WASHINGTON, DC, February 24, 2009 (ENS) – The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to consider a Bush-era rule that would have allowed a cap-and-trade approach to mercury, a toxic heavy metal emitted by power plants that burn coal and oil. Power plants are the largest source of mercury in the nation.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case invalidates the U.S. EPA’s so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule, which would have allowed dangerous levels of mercury pollution to persist under a weak cap-and-trade program that would not have taken full effect until after 2020.

The Supreme Court in effect denied an appeal, filed last year by a coalition of utilities, seeking reversal of a federal court decision vacating the mercury rule.

The original lawsuit that resulted in the February 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the states and environmental groups maintained that EPA illegally removed coal and oil-fired power plants from the list of regulated source categories under a section of the Clean Air Act that requires strict regulation of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury.

Left standing is the ruling by the appeals court that upheld the lower court ruling and rebuked the Bush-era EPA for attempting to create an illegal loophole for the power generating industry, rather than applying the Clean Air Act’s “maximum achievable control technology” standard for mercury emissions.

The Supreme Court also granted the Obama administration’s request, made two weeks ago, to drop the Bush administration appeal.

“Today’s good news is due in no small part to the leadership of the Obama administration, in renouncing the harmful Bush administration actions and embracing EPA’s responsibilities to protect the American people against mercury and other toxic pollution,” said John Walke, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The James H. Miller coal-fired power plant in Alabama emits more mercury than any other generating station in the United States. (Photo credit unknown)

Newly appointed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has pledged to move swiftly in developing tough new mercury standards for power plants.

Seventeen states and dozens of Native American tribes, public health and environmental groups, and organizations representing registered nurses and physicians, challenged EPA’s suite of rules in 2005.

The plaintiffs maintained that cap-and-trade contributed to “hot spots” for mercury, a neurotoxin linked to birth defects, learning disabilities and neurological problems.

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram said the Supreme Court’s denial of an appeal petition from the Utility Air Regulatory Group ends a long legal fight by New Jersey and other states to compel the federal government to issue tough new standards for mercury and other toxic air emissions from power plants.

“As of today, the protracted legal battle that has delayed proper regulation of mercury emissions from power plants is over, and the practice of allowing those plants to spew harmful quantities of a dangerous neurotoxin into our air in violation of federal law is at an end,” Milgram said.

“The Supreme Court has now confirmed that EPA must follow the law as it is written. We are looking forward to working on rules that reflect the most stringent controls achievable for this industry, as the Clean Air Act requires,” said Ann Weeks, attorney for Clean Air Task Force who represented U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Ohio Environmental Council, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Conservation Law Foundation in the case.

Some 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants emit 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat, the plaintiffs pointed out.

More than 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination, with over half of those mercury advisories applying to all water bodies in the state.

“We’re relieved that the Supreme Court has put the final nail in the coffin of this ill-advised regulation, which left the Adirondacks and Catskills vulnerable to continued mercury contamination,” said Neil Woodworth, executive director of the Adirondack Mountain Club. “Ninety-six percent of the lakes in the Adirondack region exceed the recommended EPA action level for methyl mercury in fish.”

“In the Catskills, health officials have advised children and women of childbearing age not to eat fish from six Catskill reservoirs, reservoirs that also provide New York City with its drinking water,” said Woodworth. “With this ruling, we can now move forward with sensible mercury controls that will help reverse these trends.”

Among the groups involved in last year’s successful court challenge was Earthjustice, who argued the case before the lower court on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club.

“While we applaud this ruling, mercury contamination from coal-fired utilities continues to grow as new plants are approved for construction,” said Jon Mueller, Chesapeake Bay Foundation director of litigation. “Every year in the Chesapeake Bay region additional fish consumption advisories are issued. EPA must take action quickly to curtail this threat to public health.”

The EPA rules generated controversy when they were proposed in 2004, after it was discovered that industry attorneys had drafted key language that EPA included verbatim in its rule.

EPA’s internal auditor in the Office of Inspector General later discovered that EPA’s senior political management had ordered staff to work backwards from a pre-determined political outcome, “instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing [power plant] units were achieving in practice.”

The top 50 most-polluting coal-burning power plants in the United States emitted 20 tons of toxic mercury into the air in 2007, finds a November 2008 report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. Of the top 10 mercury emitting power plants, all but one reported an increase as compared to the previous year.

Once released into the atmosphere, mercury settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans who eat contaminated fish. The Centers for Disease Control has found that six percent of American women have mercury in their blood at levels that would put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.

Click here [www.earthjustice.org] for a guide to the mercury levels found in various species of fish and shellfish.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

UTICA, New York, February 16, 2009 (ENS) – A federal judge has sentenced two operators of asbestos abatement companies to prison for environmental crimes related to the illegal removal and disposal of asbestos in upstate New York.

U.S. District Judge David Hurd for the Northern District of New York handed John Wood of Plattsburgh a four year prison term and sentenced him to pay restitution of $854,166 to victims. Wood will be placed on supervised release for three years when he is released from prison.

The judge gave Curtis Collins of Willsboro a two year sentence, ordered him to pay $114,900 in restitution to victims and further ordered him to serve three years of supervised release.

