Historic ‘mercury and air toxics standards’ meet 20-year old requirement to cut dangerous smokestack emissions

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the first national standards to protect American families from power plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. The standards will slash emissions of these dangerous pollutants by relying on widely available, proven pollution controls that are already in use at more than half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants.

EPA estimates that the new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year. The standards will also help America’s children grow up healthier – preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

“By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health– and especially for the health of our children. With these standards that were two decades in the making, EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance.”

“Since toxic air pollution from power plants can make people sick and cut lives short, the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are a huge victory for public health,” said Albert A. Rizzo, MD, national volunteer chair of the American Lung Association, and pulmonary and critical care physician in Newark, Delaware. “The Lung Association expects all oil and coal-fired power plants to act now to protect all Americans, especially our children, from the health risks imposed by these dangerous air pollutants.”

More than 20 years ago, a bipartisan Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and mandated that EPA require control of toxic air pollutants including mercury. To meet this requirement, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders, including industry, to minimize cost and maximize flexibilities in these final standards. There were more than 900,000 public comments that helped inform the final standards being announced today. Part of this feedback encouraged EPA to ensure the standards focused on readily available and widely deployed pollution control technologies, that are not only manufactured by companies in the United States, but also support short-term and long-term jobs. EPA estimates that manufacturing, engineering, installing and maintaining the pollution controls to meet these standards will provide employment for thousands, potentially including 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs.

Power plants are the largest remaining source of several toxic air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, cyanide, and a range of other dangerous pollutants, and are responsible for half of the mercury and over 75 percent of the acid gas emissions in the United States. Today, more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy pollution control technologies that will help them meet these achievable standards. Once final, these standards will level the playing field by ensuring the remaining plants – about 40 percent of all coal fired power plants – take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants.

As part of the commitment to maximize flexibilities under the law, the standards are accompanied by a Presidential Memorandum that directs EPA to use tools provided in the Clean Air Act to implement the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in a cost-effective manner that ensures electric reliability. For example, under these standards, EPA is not only providing the standard three years for compliance, but also encouraging permitting authorities to make a fourth year broadly available for technology installations, and if still more time is needed, providing a well-defined pathway to address any localized reliability problems should they arise.

Mercury has been shown to harm the nervous systems of children exposed in the womb, impairing thinking, learning and early development, and other pollutants that will be reduced by these standards can cause cancer, premature death, heart disease, and asthma.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which are being issued in response to a court deadline, are in keeping with President Obama’s Executive Order on regulatory reform. They are based on the latest data and provide industry significant flexibility in implementation through a phased-in approach and use of already existing technologies.

The standards also ensure that public health and economic benefits far outweigh costs of implementation. EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution from power plants, the American public will see up to $9 in health benefits. The total health and economic benefits of this standard are estimated to be as much as $90 billion annually.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was issued earlier this year, are the most significant steps to clean up pollution from power plant smokestacks since the Acid Rain Program of the 1990s.

Combined, the two rules are estimated to prevent up to 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks among children, 24,500 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. The two programs are an investment in public health that will provide a total of up to $380 billion in return to American families in the form of longer, healthier lives and reduced health care costs.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/mats/

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has released a report which profiles the air emissions of greenhouse gases emitted by North American power plants that burn fossil fuel.

In its report, North American Power Plant Air Emissions, the CEC finds that North America’s 3,000 fossil fuel plants produce two-thirds of the continent’s electricity while generating more greenhouse gases than any other industry.

Research from the report shows power plants contribute 33% of the region’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the majority of those emissions can be tied to the combustion of coal.

Although the study found that “a relatively small percentage of facilities across the region account for much of the sector’s sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions,” when it comes to mercury emissions burning coal is the number one contributor. For the U.S. and Canada, coal-fired power plants alone are responsible for 98% of all mercury released from fossil-fuel electric generation and 88% in Mexico.

Created as part of North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) alongside the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, the CEC is comprised of representatives from Canada, the United States and Mexico.  The organization’s mandate is to address regional environmental concerns and to promote the enforcement of environmental law. The report is the second released by the CEC — the first was released in 2004.

The release of this study comes in the last week of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP17, in Durban, South Africa where delegates are debating, among other things, an extension to the Kyoto Protocol. The CEC’s findings are particularly revealing considering earlier this year the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory released data showing the highest levels of carbon dioxide emissions the laboratory has ever recorded in its 50 year history.

