EPA to unveil great tool for tracking status of pollution from coal-fired power plants

The US EPA today is planning today to unveil a new interactive tool to help the public track the status of pollution from coal-fired power plants.

See at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/quarterlytracking.html

This is going to be a great tool to track progress in cleaning up the air. And to check if some power plants are actually polluting more.

This is the kind of information that would otherwise be virtually impossible for the public to find out.

So let’s tip our hat to EPA.

EPA proposes new sulfur dioxide air standards

The US EPA today proposed new standards to limit short-term public exposure to the dangerous pollutant sulfur dioxide. See at http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/actions.html#nov09

The EPA standards could put more pressure on existing coal-fired power plants to clean up. The standards will underscore the urgency for the EPA to come up with an effective replacement for the Clean Air Interstate rule, which was set aside by the courts. (They would also provide a strong argument for the legislative effort by Senator Carper of Delaware to reduce power plant emissions.)

Coal-fired power plants produce the great bulk of sulfur dioxide, though emissions also come from smokestack industries and diesel engines. See at http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/so2.htm#so2nat

(You may recall the controversy over the EPA effort to clean up big ships. Sulfur dioxide pollution was at issue. Some key Democrats in Congress recently meddled on behalf of special-interest polluters. Those meddlers look even more craven and off kilter in light of these new EPA standards.)

Sulfur dioxide is one of the six widespread air pollutants for which EPA sets health-based national air standards. Current EPA air quality standards for sulfur dioxide were set in 1971 and have not been updated to reflect new studies. The current standards limit only annual exposure and 24-hour exposure. See table at http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html for the nitty gritty.

Recent studies show there is health damage caused by short-term exposure – the kind of exposure that can happen under the current standards. The biggest problem is breathing problems among people with asthma, especially kids. There have been studies showing increased hospitalization and emergency room visits.

So EPA is proposing a new standard that would limit one-hour exposure.

Clean Air Watch and the American Lung Association will be urging the agency to set a final standard at the low end of the range – a one-hour standard no higher than 50 parts per billion.

Newsweek: we're "honored" to take oil lobby money and give them a soapbox

A follow up on an earlier item. The blog known as the Talking Points Memo picked up our note about the climate change event co-hosted by the oil lobby and Newsweek. See below. Of particular interest was a response to inquiries by Newsweek, whose director of external relations said Newsweek was "honored" to participate in the event featuring one of its advertisers.

Block said that in addition to API, 20-30 of the magazine's other major advertisers have been given an opportunity to co-host panels, but most advertizers don't have a single issue focus that lends itself to an event in the way the oil lobby does.

**

From: Zack Roth [zack@talkingpointsmemo.com]

thanks for tipping us on that...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/newsweek_and_oil_lobby_team_up_to_host_climate_cha.php


**

Late Update: Mark Block, Newsweek's director of external relations, responds, telling TPMmuckraker that the events with API are on the record and designed to attract press coverage as news events that address timely issues.

Said Block:

Newsweek is honored to be at the center of a topical news discussion with a diverse, wide-ranging audience of both panelists and audience members within our required on the record format.

Block said that in addition to API, 20-30 of the magazine's other major advertisers have been given an opportunity to co-host panels, but most advertizers don't have a single issue focus that lends itself to an event in the way the oil lobby does.

Block added that Newsweek has hosted 5 such events with API, and said there are "very strict church and state policies that have to be followed." He said the magazine doesn't consult API on who else will be invited to serve on the panel, or on what questions will be asked. "In no way do they prompt the perspective [of the discussion] by saying, 'here's the thing that I want to be asked about,'" he said.

These policies have to exist, said Block, "otherwise it appears orchestrated. And it really is not."

Asked whether Newsweek planned to invite a representative from an environmental group to the upcoming event, to balance Gerard's appearance, Block said the magazine "would definitely consider that opportunity," if there were a high-profile environmentalist who might be appropriate. But he said that because members of Congress would likely also participate, time constraints might dictate against it.

Newsweek partners with the oil lobby on climate? What the heck?