Asbestos removal must meet strict standards designed to protect public and worker health. (Photo credit unknown)

Both defendants pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act and the mail fraud statute. Wood further pleaded guilty to contempt of court based on numerous new asbestos crimes that he committed while awaiting trial on the original charges.

In 2005, after being released from prison for unrelated felonies, Wood began operating an asbestos abatement company known as J & W Construction, Inc., according to the U.S. Justice Department.

An investigation conducted by special agents of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with assistance from inspectors with the New York State Department of Labor’s Asbestos Control Bureau, uncovered Wood’s illegal activities.

Wood directed his employees to perform “rip and run” asbestos removals that, rather than removing all asbestos, dispersed and left substantial quantities behind, contaminating numerous businesses and homes. Some of the asbestos was buried on a farm in Willsboro that required the expenditure from the U.S. EPA’s Superfund to clean up.

The U.S. EPA has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. When inhaled, the fibrous mineral causes lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, an invariably fatal disease. Asbestos diseases may exist for decades before they are diagnosed, making treatment difficult.

To deceive clients into believing that all of the asbestos had been removed and that their businesses and homes were safe to reoccupy, Wood utilized the services of Mark Desnoyers, a licensed air monitor from Plattsburgh. Desnoyers was the owner of Adirondack Environmental Associates.

Desnoyers falsified air samples so that laboratory results appeared to prove that all asbestos had been removed from homes and businesses when in fact they remained seriously contaminated.

Wood testified against Desnoyers during a two-week long trial last September.

Collins worked for Wood and also ran Adirondack Asbestos. He pleaded guilty and cooperated with the U.S. Justice Department by testifying against Desnoyers at trial.

Desnoyers was convicted of all counts of an indictment charging him with a Clean Air Act and mail fraud conspiracy and related violations. Desnoyers goes before Judge Hurd for sentencing on March 13.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 6, 2009 (ENS) – In accordance with President Barack Obama’s order in January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will reconsider its decision denying California permission to set standards controlling greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.

The waiver request was made by California on December 21, 2005, to allow the state the right to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The request was denied by then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on March 6, 2008.

On January 26, less than a week after taking office, President Obama requested that EPA revisit the matter of the denial.

“EPA has now set in motion an impartial review of the California waiver decision,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “It is imperative that we get this decision right, and base it on the best available science and a thorough understanding of the law.”

The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to allow California to adopt its own emission standards for motor vehicles due to the seriousness of the state’s air pollution challenges.

Tailpipe emissions contain the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. (Photo by Daniel Olinick)

The EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California’s rules may go into effect. There is a long-standing history of EPA granting waivers to the state of California.

EPA believes that there are significant issues regarding the agency’s denial of the waiver. Jackson said, “The denial was a substantial departure from EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the Clean Air Act’s waiver provisions.”

EPA received on January 21, 2009, a letter from California outlining several issues for Administrator Jackson to review and reconsider about the previous denial of the waiver.

Should the EPA grant the waiver, California, and 13 other states will begin a program to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles 30 percent by 2016.

EPA will take public comment concerning the reconsideration of the waiver for a period of 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. There will also be a public hearing to be held in March in Washington, DC.

“Today’s decision is a return to sanity by an agency whose fairness and balance had been sabotaged by the partisan extremism of the Bush Administration,” said California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.

“This is but a first step, but it signals that this EPA has a renewed commitment to sound science and to rule of law,” he said.

The regulations in question were developed under California’s 2002 vehicle greenhouse gas emissions reduction law AB 1493 authored by then-Assemblymember Fran Pavley, the first global warming law in the nation.

The California Air Resources Board adopted the Pavley regulations in 2005.

Pavley, a Democrat, was elected to the California State Senate in November 2008, where she now chairs the Natural Resources and Water Committee.

The reductions achieved by the Pavley regulations constitute an important element of the California’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020 enacted into law in 2006.

The Air Resources Board approved the Scoping Plan for this effort in December. It is the nation’s first comprehensive approach to address climate change that draws upon every sector of a state’s economy.

“California has led the way on global warming,” said Attorney General Brown, “and the state should be allowed to continue in its leadership role in reducing automobile emissions and addressing global warming.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, January 21, 2009 (ENS) – The Ohio EPA has introduced a new online voluntary air emissions credit banking system to make it easier for companies to build or expand in Ohio counties that cannot meet federal air quality standards.

Currently, 32 out of Ohio’s 88 counties do not meet federal standards for particulate matter and ozone.

“The emissions bank can help buyers and sellers of emission credits connect quickly and easily, which is a big plus in today’s fast-paced business environment,” said Ohio EPA Director Chris Korleski.

Under the Clean Air Act, a major emissions source, such as a factory or power plant, cannot construct in a nonattainment area unless it obtains emission reduction credits, also known as emission offsets.

An emission reduction credit represents a permanent, quantifiable, federally enforceable and surplus reduction in air pollutant emission that exceeds the amount of reduction required under state or federal law. It is measured in tons per year.

If a new facility wanted to locate in a nonattainment area and planned to emit 100 tons of carbon monoxide per year, it would need to obtain that amount of reductions, or credits, from another source.