Additionally, the report comes a week before the deadline for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards to be finalized.

Under the new standard, coal- and oil-fired power plants will be required to install pollution controls to cut mercury emissions. The electricity sector has been fervently pushing against the new standards claiming that both the cost to install pollution controls and also the time frame the EPA has mandated are unrealistic and will effectively cause an electricity shortage and spike energy costs.  Last Friday, however, the Department of Energy released a report rejecting the notion that the standards will create deficit in power supply.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Release Date: 11/15/2011
Contact Information: EPA Press Office, press@epa.gov, 202-564-6794

As prepared for delivery.

Hello and thank you for having me here today. For an EPA Administrator, coming to Wisconsin is like coming back to the source of everything we do. It was the leadership of Gaylord Nelson and the people who supported him in this state that took a burgeoning environmental movement and translated it in the first Earth Day in 1970. And that led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency – as well as many other changes. After the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act were all passed in quick succession.

That was amazing progress in a short amount of time. The Civil Rights movement had been a high-profile movement for almost two decades. The anti-war movement had also been going for years and would continue for many more years. By contrast, the modern environmental movement went from its Inauguration in the first Earth Day to a sweeping set of new environmental protections in about six years.

People were energized at an unprecedented level. The teach-in that Gaylord Nelson proposed in 1969 resulted in 20 million people – one on every 10 Americans in those days – standing up for their health and their environment. My staff and I have been at this for almost three years and I just recently passed 13,000 Facebook fans – and I think that’s pretty good.

That rapid pace of progress speaks to something that we need to remember today, and that I will talk about later: which is that environmental and health threats are unambiguous, nonpartisan concerns. They affect us whether we live in a red state or a blue state. Contrary to more divisive issues, people of all backgrounds want swift action when they see these threats in their communities. This movement got started when it became clear that the forces of the market were not going to be enough to stop Los Angeles from becoming the smog capital of the world, or prevent situations like the Santa Barbara oil spill and burning pollution the Cuyahoga River Fire.

The American people demanded a new mechanism for preventing pollution. The EPA was created and a suite of environmental laws was passed so that government could set and enforce standards. That was a bipartisan effort. The EPA was created by Richard Nixon – as everyone knows, a Republican. Its first Administrator was a Republican, and many of the great advances that have happened over the years have happened with bipartisan support.

When I came into this job in 2009, my ambition was – in the face of a new generation of environmental challenges – to facilitate advances like what we saw in the early 1970s. And to do so with the same kind of bipartisan support. I’m proud to be part of an EPA that has mobilized science and the law to create modern and innovative protections for the health of the American people. I’m also proud to be working for a president who has said that “we can’t wait” on these issues.

We came into office during a historic economic crisis. It would have been easy to tell the EPA to sit and wait. But President Obama knows that the choice between our economy and our environment is a false choice – and he directed us to hit the ground running.

One of our earliest steps was to resume work on the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. This is the first administration to officially recognize that greenhouse gases pose a threat to our health and welfare, and to take action under the Clean Air Act to address that threat. We also took swift steps to institute national fuel economy standards that save drivers money and cut carbon pollution. President Obama called that “the single most important step we’ve ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” It has also given clarity to the American auto industry, which can invest in the innovations – and workers – to build the most fuel-efficient vehicles in our history. Last year both Chrysler and General Motors announced plans to hire 1,000 workers – each – to develop fuel-efficient vehicles.

We’ve also taken long overdue steps to limit mercury pollution from power plants; invested in water infrastructure and community cleanups; we’ve taken steps to support innovative products like biofuels that Great Lakes Bioenergy is working on, or the cutting edge water technology being developed not far from here in Milwaukee; and we’ve instituted historic efforts to protect America’s waters. That includes setting a new standard for care in the Great Lakes and ensuring a strong future for those vital waters.

Unfortunately, many of these advances, as well as many of our fundamental environmental protections, are under threat. Since the beginning of this year, Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has orchestrated 170 votes against environmental protection. That is almost a vote for every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation’s environmental laws. Much of this has happened in response to myths and misleading information.

One example is an assertion made by lobbying and industry groups that the EPA is putting forward a “train wreck” of regulations that will hobble our economy. That claim has been repeated in major news outlets and on the floor of Congress. In fact, one of the bills restricting clean air protections was named “The TRAIN Act.” The claim is founded on an American Legislative Executive Council report that details regulations the EPA never actually proposed.

