA is outrageous, and it’s incomprehensible that in these difficult economic times, the Administration would be so callous as to arbitrarily impose onerous rules that they know will cost countless American jobs and raise the daily costs of life for so many struggling families,” Senator Manchin said. “Once again, the EPA is taking aim at the coal industry, small businesses and the hardworking families who help power and build this nation.

“As I have said before, it’s time the EPA realizes that it cannot regulate what has not been legislated. Our government was designed so that elected representatives are in charge of making important decisions, not bureaucrats. That principle is even more true today when the American people see the consequences of the EPA making rules that affect our whole country and could hurt our fragile economy.”

Sen. Manchin never fails to disappoint … but come on now. Arbitrarily impose onerous rules? EPA can’t regulate what hasn’t been legislated? I wonder if Sen. Manchin doesn’t need to get some better staff work done, or if he’s just trying to misstate things in his zeal to show his allegiance to the coal industry.

Maybe Sen. Manchin disagrees with EPA’s rationale for this final rule. But he doesn’t offer one bit of evidence to support his allegation that it’s being arbitrarily imposed. EPA officials outlined their reasoning pretty clearly right here on the agency’s website. And trying to regulate what hasn’t been legislated? Seriously? Perhaps Sen. Manchin needs to go back and actually read the Clean Air Act.

Congress already gave EPA authority under the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision to to cut down interstate pollution that interferes with the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards protecting public health. That’s in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the law, Senator. It’s one thing if Sen. Manchin wants to discuss or disagree with the actual way in which EPA is writing these rules, but he’s not doing that — he’s making incorrect statements about what authority EPA has and doesn’t have under laws already passed by Congress.

And that leads me to EPA, and that agency’s administrator, Lisa P. Jackson. While reading Sen. Manchin’s statement, I couldn’t help but think about the brief discussion I had with Administrator Jackson earlier yesterday during a press conference call about those EPA air pollution rules.

When EPA issued its initial press release, this part of it jumped out at me:

“No community should have to bear the burden of another community’s polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “By maximizing flexibility and leveraging existing technology, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will help ensure that American families aren’t suffering the consequences of pollution generated far from home, while allowing states to decide how best to decrease dangerous air pollution in the most cost effective way.”

Now wait a second, I thought … another community’s polluters“? Now, in this case,  that means at least partly all of the coal-fired power plants that line the Ohio River Valley … in places like Moundsville and New Haven in West Virginia. Missing from EPA’s statement was any recognition that those power plants aren’t there just so that the evil coal companies and utilities and arbitrarily send pollution over to big cities or suburbs on the East Coast. Those power plants are there to give those city folks electricity to run their iPhones and their air conditioners.

So it seemed to me that the folks enjoying the benefits of that “cheap electricity” from coal aren’t exactly powerless to do anything about the pollution that drifts their way from the coalfields. One thing they could do, for example, is to demand from that their political leaders push for other, cleaner forms of energy. Of course, some folks in those communities are doing that.

And Lisa P. Jackson is a smart, educated and very capable woman. So it surprised me when she repeated almost that same statement from EPA’s press release in her conference call with the media. I perhaps foolishly assumed that Administrator Jackson understood the connection between coal-fired power plant pollution and the “cheap electricity” she and her neighbors to our east take advantage of every day.

When it came my turn to ask a question, I decided to put this issue on the table, and see what she had to say. My question went something like this:

… As you know a lot of this pollution that this rule is aimed at is produced generating electricity and other goods and services for people who don’t live where the pollution is actually produced. And I’m wondering what your agency is doing to follow up on its promise that it would work with areas like the coalfields of Appalachian to provide alternative economies and alternative jobs to replace those that might be impacted by these sorts of rules.

I was amazed when Administrator Jackson responded by telling everybody on the call that I didn’t understand the issue at hand. She said:

Just to clarify for everybody … this is a rule that talks about upwind and downwind air pollution. So it’s actually sort of the opposite of what you asked, with respect to air, what we’re trying to do is ensure is that someone who is generating pollution upwind isn’t causing a place downwind to be out of attainment for ozone or SO2, and therefore making people unhealthy in a state that has no ability through their permit process to do anything about it.

She went on:

Now, there are other forms of local pollution, and since I know your issues are … you know, water pollution, or land pollution from waste disposal, those are being addressed separately.

Actually, Administrator Jackson, if your staff ever show you a copy of Coal Tattoo or of the Gazette, you’ll see we are concerned about quite a lot of issues about the coal industry … We’ve covered your agency’s efforts regarding greenhouse gas emissions and the recent proposal to for the first time regulate air toxics from coal-fired power plants. And we understand what you’re up to with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

But it’s also clear from statements put out by folks like Sen. Manchin that your agency has a tough fight on its hands from the coal industry’s powerful political friends. And the folks who work at coal mines and power plants in places like Mingo and Mason counties in West Virginia have a right to straight talk from you and others in the Obama administration about how cleaning up coal pollution will affect their lives, including their jobs.