Gavin is the largest power plant in Ohio and has two of the seven largest coal-fired generating units ever built. (Photo courtesy AEP)

It can be time consuming and difficult for companies to find and verify available emission offsets. As a result, they often exclude nonattainment areas when considering where to locate a new facility.

“We hope this will help foster economic activity in nonattainment areas, while still allowing us to improve air quality in these same areas,” Korleski said.

Ohio must meet federal air quality standards for nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, fine particulates, carbon monoxide and lead.

Ohio currently has designated nonattainment areas for the eight-hour ozone standard and the particulate matter 2.5 standard. The entire state is in attainment for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead.

The eight-hour ozone standard is not being attained in areas of Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland-Akron, and Columbus.

The PM 2.5 standard is not being met in: Adams County’s Monroe and Sprigg Townships; Ashtabula County’s Ashtabula Township; Coshocton County’s Franklin Township; and Gallia County’s Cheshire Township.

In December, the U.S. EPA announced designations for the 24 hour ozone standard for fine particle pollution, PM 2.5, which is emitted by diesel engines, power plants, foundries.

“These new designations are a continued alarm to Ohio officials that they must do more to protect public health. Failing to meet the standard for particle pollution means our communities are at risk and are suffering,” said David Celebreeze, director of air and water special projects with the Ohio Environmental Council.

If the state fails to meet the standard, the federal government could withhold funds for highways.

Ohio has submitted plans to the U.S. EPA to lower pollution levels in ozone nonattainment areas. Ohio EPA said in a statement that its goal is to bring these areas back into attainment, improving the areas’ quality of life and the local economy.

The state of Ohio is required to submit to the U.S. EPA a State Implementation Plan that will achieve attainment of federal standards for particle pollution by 2014.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, December 17, 2008 (ENS) – ExxonMobil has agreed to pay nearly $6.1 million in civil penalties for violating the terms of a 2005 court-approved Clean Air Act agreement, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today.

“The Department of Justice will not tolerate violation of our consent decrees,” said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Tenpas of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The significant penalty in this case shows that non-compliance with settlement requirements will have serious consequences.”

The agreement penalizes ExxonMobil for failing to comply with the 2005 settlement at four refineries in Beaumont and Baytown, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Torrance, California.[ig=/UPLOADS/blog/ecommunity_news/blogpost_data/08_12_15/20081217_093_baytown.jpg]ExxonMobil’s Baytown refinery is the largest in
the country. (Photo courtesy Center for Land
Use Interpretation)[/img]

The Baytown Refinery, 20 miles east of Houston, is the largest oil refinery in the United States, with a crude capacity of approximately 567,000 barrels per day.

The Baton Rouge Refinery is the second-largest oil refinery in the United States, with a crude capacity of approximately 503,000 barrels per day.

Most of the penalties are for failure to monitor and control the sulfur content in certain fuel gas streams burned in refinery furnaces, as required by the 2005 settlement and EPA regulations.

Between 2005 and 2007, ExxonMobil did not monitor the sulfur content in some fuel gas streams and subsequent testing revealed sulfur content in excess of EPA limits. The burning of sulfur-containing gases emits sulfur dioxide, which can cause serious respiratory problems and is a major component of acid rain.

The 2005 settlement required ExxonMobil to pay a $7.7 million civil penalty, perform an additional $6.7 million in supplemental environmental projects in communities around the company’s refineries, and install pollution controls at six of its refineries.

“The 2005 settlement has already resulted in major reductions in air emissions from the company’s refineries, but we need full compliance to realize all the benefits of the settlement,” said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “EPA will continue to enforce against companies that fail to comply with the terms of court-approved settlements.”

The 2005 settlement and today’s penalty settlement with ExxonMobil were reached as part of a broader EPA initiative to reduce air pollution from ExxonMobil refineries nationwide.

In late 2005, the United States concluded a settlement with ExxonMobil covering all of its North American refineries. The settlement required ExxonMobil to spend more than $570 million to install and implement innovative emission control technologies at its refineries. ExxonMobil paid an $8.7 million civil penalty and committed to spend more than $9.7 million on environmentally beneficial projects to further reduce emissions.

In a separate action today, the two federal agencies are proposing amendments to the 2005 settlement that include minor technical changes and new deadlines for some required activities at ExxonMobil’s Beaumont and Baytown, Texas refineries and two others covered by the original settlement in Joliet, Illinois and Billings, Montana.

The proposed amendments, filed today with the U.S. District Court in Chicago, are subject to a 30-day public comment period.

For more information on the Exxon Mobil Petroleum Refinery Settlement amendments and agreements, click here.

Since March 2000, the EPA has entered into 22 settlements with U.S. companies that have nearly 87 percent of the nation’s petroleum refining capacity. These settlements cover 96 refineries in 28 states and on full implementation will result in annual emissions reductions on more than 86,000 tons of nitrogen oxides and more than 245,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, the agency says.

Negotiations are continuing with other refiners representing an additional six percent of domestic refining capacity and investigations are underway on others.

For more on the Petroleum Refinery Initiative, click here.