You may have heard that EPA intends to triple its budget and add 230,000 new regulators to cut greenhouse gas emissions from sources like cows and backyard grills. In truth, we put forward a “Tailoring Rule” months ago – a commonsense plan to tailor greenhouse standards to exempt small sources, like local businesses, from regulations. A massive expansion was never a possibility – and the people citing the 230,000 figure know it. That number comes from an administration document explaining why the Tailoring Rule is necessary.

To be fair to my colleagues in Washington, they’re not getting a whole lot of help. Some of you may have seen not long ago a Wall St. Journal op-ed, written by a long-time climate denier who performed a comprehensive study on the data he cast doubt on. After years of denial and skepticism, he looked at the data. His conclusion was, and I quote, “Global warming is real.” Contrary to the “climategate” scandal over emails from a handful of researchers – which was covered often on major news networks – the conversion of a key climate-denier, and the affirmation of the science got most of its attention in a short segment on The Daily Show.

You begin to see why we are witnessing an unprecedented effort to rollback the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and our nation’s waste-disposal laws; to see why, less than three years after a coal ash spill that covered 300 acres of Tennessee country the House majority passed legislation preventing EPA from regulating coal ash. You see why, less than two years after the Deepwater Horizon BP spill, the best idea industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute have for creating jobs is to de-regulate drilling. And you see how, after the second-hottest summer on record, followed by a foot of late-October snow on the East Coast and the reversal of a leading climate skeptic, people are still working to stop the EPA from taking vital steps to cut carbon pollution.

We all remember “too big to fail”; this pseudo jobs plan to protect polluters might well be called “too dirty to fail.” How we respond will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of people. That is not hyperbole. Mercury is a neurotoxin that affects brain development in unborn children and young people. Lead has similar effects. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds contribute to the ozone alert days when seniors, asthmatics and people with respiratory problems are at serious risk if they do nothing more dangerous than step outside and breathe the air.

“Too dirty to fail” puts our nation into what President Obama calls a “race to the bottom” for the weakest health protections and the most loopholes in our environmental policies. For those of you born after 1970, it would be the first time in your lives that the health and environmental protections you grew up with are not steadily improved, but deliberately weakened. The result will be more asthma, more respiratory illness and more premature deaths. What there won’t be is any clear path to new jobs.

We have seen 200 percent growth in our GDP over the 40 years of EPA’s existence. After all that time and all that growth, it is clear that we can have a clean environment and a growing economy. No credible economist links our current economic crisis – or any economic crisis – to clean-air and clean-water standards. Just last week, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research demonstrated that when ozone in the air was reduced by 10 parts per billion, outdoor farm workers increased their productivity by 4.2 percent. That kind of reduction nationwide could mean $1.1 billion in economic benefits for the agricultural sector of our economy.

A story in the Washington Post yesterday quoted economists who said that the effect of government regulations on jobs is minimal. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data that is collected from business executives, only 0.3 percent of layoffs in 2010 were because of “government regulations/intervention.” That story even quoted the chief executive of American Electric Power Co – one of the largest coal-based utilities in the nation – saying that when regulations require pollution control technology, AEP has to hire plumbers, electricians and others. His words were, “Jobs are created in the process – no question about that.” An AEP plant in Conesville, Ohio employed 1,000 temporary workers installing pollution controls, and created 40 permanent jobs to operate and maintain that technology.

As for the notion that eliminating regulation equals a plan for job creation, a former economist from the Reagan White House recently said of that idea – and I quote – “It’s just nonsense. It’s just made up.” A strategy to grow our economy by simply doing less is not sufficient to the challenges we face. President Obama has directed federal agencies to review regulations to eliminate unnecessary burdens for businesses and ensure that vital health protections remain intact. But that is not the beginning and end of our plan. The President also sent the American Jobs Act to congress, proposing investments in teachers and first responders. That bill also contains provisions for an Infrastructure Bank that would put $10 billion into transportation, energy and water infrastructure – creating jobs that strengthen the foundations of our economy.

We also know that smart regulations can lead to new jobs. As the CEO of AEP indicated in the Washington Post, we can put Americans to work retrofitting outdated, dirty plants with updated pollution control technology. There are about 1,100 coal-fired units across the country, and more than 40 percent do not use pollution controls to limit emissions. The nation’s first-ever standards for mercury and other pollutants from power plants – that EPA will finalize no later than December 16 – are estimated to create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term jobs through modernizing power plants. Those jobs come with health benefits estimated as high as $140 billion per year by 2016.