Some offices on Capitol Hill are abuzz this week about an invitation they received from Newsweek magazine to participate in an "Executive Forum" on "Climate and Energy Policy" that is being "co-hosted" with the American Petroleum Institute -- the oil industry lobby that is fighting an all-out war against climate change legislation on Capitol Hill. See invitation below.

One tactic in that war includes paying the Washington Post (whose parent company also owns Newsweek) to run full-page ads attacking the climate legislation. Note the full-page ad in today's Post from a front group called Energy Citizens, which -- in a remarkable coincidence -- has the same address as the American Petroleum Institute! (Energy Citizens does include API as one of its "participating organizations.")

The oil industry also is funding an effort to attack law makers such as South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham (who has called for climate change legislation). See about the front group called the American Energy Alliance at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5im1hyC7cFHFr3kplfE3rexz5wHCwD9BGVT5O0

The Newsweek invitation notes that its panel discussion will be moderated by its correspondent Howard Fineman, who is probably better known as a "pundit" on such shows as Hardball on MSNBC. The "special guest panelist" is Jack Gerard, API's president and CEO. Interestingly, Gerard is the ONLY named panelist so far.

At the very least, this panel makes Newsweek look mighty cozy with the oil lobby at a time when that lobby is trying to kill or weaken climate legislation.

Don't you miss the era when the job of reporters was merely to report the news?

Here is the Newsweek invitation:

----- Original Message -----
From: Jennifer Slattery
To:
Sent: Mon Nov 02 18:36:27 2009
Subject: V.I.P. Invitation / Newsweek Executive Forum - Climate and Energy
Policy: Moving?

Dear _______,

The editors of Newsweek cordially invite you to attend Newsweek's Executive Forum entitled, Climate and Energy Policy: Moving? This Capitol Hill policy forum is scheduled on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 4:30 P.M. in the Mansfield Room (S-207) in the United States Capitol.
There will be an informal reception immediately following the discussion.

The panel discussion will be moderated Howard Fineman, Newsweek National-Affairs Columnist and Senior Washington Correspondent with special guest panelist Jack Gerard, President & Chief Executive Officer of American Petroleum Institute (API). Newsweek is also honored to have forum invitations currently pending confirmation with notable members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.
These additional program announcements will be made in the coming days and you will be apprised of these updates.

Newsweek is pleased to be co-hosting this panel discussion with API. To R.S.V.P. please click the below link and register for the event.

http://guest.cvent.com/


Please don't hesitate to let us know if you need additional information or have further questions.

We look forward to hosting you on Tuesday, December 1 and value your continued interest in energy issues of importance.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Slattery

Manager, Newsweek External Relations

212-445-4093

www.newsweek.com

The biggest climate story of the day

In my opinion, is not the psycho-drama being played out in Senator Boxer’s committee, but the decision by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. to buy the coal-hauling Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/berkshire-to-buy-rest-of-burlington-northern-for-44-billion/

This is a $34 billion dollar bet that coal will remain the centerpiece of American energy policy in the future. Buffett clearly believes that coal use will remain strong -- and possibly grow.

So he is putting his money on a vision of America with no effective climate policy at all – or at least one that doesn’t slow coal growth.

Berkshire also owns MidAmerican Energy Holdings, which has taken perhaps the most relentlessly reactionary position of any power company in the nation.

Shipscam: Murphy Oil admits it approached Rep. Obey.. will special-interest Dems sink Obama pollution plan?

A couple of items out this morning about the effort by some special interests to sink proposed EPA rules to clean up big dirty diesel ships. This backroom drama is playing out as key members of Congress prepare to go behind closed doors to work out details of the EPA’s upcoming budget.

BNA Daily Environment Report (excerpt below) reports that Murphy Oil Company, which has objected to an EPA plan to require cleaner diesel fuel (EPA seeks to prevent thousands of premature deaths a year!), has taken its case to one Rep. David Obey (D-WI), who just happens to chair the House Appropriations Committee.

Greenwire, as noted in the New York Times online below, reports that both Obey and James Oberstar (D-MN), chair of the House Transportation Committee, are backing an effort to block the EPA from moving forward with portions of its proposal. Since this is all being done in secret, we haven’t seen any specific language, though reports are that the Democratic plan could block or delay cleanup of ships in the Great Lakes. (We estimate that the EPA cleanup would prevent about 450 premature deaths a year in the Great Lakes area alone.)