On Tuesday, ExxonMobil Refining & Supply announced it will invest more than $1 billion in three refineries to increase the supply of cleaner burning low sulfur diesel by about six million gallons per day. The company will construct new units and modify existing facilities at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Baytown, Texas; and Antwerp, Belgium refineries.

“This underscores the company’s ongoing commitment to meeting the growing needs of the marketplace, while, at the same time, providing cleaner burning fuels to consumers. Our increase in diesel production at these three sites will be equal to the diesel produced from about four average-size refineries,” said Sherman Glass, president of Refining & Supply.

“In combination with cleaner-burning engines and the latest vehicle emissions control technologies, this low sulfur diesel reduces emissions in both on-road transportation, and off-road industrial sectors,” said Glass.

This investment is the latest phase in ExxonMobil’s efforts to increase supplies and reduce the sulfur content of both motor gasoline and diesel. In 2000, the company began to convert and modify refineries, terminals and pipelines to provide ultra low sulfur fuel products.

By 2010, the refineries’ modifications and expansions are expected to be completed, increasing production of diesel with sulfur levels of 15 parts per million or less.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, December 11, 2008 (ENS) – The Bush administration has dropped plans to adopt two Clean Air Act rules that would have allowed power plants and other polluters to increase smog and soot pollution.

The first rule concerned the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program. It would have allowed coal-fired power plants to increase their power output by installing new equipment without adopting pollution controls.

The second abandoned rule would have weakened special air quality protections that Congress adopted for national parks and wilderness areas. If the rule had been adopted, it would have been easier to build a coal-fired power plant, refinery or factory near a national park.

Both rules had faced opposition from public health and environmental groups, state and local air quality regulators, and prominent members of Congress.

EPA officials had been trying to finalize both proposals before President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in January 20. The have both been in the works for years.

South Carolina’s coal burning Cross power
plant is operated by Santee Cooper. (Photo
courtesy Santee Cooper)

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, was pleased with the agency’s decision.

“Our children and families can breathe easier now that the EPA has abandoned two controversial plans to undermine clean air protections through midnight regulations,” she said. “EPA has many other damaging and dangerous rules under consideration that deserve the same fate.”

“EPA’s decision to reconsider issuing a severely deficient air pollution rule that would have exempted almost every power plant in this country from installing modern pollution control technology is the correct one,” said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

The proposal would have allowed electric generating units to use the “hourly test” to comply with New Source Review rules. The practical effect of this proposal would have been devastating to public health and welfare, explained Becker.

“Utilities would have been able to expand their operations and increase air pollution significantly without installing modern pollution control technology, conducting air quality analyses to determine impacts on nearby jurisdictions and offsetting their emissions in certain circumstances,” he said.

The Natural Resources Defense Council first urged EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to abandon the New Source Review rule in August, following a July court decision that overturned EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule, which EPA had relied upon as its primary justification for pursuing the weaker NSR rule.

In its announcement Wednesday, the EPA pointed to the fate of its Clean Air Interstate Rule as the primary reason for dropping the New Source Review rule.

“I am heartened that both of these destructive and unlawful air pollution rules will not be forced upon the American people, said the NRDC’s John Walke. “With the barbarians at the gate having pulled up their tents and headed for the hills, we can look forward as a civilized society to tackling the critical problems of global warming, smog and soot pollution that continues to damage our health, and toxic mercury that contaminates our waters.”

“NRDC looks forward to working with the incoming administration to protect our air quality and the health of all Americans,” he said.

However, the EPA Wednesday finalized a rule that exempts “fugitive emissions” from being counted for some major industries in determining whether emissions sources making modifications to their facilities trigger New Source Review requirements.

Fugitive emissions are pollutants released to the air other than those from stacks or vents. They are often due to equipment leaks, evaporative processes, and windblown disturbances.

“Fugitive emissions would be included in determining whether a physical or operational change is a major modification only for industries designated through previous Clean Air Act rulemakings,” the EPA states.

“It is no coincidence,” said Becker, “that the agency has finalized another rule today on fugitive emissions that allows other major industrial facilities such as mining operations and ethanol production plants, to escape these important requirements.”

Affected industries include electric services, petroleum refining, industrial chemical products, and pulp and paper mills.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, December 4, 2008 (ENS) – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. once again is urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat climate change.

With U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rising year after year, according to a report issued this week by the U.S. Energy Department, and with the UN’s annual climate conference now taking place in Poland, Brown and other attorneys general say this is the time for the EPA to protect the climate.

“After eight years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming and use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat dangerous climate change,” Brown said.

Brown joined with 13 other attorneys general; the California Air Resources Board and four other state environmental agencies; the cities of Minneapolis, Seattle and Salt Lake City; and the New York City Corporation Counsel in writing a letter to the federal agency that lays out key principles EPA should adhere to in regulating greenhouse gases.

Separately, Brown submitted a comment letter to EPA responding to the 500-page advance notice of rulemaking for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act issued by EPA over the summer.

Both letters called on EPA to make a determination as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – as required by the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Gridlock on a Los Angeles freeway (Photo
credit unknown)

The letters requested that the EPA reverse the denial of California’s preemption waiver for California’s landmark greenhouse gas automobile regulations, allowing California and the 13 other states that have adopted these standards to begin immediately enforcing the regulations.