Looking back 20 years after the first Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson wrote in a letter to The Wilderness Society that, quote, “The purpose of Earth Day was to get a nationwide demonstration of concern for the environment so large that it would shake the political establishment out of its lethargy and, finally, force this issue permanently into the political arena.”

Today we need that same nationwide concern mobilized to pull these issues out of the political gridlock of the day. We saw a glimmer of hope last week when the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to stop EPA from implementing a rule that will protect more than 200 million Americans. They affirmed that protecting health is nonpartisan – something that unites us across our divisions.

But there are still two visions competing right now for the future of our environment and our economy. One says that we can rely on science, the law and innovation to protect our health and the environment and grow a clean, sustainable economy. The alternative vision says that moving forward requires rolling back standards for clean air and clean water. It says we have to increase protection for big polluters while reducing safeguards for the rest of us.

After 40 years of progress, the American people still believe in the first vision. A majority of Americans believe the economic and health benefits of clean air rules outweigh costs. More than half of Republican voters recently said they oppose a Congressional proposal to stop the EPA from enacting new limits on air pollution from power plants. More than three-quarters of Americans support new EPA standards for mercury and air toxics.

Just like back in 1970, we need your help. Students, parents, educators and young people have always driven the environmental movement. You can once again answer those who claim that our success is served by eliminating longstanding health protections and turning our future over to big polluters. It is time to stop politicizing our air and water and put an end to “Too Dirty to Fail.” We are going to continue to count on talented, dedicated people from places like this University to be part of that effort. Thank you very much.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

You might call it stretching the truth or misrepresenting the facts, but many would simply call it a lie.

The regional administrator for the federal Environmental Protection Agency was a bit more polite, saying last week that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment had “incorrectly informed the court” in written arguments last month to the Kansas Supreme Court.

The court filing was made in connection with the ongoing dispute between the EPA and KDHE over a permit that would allow construction of a coal-fired power plant in southwest Kansas. KDHE attorneys asserted that the “EPA has no substantial objection to the issuance of the construction permit.”

It’s not clear exactly what they meant by “substantial,” but the EPA certainly has objections as verified by Karl Brooks, EPA Region 7 administrator, who cited three letters from the agency telling KDHE the permit issued to Sunflower Electric Corp. was not strong enough and needed to include federal standards for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions.

After the dispute was reported last week, a KDHE spokeswoman said that the officials in that office would have no comment.

Whether people are opposed to or supportive of Sunflower’s coal-fired plant, the regulatory trail this project has traveled over the last four or five years raises questions and concerns.

The permit originally was denied while Rod Bremby was serving as KDHE secretary under Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. After Sebelius left office to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, new Gov. Mark Parkinson bartered a deal to allow the plant’s construction. As he neared the end of his term, however, the permit had not been issued. Bremby abruptly was removed from his post, and, shortly thereafter, in December 2010, the permit was issued by the acting KDHE secretary.

Several months later, a Kansas City newspaper traced a trail of emails that detailed some disturbingly cozy dealings between KDHE and Sunflower, which got to pick out and answer questions that were supposed to help shape requirements of the permit. KDHE then passed Sunflower’s responses off as its own.

KDHE has a new secretary now, Robert Moser, but the Sunflower permit process still is raising questions. Last June, Moser granted an unusual permit extension to Sunflower in an apparent attempt to allow the plant to skirt new, stricter federal pollution standards. Now, it appears KDHE attorneys were trying to mislead the Kansas Supreme Court by ignoring EPA objections to the permit.

This is a contentious fight, but it doesn’t help KDHE or Kansas to be caught misrepresenting the facts of the case.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

An Environmental Protection Agency official has accused lawyers representing a Kansas agency of lying to the state Supreme Court about support for a permit that would allow a $2.8 billion coal-fired power plant to be built in southwest Kansas.

In a letter this week to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, EPA Region 7 administrator Karl Brooks took issue with KDHE claims in written arguments to the Supreme Court last month that the EPA didn’t have a problem with the permit for construction of the Sunflower plant near Holcomb.

“EPA has no substantial objection to the issuance of the construction permit,” attorneys for KDHE wrote.

