EPA Feels the Love in Atlanta and Everywhere Else, Except the Republican Budget

On the day after Valentine’s Day I was in Atlanta to participate in one of a series of listening sessions that EPA has set up to seek input from businesses, environmental advocates, state and tribal officials and others on how it should update clean air standards to limit carbon dioxide pollution from power plants and refineries. As I noted previously, such sessions would be illegal if the Continuing Resolution introduced by House Republican Leaders were enacted. That’s because a policy earmark tucked in the budget bill would prevent EPA from heeding the call of the religious leaders, civil rights activists and other concerned citizens who packed a conference room of the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center to urge EPA to protect public health by setting strong standards to reduce carbon dioxide pollution. Those sentiments are shared by a strong majority of American voters according to a poll released today by the American Lung Association.

Seandra Rawls of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy posted a detailed report on the Atlanta session here and press coverage is here. EPA has an archive of the full webcast here. My opening comments as prepared for delivery are below:

* * *

I would like to make just two points in these brief opening comments.

• First, in proceeding to set carbon pollution standards EPA is following the law and the science.
• Second, these standards are long overdue and must not be delayed.

First point:

The Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases plainly meet the definition of “air pollutants” under the law.  As mandated by the Court, EPA proceeded deliberately to determine whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare. In December 2007 EPA sent a draft proposed finding to the White House. While that draft finding was never published, we have recently learned that Administrator Johnson wrote to President Bush in January of 2008, noting that the Administration was compelled to act under the law, and that the science “did not permit a negative finding” on the endangerment question. After a detailed review of the scientific evidence and extensive public input, EPA published its final endangerment determination in December 2009.  In July 2010, EPA published a detailed response to each objection raised by a range of petitions for reconsideration. 

EPA identified numerous ways in which carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollution endanger public health and welfare. Among the most important, EPA concluded that these pollutants can be reasonably anticipated to cause:

• Deaths and illnesses from more severe heat waves.
• Deaths and illnesses from more intense smog.
• Deaths and illnesses from temperature and rainfall changes that spread infectious and insect-borne diseases.
• Deaths, injuries, and illnesses from more frequent and severe storms, flooding, and drought.

In sum, EPA is acting under a law enacted by Congress, in a manner consistent with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, based on an enormous scientific record.

Second Point:

The Clean Air Act has been very successful in reducing life-threatening pollution over its 40 year history, but old power plants have largely escaped modern pollution control requirements. There is no doubt that power plants significantly contribute to many forms of air pollution, including about 40% of U.S. CO2 or one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and EPA could easily make that formal determination if needed. Indeed, more than 500 power plants operating in the United States were built before the Clean Air Act was written, and have been allowed to continue spewing excessive quantities of mercury, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide into the air for decades. This is a major loophole that is costing thousands of lives each year and driving up health care costs. EPA is finally moving to close this loophole so that all electricity generators, including new clean technologies, can compete on a level playing field.

Some big polluters have characterized EPA’s plans as a train wreck waiting to happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. EPA’s plans are long overdue track maintenance that will prevent thousands of deaths and millions of diseases. And it only makes sense to fix the tracks, switches, and signals at the same time. Otherwise engineers may find themselves driving on new smooth track, but into a dead end.

To make this analogy explicit, staying on EPA’s current schedule of proposing standards for power plant carbon dioxide emissions within a few months of proposing mercury and other toxic emission standards is essential to promote least cost planning and wise investment decisions about which plants should be retrofit and which plants should be replaced with newer, cleaner technologies.