The states of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington joined California in writing to the federal agency.

They requested the EPA to adopt controls for large polluting sources such as coal-fired power plants, cement plants and refineries.

And they asked the EPA to adopt controls for cars, trucks, aircraft, ocean-going vessels, and non-road engines that are responsible for more than one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

“Technology to reduce emissions from these sources is available and cost-effective,” Brown said.

In the joint letter to EPA, Brown and his co-authors wrote, “The Clean Air Act is one of our most successful regulatory programs. It has a proven track record of effectively dealing with complex air pollution problems that implicate a multitude of sources and a wide range of economic activities, and it has done so without harming the economy.”

The attorneys general said in their letter that they “strongly disagree” with claims by departing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson that the Clean Air Act is ill-suited to the task of regulating greenhouse gases.

As the analysis by EPA’s professional staff in the advance notice of rulemaking points out, “the Clean Air Act provides EPA with flexibility to regulate through a variety of approaches, including performance standards, operational controls, market-based incentives and other measures, and also to tailor its traditional strategies to suit the particular challenges posed by GHG emissions,” the attorneys general wrote.

But while the state attorneys general are critical of the EPA’s approach to climate change, the agency said in a November 18 statement that it and the U.S. Energy Department “are helping states lead the way in an effort to promote low cost energy efficiency.”

The remark came as the EPA introduced an updated version of the “National Action Plan Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change,” produced by more than 60 energy, environmental and state policy leaders.

The updated action plan outlines strategies to help lower the growth in energy demand across the country by more than 50 percent, and shows ways to save more than $500 billion in net savings over the next 20 years.

“These actions may help to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 90 million vehicles,” the agency said.

“The significant action taken by states, utilities and energy customers advances low cost energy solutions,” said Robert Meyers, principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “The plan is a big step toward a more energy-efficient future, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing the American economy.”

The action plan contains data showing that states, utilities and other organizations are spending about $2 billion per year on energy efficiency programs. It shows that they have saved the energy equivalent of more than 30 power plants generating 500 megawatts of electricity and that they helped reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those emitted by nine million vehicles.

Initiated in 2005, the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is directed by a group of 30 electric and gas utilities, 20 state agencies and 12 other organizations. It is designed to help electric and natural gas ratepayers increase energy efficiency while saving money. Some of the same states are involved in this plan as signed the attorneys general’s letter – California, Connecticut, Massachusett, and New York.

More than 120 organizations have endorsed the original recommendations of the national action plan and have committed to making it a reality.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, November 24, 2008 (ENS) – A bipartisan group of six Northeastern governors is urging the Bush administration to abandon a plan that would relax pollution control requirements on power plants, saying the proposed rule would increase air pollution and threaten public health.

The concerns raised by the governors echo worries expressed by environmentalists and public health advocates, who also fear the Bush administration is keen to push through additional industry-friendly air rules before leaving office on January 20, 2009.

The regulation that has drawn the ire of the Northeastern governors would change a key part of the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review, NSR, program, which was created to ensure that owners of older power plants would modernize pollution controls when they make modifications to facilities that result in increased emissions.

NRG’s Montville power plant in Connecticut
runs on fuel oil and natural gas.
(Photo by C. Bergesen)

Currently, the NSR requirements are triggered when a power plant makes an upgrade that will result in an increase in annual emissions. The Bush administration’s proposal would change that test, exempting facilities from NSR if the modifications do not change in the plant’s hourly emissions.

“What might appear to be a simple word change could have an enormous – and ominous – impact,” said Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell. “Using hourly instead of annual emissions as the threshold for a New Source Review and the installation of pollution control devices stands the intent of the Clean Air Act on its head.”

Rell, along with fellow Republican governors Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island and James Douglas of Vermont, sent a letter on Friday outlining these concerns to the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A trio of Democratic govenors – Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, John Lynch of New Hampshire and John Baldacci of Maine – also signed the letter.

The governors, repeating concerns raised by environmentalists, public health advocacy groups and state air pollution regulators, contend the proposal ignores reality.

The proposal would force federal regulators to “effectively disregard” the fact that although a modification to a plant may not boost hourly emissions, it would be very likely to boost annual emissions by allowing it to operate for longer hours, the governors wrote.

“This would result in a net detriment, not a net benefit, to public health and environmental quality,” according to the November 21 letter.

The letter also noted that when the Bush administration first proposed the rule change in October 2005, it argued that two other new rules developed to cut power plant emissions would ensure older plants installed newer pollution controls. But those two regulations – the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule – have been rejected by federal courts.

Dominion Energy’s Salem Harbor power
plant in Massachusetts burns coal and
heavy oil. (Photo by Daniel Fabricant)

If the rule change is finalized, Rell said her state would “pursue every available legal option” to overturn it.

“We have worked far too hard to improve the quality of the air we breathe,” Rell said. “We cannot – and will not – allow our progress to be undermined by the actions of an EPA that has lost sight of its mission.”

But the window for finalizing the new regulation is closing. The EPA has yet to send the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final review.

But there are still at least a few weeks before the door closes on the possibility the rule becomes reality – any regulation deemed to have no significant economic impact enters into effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

This means the Bush administration has until at least December 19 to publish rules that will become final before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

And regulatory experts believe that overturning rules finalized by that date could be difficult, potentially requiring EPA to go through another rulemaking process, something that could take months or even years.