Brooks’ letter said, “Kansas incorrectly informed the court” that EPA did not object.

The Sierra Club and Earthjustice have filed a lawsuit seeking to block construction of the power plant, which has been the subject of a six-year battle between supporters who say the plant is needed and environmentalists who believe the coal-fired plant will create harmful greenhouse gases.

Lawyers for the two groups argued in a filing with the court that the state permit issued by KDHE to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. did not comply with the Clean Air Act.

The brief claims the permit does not include enforceable limits on nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide pollution, failed to follow requirements to consider use of best available control technology and denied the public a fair opportunity to participate in the agency’s evaluation.

The state says the pollution levels it allowed in a permit for the plant are safe for humans, but the Sierra Club said in its lawsuit that those levels aren’t safe.

The Kansas City Star reported Wednesday (http://bit.ly/sfmvfv ) that the EPA says it has voiced its opposition to the permit in letters and discussions over the past two years.

Brooks’ letter said KDHE failed to tell the Supreme Court that it had received three letters from the EPA saying the permit was not strict enough.

Both KDHE and Sunflower Electric declined to comment on the issue. The EPA said Brooks’ letter speaks for itself.

The Sierra Club said it plans to make a big deal out of the inaccurate Kansas statement when it files its own arguments with the court.

“EPA has consistently told the state that the permit needed more stringent limits on certain pollutants,” Stephanie Cole, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, told The Star in an interview. “KDHE not only ignored EPA’s request to amend the permit to include the more stringent limits, but now KDHE is actually attempting to mischaracterize EPA’s position to the court.”

The project has been the center of political and legal disputes since 2006. Supporters of the project say the plant will bring crucial jobs and economic development to western Kansas. Opponents contend the plant will pollute, draw down water reserves and provide electricity that isn’t needed in Kansas. Colorado residents will receive much of the electricity.

___

Information from: The Kansas City Star, http://www.kcstar.com

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

To reach Karen Dillon, call 816-234-4430 or send email to kdillon@kcstar.com.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/01/3242889/epa-spars-with-kansas-over-power.html#ixzz1cYU8oPHv

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Shale gas epitomizes the Obama administration’s ambivalence when it comes to fossil fuels and pollution controls. The latest issue to flare up is that of how the federal government will regulate wastewater.

The White House sees this natural gas derivative as a bridge fuel until cleaner supplies are ready. But shale gas extraction has been sharply criticized for polluting surface water supplies. And while the Environmental Protection Agency is demanding a hand in how shale is regulated, the developers say that the states already monitor their activities and that any further action by the federal government would be onerous.

It is true that the states have taken the lead when it comes to overseeing shale gas production. The administration’s position, however, is that it has the authority to regulate wastewater from oil and gas production. According to the EPA, such wastewater is prohibited from being directly discharged into U.S. waterways and while some of it is re-used or re-injected, a significant amount must still be disposed.

As a result, some wastewater associated with shale gas is transported to treatment plants that are not properly equipped, the agency adds. EPA says that it will consider standards based on economically achievable technologies for pre-treated wastewater from shale gas. It expects to have rules by 2014. The EPA, for example, says that the states need help solving the disposal of “solid wastes” like salts.

“The president has made clear that natural gas has a central role to play in our energy economy. That is why we are taking steps — in coordination with our federal partners and informed by the input of industry experts, states and public health organizations — to make sure the needs of our energy future are met safely and responsibly,” says EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Production from shale formations has grown from a negligible amount just a few years ago to almost 15 percent of total U.S. natural gas production and this share is expected to triple in the coming decades. By 2035, natural gas, generally, will make up about 45 percent of the utility generation market, says the Energy Information Administration.

Protecting Communities

The natural gas industry says that the administration’s plan is unnecessary. That’s because — like all aspects of natural gas development — wastewater disposal is regulated by the states. Developers go on to say that the states understand the geological characteristics of the shale plays and are thus better qualified to decide how the resulting wastewater will be discharged and treated.

“We are already in contact with the agency and expect to be an active and vocal stakeholder in helping them determine what, if any, additional regulation is necessary and appropriate,” says Daniel Whitten, vice president of strategic communications forAmerica’s Natural Gas Alliance.

The EPA readily acknowledges that the states have played the lead role when it comes to natural gas development. But it is arguing that because shale gas is such a game changer that the federal government must work hand-in-hand with all the stakeholders to ensure that its extraction is safe and responsible.