(At the behest of the cruise ship lobby, Alaska pols --including both Republican Governor Sean Parnell and Democratic Senator Mark Begich -- are also pressing the EPA to exempt cruise ships serving Alaska.)

Obviously, we hope these members of Congress reconsider and not carry the special-interest bilge.

Can you imagine the screams if retired dancer Tom DeLay were still running things and tried to pull such a stunt?

**

BNA Daily Environment Report October 8, 2009

Advisory Committee Endorses Call for EPA
To Issue Rules for Ships Without Exemptions

The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Oct. 7 endorsed a recommendation by one of its subcommittees for the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize emissions limits for oceangoing ships with no exemptions for the Great Lakes or any other areas of the country.

A resolution adopted by the full committee, which advises EPA on air quality, endorsed a call by its Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee “that the U.S. EPA carry out its proposal to address the emissions from large marine vessels on a nationwide basis and decline requests for any geographic exemptions including, but not limited to, the Great Lakes.”..

EPA in July announced a proposal to limit emissions from oceangoing ships. The comment period closed Sept. 28. Several Great Lakes shipping interests requested in their comments that EPA exclude the Great Lakes from the emissions limits. The comments said the emissions limits would put them at a disadvantage with coastal shipping. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) asked for an exemption for Alaska.

Margo Oge, director of the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said Oct. 6 her office wants to move forward with the emissions limits, saying that they would prevent as many as 33,000 premature deaths each year…

David Podratz, manager of the Murphy Oil Refinery in Superior, Wis., told BNA Oct. 7 that he had contacted the office of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to alert him to concerns about the effect of the proposal on Great Lakes shipping.

Podratz said he contacted Obey's office because the refinery is in Obey's congressional district. Podratz said he did not ask for an appropriations rider to exempt Great Lakes shipping.

**

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/08/08greenwire-fight-brewing-over-possible-rider-to-weaken-ai-29131.html

October 8, 2009


Fight Brewing Over Possible Rider to Weaken Air Pollution Regs for Ships
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of Greenwire

Clean air advocates are girding for a battle over a possible amendment to the annual U.S. EPA spending bill that would weaken the agency's ability to regulate air pollution from oceangoing vessels.

Five advocacy groups yesterday urged the House and Senate overseers of the fiscal 2010 Interior-EPA appropriations bill to oppose any possible rider that would "weaken, delay or limit" EPA's ability to implement proposed engine and fuel standards for the largest ocean-bound ships.

It remains unclear what such an amendment would entail, but sources on and off Capitol Hill say that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) are backing the language. Spokesmen for the congressmen were not immediately available for comment.

"We're shocked that a Democratic Congress would even consider attacking the Obama EPA on such a critical public health issue," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

At issue is EPA's proposed strategy to address emissions from oceangoing vessels. The plan would slash U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions by 1.2 million tons and particulate matter emissions by about 143,000 tons by 2030. EPA says the program would prevent between 13,000 and 33,000 premature deaths per year by 2030(E&ENews PM, July 1).

"The need for these rules is urgent," states the letter (pdf) from the American Lung Association, Clean Air Watch, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. "Any delay will postpone the health benefits."

Yesterday, EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee -- a stakeholder advisory group -- approved a resolution recommending that EPA carry out its proposal and "decline requests for any geographic exemptions including, but not limited to, the Great Lakes."

The spending bill has cleared both chambers, but changes are possible when House and Senate conferees meet to hash it out. It is unclear exactly when that conference will occur.

Shipping industry representatives have argued that the rules would be particularly harmful to ships that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes and U.S.-Canadian waterways, and urged EPA to craft separate rules for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Several shipping groups urged EPA to extend the timeline so that shippers can conduct more thorough reviews, especially in light of the regulations' estimated price tag of more than $1 billion (E&ENews PM, Aug. 4).

The comment period on the draft rule ended Sept. 28.

Murkowski loses in Senate

Lisa Murkowski lost today in her bid to cripple EPA efforts on global warming. See excerpt below from Reuters.