The concern has environmentalists and public health groups on high alert, with worries over other possible changes to the NSR program, including a revision that would weaken Clean Air Act protections for national parks and wilderness areas.

That regulation centers on requirements originally developed to limit increases in air pollution that affects parks, wildlife refuges and other “Class 1″ scenic areas afforded special protections under the Clean Air Act.

Dominion Energy’s Brayton Point power
plant in Massachusetts burns coal, oil
and natural gas. (Photo by Alexey
Sergeev)

The proposal, which is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget, would alter how regulators measure pollution levels near these areas.

Currently, levels are measured over three hour and 24 hour periods – the Bush administration’s change would call for levels to be averaged over a year.

Critics contend this would undercount the levels of air pollution, permitting power plants and other industrial facilities to emit more pollution. Opponents also worry the rule change could make it easier to build new power plants near parks and other Class 1 areas.

Documents publicized by the “Washington Post” last week indicate that at least half of the EPA’s 10 regional administrators have formally protested against the idea, raising concerns it would allow the significant deterioration of air quality in some of the nation’s most pristine areas.

The administration has ignored calls by several key lawmakers – including the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, California Democrat Henry Waxman, to abandon the plan.

The EPA could issue the New Source Review rule as soon as this week.

By J.R. Pegg

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, November 21, 2008 (ENS) – The order of business in the incoming 111th Congress is beginning to take shape. When lawmakers convene on January 6, 2009, Democrats will be firmly in control of both houses, although today the outcome of several elections is still unclear.

When Democratic President-elect Barack Obama takes office on January 20, both the White House and Congress will be in Democratic hands for the first time in 16 years.

For the environment, this means that climate change legislation will be on the front burner as soon as the new session opens.

The U.S. Capitol at sunrise. November 11,
2008 (Photo credit unknown)

Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who will continue to chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, announced Tuesday that she will introduce two pieces of climate legislation in January.

“The first bill will establish a grant program to reduce global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act with up to $15 billion a year available to spur innovations in clean energy, including advanced biofuels,” Boxer said.

Intended as an economic stimulus, Boxer said the bill follows President-elect Barack Obama’s recommendation.

Obama’s short video statement on climate change played at the Governors’ Global Climate Summit convened in California on Tuesday was “music to my ears,” Boxer said.

Obama said, “Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process,” he said.

“Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security,” said Obama.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California
(Photo courtesy EPW)

“Clean energy means green jobs,” Boxer said, citing a new report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimating that by 2038, another 4.2 million green jobs could be added to the economy.

Boxer also will propose a bill amending the Clean Air Act that directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases that meets the goals laid out by the president-elect.

“This bill will reflect the strong partnership we will have with the new administration, and will focus on achieving the emissions reductions needed while restoring the economy,” said Boxer.

Boxer also announced her committee’s first hearing in the 111th Congress. “The hearing will take place as soon as possible after we convene in January, and will be entitled “How Fighting Global Warming is Good for the Economy and Will Create Jobs,” she said.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma
(Photo courtesy EPW)

Senate Democrats will have to contend with Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a climate change denier. In his blog on the committee website, Inhofe claims that the planet is cooler now than when President George W. Bush took office and that Arctic ice is growing, not shrinking.

Over in the House of Representatives, the Democratic Caucus Thursday elected California Democrat Henry Waxman as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

He replaces Michigan Congressman John Dingell, who has served for the past 28 years as chairman and ranking member of the committee. Dingell now will serve as chairman emeritus, but Waxman’s ascendency marks a shift away from the influence of the Detroit auto industry and towards cleaner energy and climate concerns.

Waxman said, “Some of the most important challenges we face – energy, climate change, and health care – are under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. In large measure, our success as Congress will depend on how the Commerce Committee performs.”

“Enacting comprehensive energy, climate, and health care reform will not be easy,” said Waxman, but, “The public expects Congress and President-elect Obama to work together to find solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday, “Henry Waxman will bring to the post of Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee the outstanding leadership he has demonstrated as chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“Under his leadership, the committee and the entire caucus will make progress toward making America energy independent, making health care available to all Americans, and addressing the greatest challenge of our time, global warming,” she said.

Congressman Henry Waxman of California
(Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman)

The replacement of Dingell by Waxman could affect the outcome of possible legislation offering financial assistance to the beleagured auto industry, which has requested at least $25 billion to stave off collapse.

Today, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the following letter to the executives of the Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, calling on them to “submit a credible restructuring plan that results in a viable industry, with quality jobs, and economic opportunity for the 21st century while protecting taxpayer investments” by December 2.

“It is critical that you meet this deadline since we have announced we are prepared to come back into session the week of December 8 to consider legislation to assist your industry. We intend to give pertinent agencies within the executive branch, the Government Accountability Office, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, as well as outside experts, the opportunity to comment on your work,” Reid and Pelosi wrote.

Senator Inhofe calls higher fuel efficiency standards that may be a condition of the potential auto industry bailout, “environmental thuggery.”