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, the agency’s director of ground and drinking water said that improper regulation could harm water resources. Cynthia Dougherty says that the effects on surface water would be noticed in the groundwater supplies. Harmful elements such as metals, salts and radionuclides could infiltrate.

“The EPA is committed to using its authorities, consistent with the law and best available science, to protect communities across the nation from impacts to water quality and public health associated with natural gas production activities,” says Dougherty. “Where we know problems exist, the EPA will not hesitate to protect Americans whose health may be at risk.”

If EPA’s requests are doable and they conform with the pace of current technologies, developers would be smart to oblige the agency’s requests. Shale gas will be an economic driver — but only if the public embraces it and feels that the developers share and address their concerns. By cooperating with the EPA, producers could get that stamp of approval.

EnergyBiz Insider has been been nominated in 2010 and 2011 for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.

Follow Ken on  www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein

energybizinsider@energycentral.com

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Americans must once again stand up for their right to clean air and clean water.

Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agencyand our nation’s environmental laws. They have picked up the pace recently — just last week they voted to stop the EPA’s efforts to limit mercury and other hazardous pollutants from cement plants, boilers and incinerators — and it appears their campaign will continue for the foreseeable future.

Using the economy as cover, and repeating unfounded claims that “regulations kill jobs,” they have pushed through an unprecedented rollback of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and our nation’s waste-disposal laws, all of which have successfully protected our families for decades. We all remember “too big to fail”; this pseudo jobs plan to protect polluters might well be called “too dirty to fail.”

The House has voted on provisions that, if they became law, would give big polluters a pass in complying with the standards that more than half of the power plants across the country already meet. The measures would indefinitely delay sensible upgrades to reduce air pollution from industrial boilers located in highly populated areas. And they would remove vital federal water protections, exposing treasured resources such as the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Erie, the Chesapeake Bay and the Los Angeles River to pollution.

How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of citizens.

This is not hyperbole. The link between health issues and pollution is irrefutable. Mercury is a neurotoxin that affects brain development in unborn children and young people. Lead has similar effects in our bodies. Soot, composed of particles smaller across than a human hair, is formed when fuels are burned and is a direct cause of premature death. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds contribute to the ozone alert days when seniors, asthmatics and others with respiratory problems are at serious risk if they do nothing more dangerous than step outside and breathe the air.

“Too dirty to fail” tries to convince Americans that they must choose between their health and the economy, a choice that’s been proved wrong for the four decades that the EPA has been in existence. No credible economist links our current economic crisis — or any economic crisis — to tough clean-air and clean-water standards.

A better approach is the president’s call for federal agencies to ensure that regulations don’t overburden American businesses. The EPA has already put that into effect by repealing or revising several unnecessary rules, while ensuring that essential health protections remain intact.

We can put Americans to work retrofitting outdated, dirty plants with updated pollution control technology. There are about 1,100 coal-fired units at about 500 power plants in this country. About half of these units are more than 40 years old, and about three-quarters of them are more than 30 years old. Of these 1,100 units, 44% do not use pollution controls such as scrubbers or catalysts to limit emissions, and they pour unlimited amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gases into our air. Despite requirements in the bipartisan 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, these facilities have largely refused to control their emissions — creating an uneven playing field for companies who play by the rules and gaming the system at the expense of our health.

If these plants continue to operate without pollution limits, as a legislative wish list from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor(R-Va.) would allow, there will be more cases of asthma, respiratory illness and premature deaths — with no clear path to new jobs.

By contrast, the nation’s first-ever standards for mercury and other air toxic pollutants which the EPA will finalize this fall — and which the Republican leadership aims to block — are estimated to create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term jobs in the utility sector through modernizing power plants. And the savings in health benefits are estimated to be up to $140 billion per year by 2016.

Contrary to industry lobbying, this overhaul can be accomplished without affecting the reliability of our power grid.

Our country has a long tradition of treating environmental and public health protections as nonpartisan matters. It was the case when President Nixon created the EPA and signed into law the historic Clean Air Act, when President Ford signed into law the Safe Drinking Water Act and when President George H.W. Bush oversaw important improvements to the Clean Air Act and enacted the trading program that dramatically reduced acid rain pollution.

Our environment affects red states and blue states alike. It is time for House Republicans to stop politicizing our air and water.  Let’s end “too dirty to fail.”