We’ve tried on this blog and in our newspaper to explain to readers in West Virginia the downside of coal, and all of the ways that EPA’s regulatory proposals might help to curb the negative impacts of this industry.

But it’s also true that your agency, on behalf of your boss, President Obama, made a very clear promise to the people of the coalfields two years ago:

Federal agencies will work in coordination with appropriate regional, state and local entities to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare of Appalachian communities.

Sure, that promise was made in the context of EPA’s announced crackdown on mountaintop removal permits. But it clearly is a commitment that must go beyond that, to helping communities — places that helped for generations to make our country strong — that are likely to see job losses from new air pollution, water pollution and greenhouse gas limits on coal. These aren’t separate issues. They’re all connected, and I’m sure that Lisa Jackson knows and understands that.

Administrator Jackson did go on to talk about the notion of “green jobs” a bit in response to my question:

In terms of what the administration is doing to try to help communities justly transition to cleaner forms of energy, I can just repeat the fact that this administration, this president has from the beginning said that there is great opportunity in greener, cleaner forms of energy. It’s better for our health, it’s better for our security, it’s better for our environment. He has shepherded and stewarded everything form the recovery act which had tens of billions of dollars in investment in cleaner form of energy, including a carbon capture and storage project right in West Virginia at, I think it’s an AEP plant, Mountaineer. So you know, whether it’s the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, whether it’s been work through our clean water programs to help communities finance and deal with water pollution, whether it’s working with labor unions and others, boilermakers and others who will get work when plants have to control their pollution and do it here in America. I think this administration has policies that make good on what we’ve all talked about, which is we should invest in our energy infrastructure just like we invest in our other infrastructure. It makes our country cleaner, it makes our economy stronger, and it makes our people healthier, and as you can see from these estimates, we’re not talking about small amounts of health improvements. We’re talking about saving lives, and literally changing people’s ability to enjoy the life they have.

But you’ll notice that the one West Virginia example she mentioned is one in which the work is meant to help keep the coal industry viable in a carbon-constrained world — not one aimed at helping transition folks who might lose coal-based jobs into something else with more of a future.

It’s been two years since the crackdown on mountaintop removal was announced. We’re half-way through the third year of President Obama’s term. Perhaps it’s time for someone like Lisa Jackson to visit West Virginia, and tell us more about exactly how the coalfields can join in the clean, green energy future she keeps talking about.

EPA announces new smog limits

Thursday, July 7, 2011

This just in from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

WASHINGTON – Building on the Obama Administration’s strong record of protecting the public’s health through common-sense clean air standards – including proposed standards to reduce emissions of mercury and other air toxics, as well as air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today finalized additional Clean Air Act protections that will slash hundreds of thousands of tons of smokestack emissions that travel long distances through the air leading to soot and smog, threatening the health of hundreds of millions of Americans living downwind. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014 – achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits. Twenty seven states in the eastern half of the country will work with power plants to cut air pollution under the rule, which leverages widely available, proven and cost-effective control technologies. Ensuring flexibility, EPA will work with states to help develop the most appropriate path forward to deliver significant reductions in harmful emissions while minimizing costs for utilities and consumers.

“No community should have to bear the burden of another community’s polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “By maximizing flexibility and leveraging existing technology, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will help ensure that American families aren’t suffering the consequences of pollution generated far from home, while allowing states to decide how best to decrease dangerous air pollution in the most cost effective way.”

Carried long distances across the country by wind and weather, power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) continually travel across state lines. As the pollution is transported, it reacts in the atmosphere and contributes to harmful levels of smog (ground-level ozone) and soot (fine particles), which are scientifically linked to widespread illnesses and premature deaths and prevent many cities and communities from enjoying healthy air quality.

The rule will improve air quality by cutting SO2 and NOx emissions that contribute to pollution problems in other states. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA actions will reduce SO2 emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels. NOx emissions will drop by 54 percent. Following the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” mandate to limit interstate air pollution, the rule will help states that are struggling to protect air quality from pollution emitted outside their borders, and it uses an approach that can be applied in the future to help areas continue to meet and maintain air quality health standards.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule replaces and strengthens the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered EPA to revise in 2008. The court allowed CAIR to remain in place temporarily while EPA worked to finalize today’s replacement rule.

The rule will protect over 240 million Americans living in the eastern half of the country, resulting in up to $280 billion in annual benefits. The benefits far outweigh the $800 million projected to be spent annually on this rule in 2014 and the roughly $1.6 billion per year in capital investments already underway as a result of CAIR. EPA expects pollution reductions to occur quickly without large expenditures by the power industry. Many power plants covered by the rule have already made substantial investments in clean air technologies to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. The rule will level the playing field for power plants that are already controlling these emissions by requiring more facilities to do the same. In the states where investments in control technology are required, health and environmental benefits will be substantial.