In a speech on the Senate Floor Thursday, Inhofe said, “The proposed $25 billion bailout of Detroit now appears to have been hijacked by the powerful environmental lobby.”

Quoting a November 19 article in the “Wall Street Journal,” Inhofe said, “the auto bailout has degenerated into a tool to ‘make Detroit a subsidiary of the Sierra Club.’”

“We hear proponents of the auto bailout endlessly say it’s about jobs,” said Inhofe. “But the truth is, this bailout appears to be about environmental lobbies taking over the U.S. auto industry.”

The Congressional balance of power is set, but the actual seat count is still shifting.

Right now, in the Senate, the Democrats hold 55 seats, the Republicans hold 40, and there are two Independents – Joe Lieberman and Bernie Saunders, who caucus with the Democrats.

Three seats are vacant or undecided.

One Illinois seat is vacant as President-elect Barack Obama, a Democrat, has resigned. This seat will be filled by a replacement appointed by a Democratic governor.

Delaware does not yet have a vacancy, but Vice President-elect Joe Biden, a Democrat, is expected to resign on or before inauguration day, January 20, 2009. His seat will be filled by a replacement appointed by a Democratic governor.

In Minnesota, the seat is held by Senator Norm Coleman, who won the 2002 election. While Coleman leads Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party challenger Al Franken by 215 votes, the race remains too close to call. The close margin triggered a mandatory recount, which began on November 19. The recount is not expected to be resolved for at least a month.

In Georgia, a run-off election between Republican incumbent Saxby Chambless and Democratic challenger Jim Martin is underway.

In the House of Representatives, the Democrats hold 255 seats, the Republicans hold 175, and there are no Independents. Five seats are vacant or undecided.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, October 22, 2008 (ENS) – Two conservation groups are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to force the federal agency to clean up emissions that cloud the air over national parks and wilderness areas.

The National Parks Conservation Association and Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit Tuesday against EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Family memories of our national parks shouldn’t be clouded by polluted haze,” said Mark Wenzler, director of clean air and climate programs at the National Parks Conservation Association. “EPA needs to take seriously its obligation to ensure clear skies for all Americans who seek out our national parks for healthy vacations.”

Sunlight illuminates the haze over
Grand Canyon National Park.
(Photo by Erik Pronske)

The groups want the court to order the EPA to determine whether states have submitted complete plans required by the Clean Air Act to prevent and remedy haze air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas.

The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require the EPA to determine by June 17, 2008 whether each state had submitted haze plans, but the groups allege that the federal environmental agency has failed to do so. They say only a small handful of states have submitted haze plans.

Much of the pollution problem that creates haze over national parks comes from old power plants and factories with outdated pollution controls. Emissions from these plants can travel hundreds of miles, contributing to regional haze that obscures scenic vistas over large areas, the groups complain.

“Enforcing the nation’s clean air laws will help clear the air for the millions of Americans who treasure our national parks,” said Kevin Lynch, attorney for Environmental Defense Fund based in Colorado.

“Cleaning up industrial smokestack pollution is one of the single most important steps EPA can take to protect America’s health and our national parks,” he said.

In May, the National Parks Conservation Association issued a report entitled “Dark Horizons” [www.npca.org] identifying the 10 national parks most at risk from pollution from new coal-fired power plants.

They are Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina, Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, Theodore Roosevelt in North Dakota, Mesa Verde in Colorado, Great Basin in Nevada, and Capitol Reef and Zion national parks in Utah, as well as Wind Cave and Badlands national parks in South Dakota.

In addition to their lawsuit, the groups are calling on the Bush administration to halt its efforts to weaken clean air protections for national parks.

Twenty-eight coal-fired power plants are proposed within the air sheds of these 10 national parks, defined as a radius of 185 miles around each park.

Haze hangs over Shenandoah National Park
in Virginia. (Photo credit unknown)

Despite objections from its own scientists, the National Park Service, and Congressman Henry Waxman of California, the EPA has proposed a rule that weakens pollution standards and makes it easier to build new coal-fired power plants near national parks.

The change is in the new source review regulations under the Clean Air Act. Currently, these regulations require new and modified large stationary sources of air pollution that increase their emissions to install up-to-date pollution control technology.

EPA’s revisions to these regulations would change the test for determining whether a power plant that is modified will increase its emissions of air pollutants and therefore whether it will be required to install pollution controls.

Under the current regulations, EPA evaluates whether the total amount of pollution emitted by the plant each year would increase.

The EPA is now proposing that even if the plant ran more hours and annual pollution increased, this would not matter as long as there was no increase in the amount of pollution emitted by the plant on an hourly basis.

National Parks Conservation Association warns that if this rule is finalized, the air over national parks would be more polluted, and wildlife and scenic views in national parks such as Great Basin, which is largely unaffected by air pollution, would be harmed.

According to the National Park Service, human-caused air pollution reduces visibility in most national parks throughout the country.

The farthest a person can see on a given day in parks across most of the western United States is now about 140 miles – just one-half to two-thirds of what it would be without air pollution caused by human activities.

In most of the eastern national parks, the average visual range is about about 90 miles – just one-fifth of what it would be under natural conditions.