Lisa P. Jackson is the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Most pragmatists think there is a future for Big Coal in our energy mix. To accomplish this, Big Coal needs to demonstrate that clean coal burning can be real.

A consortium of Sunflower Electric, coal interests, the Department of Energy and possibly the Environmental Protection Agency could have made the Sunflower facility a model of what can be done. Big Coal and this administration would likely have gladly footed significant portions of the costs.

Instead, Sunflower management chose and continues to choose the low road, corrupting the licensing and now the extension processes.

Someone else will do this and be seen as the leaders in this technology, otherwise we once again will be viewed as the backward Midwest.

Too bad our vision is so lacking.

Bob Hishaw

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/19/3154005/letters-clean-up-big-coal.html#ixzz1YUctUzyS

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

It’s a certainty in Washington that lobbyist talking points and inside-the-beltway speeches are going to be overblown and exaggerated. But lately, misleading claims about the EPA’s work have been making their way into the mainstream debate.

The most notable is an industry report that the EPA is responsible for an unprecedented “train wreck” of clean air standards that will lead to the mass closure of power plants. The “train wreck” claim has been repeated by everyone from congressional leaders to major newspapers. It sounds pretty scary, but the trouble with these reports — there is no “train wreck.”

Earlier this month a Congressional Research Service report concluded that industry’s claims were made “before EPA proposed most of the rules whose impacts they analyze,” and are based on “more stringent requirements than EPA proposed in many cases.”

On the issue of plant closures, I take the word of industry leaders like the Chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, who said “These regulations will not kill coal… up to 50% of retirements are due to the current economics of the plant due to natural gas and coal prices.” The Congressional Research Service report also found that EPA’s standards will primarily affect “coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls.” That echoed the remarks of the CEO of American Electric Power from April of this year: “We’ve been quite clear that we fully intend to retire the 5,480 megawatts of our overall coal fleet because they are less efficient and have not been retrofitted in any particular way.”

This is just one example from the larger debate over the EPA’s effect on the economy. That’s an important debate when job creation is our nation’s top priority, and that makes it all the more troubling to see the EPA attacked for measures we haven’t actually proposed, and to hear our fundamental responsibility of protecting the health and environment for all Americans targeted as an enemy of job creation.

Some in Washington are working to weaken safeguards and undermine laws that protect our families from pollution that causes asthma, cancer and other illnesses, especially in children. Big polluters are lobbying Congress for loopholes to use our air and water as dumping grounds. The result won’t be more jobs; it will be more mercury in our air and water and more health threats to our kids. As a senior official from the Bush EPA recently wrote, “Abolishing the EPA will not cause a revival of America’s economy, but it will certainly result in a major decline in public health and our quality of life.”

It’s time for a real conversation about protecting our health and the environment while growing our economy. EPA’s 40 years of environmental and health protection demonstrate our nation’s ability to create jobs while we clean our air, water and land.

When big polluters distort EPA’s proposals as a drag on our economy, they ignore the fact that clean air, clear water and healthy workers are all essential to American businesses.

They also overlook the innovations in clean technology that are creating new jobs right now. The CEO of Michigan’s Clean Light Green Light recently said, “EPA has opened the doors to innovation and new economic opportunities. By spurring entrepreneurs who have good ideas and the drive to work hard, the EPA has helped give rise to countless small businesses in clean energy, advanced lighting, pollution control and more, which in turn are creating jobs.”

It’s time to recognize that delays of long-expected health standards leave companies uncertain about investing in clean infrastructure, environmental retrofits, and the new workers needed to do those jobs. These are potential opportunities for engineers and scientists, as well as pipefitters, welders and steelworkers. Pledges to weaken or slow proposed standards, many of which have been developed over years and with industry input, prevent businesses from investing in those jobs.

Some leaders in Congress have already stated their intent to roll back critical environmental protections when they return to session. Misleading claims are translating into actions that could dismantle clean air standards that protect our families from mercury, arsenic, smog and carbon dioxide. All of this is happening despite the evidence of history, despite the evidence of Congress’ own objective Research Service, and despite the need for job creation strategies that go well beyond simply undermining protections for our health, our families and our communities.

Telling the truth about our economy and our environment is about respecting the priorities of the American people. More than 70 percent of Americans want EPA to continue to do its job effectively. Those same Americans want to see a robust economic recovery. We have the capacity to do both things if we don’t let distractions keep us from the real work of creating jobs.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.