The rule will also help improve visibility in state and national parks while better protecting sensitive ecosystems, including Appalachian streams, Adirondack lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and forests. In a supplemental rulemaking based on further review and analysis of air quality information, EPA is also proposing to require sources in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin to reduce NOX emissions during the summertime ozone season. The proposal would increase the total number of states covered by the rule from 27 to 28. Five of these six states are covered for other pollutants under the rule. The proposal is open for public review and comment for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.

 

AEP, EPA and the costs of coal pollution

Friday, June 17, 2011

Gazette photo by Lawrence Pierce, Kanawha River Plant

Last week’s announcement of potential plant closures by American Electric Power continued to get attention this week here locally and in Washington, D.C. — where EPA Administrator took on AEP directly, telling a congressional committee:

… While Americans across the country suffer from this pollution, special interests who are trying to gut long-standing public health protections are now going so far as to claim that these pollutants aren’t even harmful. These myths are being perpetrated by some of the same lobbyists who have in the past testified before Congress about the importance of reducing mercury and particulate matter. Now on behalf of their clients, they’re saying the exact opposite.

I pointed out earlier what a poor job many in the local media did in covering this story, and at least one of those media outlets — West Virginia MetroNews — must have been reading. Because they actually gave EPA its say (a week late):

Federal EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told members of a congressional committee Wednesday her agency plans to continue to make its public health decisions on the principles of “the law and the best science.”

“Over the 40-year history of the Clean Air Act our GDP has grown 200 percent. So if history is any guide, we can do this,” Jackson said. “We can have safer, healthier air and have a growing economy.”

Not for nothing, but it’s not like EPA is all that effective in defending itself in these situations. I spent much of the week trying to get someone from EPA to do a phone interview about how some of these plant closings may have been driven by an AEP court settlement over long-standing pollution violations. So far, nobody from EPA has agreed to an interview.

Outside of West Virginia, there’s been a somewhat different reaction to the AEP announcement.  For example, The National Journal ran a piece headlined, Power company contradicts itself on EPA rules, reporting:

American Electric Power, one of the nation’s biggest coal utilities, downplayed the impact of EPA regulations to its investors while forecasting a doom-and-gloom outcome for Washington policymakers.

Sound familiar? It’s the same game that the coal-mining industry played with EPA’s crackdown on mountaintop removal permits, as we reported here on Coal Tattoo a year and a half ago.

(more…)

Ignoring inconvenient facts on AEP announcement

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Gazette photo by Lawrence Pierce

The Gazette’s late publisher, Ned Chilton, was know for his criticism of what he called West Virginia’s “insipid press,” local newspapers that didn’t question the actions of local politicians and powerful institutions.

I’ve thought of this as I’ve read through the predictable follow-up from the usual characters after American Electric Power’s announcement last week that it might move up the date for closing three West Virginia power plants if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalizes new rules to reduce hazardous air pollution from such facilities.

A few examples:

– The Bluefield Daily Telegraph wrote –

One must look no further than last week’s stunning announcement from American Electric Power for further proof of the out-of-control, job-killing agenda of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

– My buddy Hoppy Kercheval at MetroNews opined

… This rogue EPA pushes ahead with regulatory zeal, either oblivious or arrogantly dismissive of the disruption it’s causing.

– The Charleston Daily Mail editorialized

The irony of having policymakers sit in air-conditioned offices and pricing air-conditioning out of the budgets of so many homes elsewhere is lost on today’s public administrators.

The really disappointing thing here, though, was that the Daily Mail’s very lengthy news story on the AEP announcement made little or no effort to explain the reasons for the EPA’s regulatory proposal. No mention of the respiratory illnesses and early deaths the rule was aimed at reducing. No mention of the huge hidden costs of continuing to rely on coal for supposed “cheap electricity.” Daily Mail readers had to wait for George Hohmann’s column in the Sunday paper to get a mention of this, and even then it was noted only as kind of an odd afterthought in describing the AEP news release:

… The utility didn’t mention the health and environmental benefits to be derived from the EPA rules. Others will make that case.

Those “others” certainly won’t be any of our state’s elected officials or major political figures. They were falling all over themselves to get out press releases depicting the AEP announcement as another result of the Obama administration’s “war on coal.”

(more…)

EPA response to AEP plant announcement

Friday, June 10, 2011

Here’s a statement just issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to yesterday’s announcement by American Electric Power:

These long-overdue Clean Air Act standards will slash hazardous emissions of mercury and other acid gases, preventing thousands of asthma and heart attacks and premature deaths. Utilities have known for decades that these standards – which are still in the proposal stage and have a built-in 3 year compliance timeline, have been coming for decades. They also know that they are free to approach EPA with serious, fact-based compliance plans, and that state governments also have the ability under the law to seek more time for the plants in their jurisdictions. The standards leverage existing American-made pollution control technologies that are already deployed at over half of the nation’s coal and oil-fired power plants – and will result in thousands of jobs across the country as workers install the technologies at plants.