“Millions of Americans visit national parks each year to breathe clean, fresh air and enjoy the majestic vistas,” said Earthjustice attorney Jennifer Chavez, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the conservation groups. “When you can’t see the mountains and canyons under all the filthy haze, it’s time for EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, October 16, 2008 (ENS) – Today, for the first time in 30 years, the U.S. EPA strengthened the nation’s air quality standards for lead, improving public health protection, especially for children, who are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning.

Lead is a pollutant that can cause organ, brain and nerve damage, lower intelligence, suppress the immune system, cause high blood pressure and increase heart disease.

The major sources of lead emissions have been motor vehicles and lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

The new standards reduce the allowable lead level 10 times to 0.15 micrograms of lead per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air.

The previous standards, set in 1978, were 1.5 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air.

“America’s air is cleaner than a generation ago,” said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. “With these stronger standards a new generation of Americans are being protected from harmful lead emissions.”

EPA strengthened the standards after a review of the science on lead, advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and consideration of public comments.

EPA’s action sets two standards: a primary standard at 0.15 ug/m3 to protect health and a secondary standard at the same level to protect the public welfare, including the environment.

The EPA action results from a lawsuit filed four years ago by Leslie and Jack Warden, Missouri residents who sought to get the federal government to consider tougher standards for lead in the air.

The Wardens used to live in Herculaneum, which is near the nation’s only primary lead smelter, run by the Doe Run Co. Many Herculaneum children have suffered from lead poisoning, and lead has contaminated yards and streets of the town.

Emissions rise into the air from the stack at
the Doe Run lead smelter in Herculaneum,
Missouri. (Photo credit unknown)

The Wardens’ lawsuit alleged, and a federal judge agreed, that the Clean Air Act requires the air quality standard for lead to be reviewed every five years, and the government had not done so. The EPA first set the standard in 1978 and it has not changed since.

The new air lead standard is only as strong as its enforcement, and concerns were expressed today that the EPA’s monitoring capacity is not up to the job.

Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said, “We commend EPA for setting the primary and secondary lead standards at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter, which is within the range recommended by the agency’s science advisors on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. However, we are disappointed that the rule has obstructed the public’s ability to know whether the air they breathe is safe.”

“By not requiring monitoring for hundreds of sources that emit large quantities of lead – ranging from lead battery recycling and disposal facilities to industrial boilers – the rule will deprive those living, working and going to school in the vicinity of these sources information that would reveal the true health risks to which they are exposed,” Becker warned.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said, “The revised air pollution standard announced today is an important step toward protecting our families from toxic lead exposure, but I have concerns about the EPA’s monitoring plan and its failure to fully protect communities near dangerous sources.”

“I will work to ensure that the standards as well as the monitoring program protect children from toxic lead pollution, since the science shows there is no safe level of exposure to lead,” Boxer said.

Dr. Gina Solomon, senior scientist with the health program of the Natural Resources Defense Council is also concerned about monitoring the air for concentrations of lead.

“The EPA has followed the advice of its own advisers and public health advocates to set a more stringent standard for airborne lead,” said Solomon, however, this administration has dismantled half of the air monitoring stations across the country. With less than 200 air lead monitors nationwide, scientists don’t even know how much lead is in the air in most communities.”

“EPA must place air monitors at the locations where they matter most – downwind of the big polluters,” Solomon urged. “EPA’s plan for only 236 new or relocated monitors is not adequate to detect problems, since there are thousands of serious lead polluters nationwide.”

The EPA acknowledged today that the existing monitoring network for lead is not sufficient to determine whether many areas of the country would meet the revised standards.

The agency is redesigning the nation’s lead monitoring network, which is necessary for the agency to assess compliance with the new standard.

No later than October 2011, EPA will designate areas that must take additional steps to reduce lead air emissions. States have five years to meet these new standards after designations take effect.

In the new regulation, the EPA changed the calculation method for the averaging time to use a “rolling” three month period with a maximum not-to-be-exceeded form, evaluated over a three-year period. This replaces the current approach of using calendar quarters.

But environmentalists warn that represents a loophole in the new standards through which lead can enter the environment.

“I am disappointed that EPA will allow averaging of lead exposures over a three-month period,” Solomon said. “That means that large but brief ’spikes’ of lead emissions from smelters and other polluters could contaminate the soil of playgrounds and backyards even in some areas that are in attainment of the new standard.”

In 1973, the EPA issued regulations designed to gradually reduce the content of lead in leaded gasoline, because the agency found that lead particle emissions from motor vehicles presented a significant risk of harm to the health of people in cities, especially children.

By 1988, through a regulated phase out, including banking and trading of lead credits, the EPA estimated that total lead usage in gasoline had been reduced to less than one percent of the amount of lead used in the peak year of 1970.

The Clean Air Act prohibits the introduction of gasoline containing lead or lead additives into commerce for use as a motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. But the petroleum industry has been permitted to continue to make and market gasoline produced with lead additives for all remaining uses, such as use in aircraft, racing cars, and nonroad engines such as farm equipment engines and marine engines.

As many as 16,000 industrial facilities in the United States have been operating under the old standard, pumping hundreds of thousands of pounds of lead into the air every year. The smelters that melt old batteries are among the worst lead polluters.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.