Of course, you wouldn't have known it from the speech she gave on the Senate floor. (It was a consolation prize to let her sound off.) Murkowski sounded a bit like a punch-drunk fighter talking big after a bout he lost by a TKO.

**

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican senator's attempt to impose a one-year delay on possible Environmental Protection Agency rules controlling smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions sputtered in the U.S. Senate on Thursday.

Democratic and Republican leaders headed off a fight -- and a potentially close tally -- when they agreed to not allow a vote by the full Senate on Senator Lisa Murkowski's amendment to a bill funding the EPA in fiscal year 2010, which begins October 1.

But a spokesman for Murkowski said the senator would look for other upcoming bills to try her amendment.

Ethanol cripples Baltimore police department

Here is a great example of why the EPA should not be forced to permit higher concentrations of ethanol in gasoline.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun (below), an unusually high concentration of ethanol in the city’s gas supply helped cause the breakdown of nearly one-third of Baltimore city’s police cars.

What a pity HBO cancelled The Wire. Imagine the episode: drug dealers go on spree while cops fume. And start drinking the ethanol.

Seriously, this episode really ought to be a warning as the corn lobby presses its parochial agenda, whatever the cost to society.

www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md.ci.fuel23sep23,0,1002895.story



baltimoresun.com
Excess ethanol blamed in breakdown of police cars
Baltimore expects to be able to recover expenses
By Justin Fenton | The Baltimore Sun

September 23, 2009

City officials say an unusually high concentration of ethanol in the city's gasoline supply contributed to the breakdown of more than 70 police cars over the weekend, most of which had been repaired and returned to service Tuesday.

More than 200 police cars fueled up at a 24-hour, city-run gas pump by the Fallsway before cars started showing problems, and nearly one-third of the Police Department's patrol contingent was sidelined with engine trouble.

Police doubled up in cars before activating a reserve and shifting administrative vehicles into service.

Officials had expressed concern that the unleaded gasoline might have been mistakenly refilled with diesel, but results from a lab in Towson showed that ethanol was the apparent culprit.

Khalil Zaied, director of general services, said the city's supplier, IsoBunkers of Norfolk, Va., was conducting its own tests and that the city's legal team believes the city can recoup all expenses related to the incident.

Those expenses remained unclear Tuesday, but all of the repair work was done in-house, Zaied said.

"We had folks working literally 24 hours at all stations," Zaied said of the effort to get the police cruisers back on the streets. "They did a wonderful job."

Ethanol is mixed with gasoline at the pumps and is used to reduce carbon monoxide emissions, becoming more widespread in recent years as a replacement for methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, an additive that has led to concerns about groundwater contamination.

Most automobiles are not designed to handle blends with more than 10 percent ethanol, and higher levels of ethanol can cause engine damage.

Battle lines drawn on Murkowski: NAM says stop EPA!

It sounds as if a vote may be looming this morning, and the battle lines are clearly drawn.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which for many years has led reactionary efforts to block EPA from cleaning up the air, is urging members of the U.S. Senate to support the appropriations amendment by Senator Murkowski of Alaska. http://www.nam.org/~/media/PolicyIssueInformation/SiteContent/KeyManufacturingVotes/MurkowskiAmendment.ashx

NAM demonstrates exactly what’s wrong with this thinly veiled effort to stop the Obama Administration in its tracks: (It looks as if the real goal here for the Rs is to give Obama a bloody nose as he tries to persuade the international community to move ahead with climate initiatives.)

On the one hand, NAM argues the Murkowski amendment “puts policy where it belongs: Congress”

http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/09/24/murkowski-amendment-puts-policy-where-it-belongs-congress/

But at the same time, NAM is leading efforts to persuade Congress to oppose climate legislation! http://www.nam.org/NewsFromtheNAM.aspx?DID={8E440DDE-E6D4-4D74-B90F-6A678FE166CB}

This sort of vile hypocrisy is the intellectual underpinning of the Murkowski approach.

And, of course, if the industry lobby succeeds, it may be shooting itself in the foot. By handcuffing the EPA, Murkowski’s amendment could force industry to deal with a complicated patchwork of state regulations. Isn’t that exactly what the car companies complained about for all those years?