Blog for Clean Air

On the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham "Compromise"

2009-12-11T06:10:00.000-08:00

This outline of a “compromise” was completely predictable.

http://kerry.senate.gov/congress/kglpressconf.cfm

And it is tremendously disappointing.

Once you wade through the focus-group crafted boilerplate language, it reads like a coal protection manifesto. Citing Senator Byrd and Duke CEO Jim Rogers! As they say on the countdown to Monday Night Football, “Come On, Man!”

The attack on EPA’s current Clean Air Act authority could have been written by Sarah Palin.

Don’t we deserve something better?

Something better is now on the table -- a bipartisan initiative from Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins. Their plan, which would require polluters to pay for the right to pollute, and then return most of the revenue to taxpayers, is both climate friendly and consumer friendly.

Controversial economist joins Obama team to review EPA clean air standards!

2009-12-03T10:10:00.001-08:00

From the Washington Post

Controversial economist probing cost of proposed new air pollution rule

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 3, 2009

A controversial economist working at the Office of Management and Budget has raised questions about whether a new air pollution rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency would impose too high a cost on coal-fired power plants, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Randall Lutter, who served as the Food and Drug Administration's head of policy under George W. Bush and has battled environmentalists for years on issues such as climate change and smog, has been examining the economic impact of federal rules at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Documents in EPA's public docket show he is now probing whether a rule to cut sulfur dioxide emissions would cost coal-fired utilities too much. The rule -- which was proposed last month and would take effect in June under a court order -- would prohibit short-term spikes of sulfur dioxide, which has been linked to respiratory diseases and premature deaths.

While sulfur dioxide emissions are now measured in 24-hour and annual increments, the new rule would evaluate them every hour, prohibiting sulfur dioxide from exceeding a limit of 50 to 100 parts per billion in one hour.

In a Nov. 19 e-mail to EPA employee Charles Fulcher, Lutter questioned whether power plants, known as EGUs, or electric generation units, could reduce sulfur dioxide emissions without financial pain.

"Are these really instances of zero-cost emissions reductions, or are they instead instances of emissions reductions that should already be in the baseline?" Lutter wrote.

Lutter's role has alarmed environmentalists, who worry about his previous record on air pollution and global warming. In the 1990s, Lutter questioned the merits of imposing tougher smog standards, on the grounds that they could lead to more cases of skin cancer. He wrote an essay in a book called "Painting the White House Green" in which he called Carol Browner -- who now advises President Obama on climate change but pushed for the ozone standards as EPA administrator under President Clinton as "an overzealous grab for more administrative authority," adding EPA's action on them "set a low in the use of bad analysis to support bad environmental policy."

Lutter also wrote a paper backing Bush's decision to opt out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gases, writing, "By rejecting the doomed Kyoto treaty in the early days of his Administration, he is doing more to protect the climate than his critics realize. His European eco-critics should chill out."

Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said, "Putting Lutter at OMB on environmental issues is like getting Dr. Kevorkian to review health-care reforms."

Lutter did not return a call placed to his White House office. OMB spokesman Kenneth S. Baer said Lutter "is a career civil servant on temporarily detail from FDA" who joined the OIRA staff because "we're stretched."

"Dr. Lutter's personal, political and ideological views are irrelevant to his position as a detailee. He provides technical economic advice" Baer added. "He has no decision-making role or authority."

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

2009-11-20T09:21:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-17T09:21:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-05T07:45:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-11-04T05:47:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-03T08:06:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-10-08T07:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T13:28:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T07:07:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-09-24T06:09:00.000-07:00

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?

The latest outrage from Congress: Murkowski threatens to try blocking EPA ghg authority

2009-09-18T07:10:00.000-07:00

As if we didn’t have enough special-interest meddling from the Senate already on EPA’s spending bill (Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is carrying corn and wants to force EPA to permit more smog-forming ethanol in gasoline), now comes word that Senator Lisa Murkowski wants to take away EPA authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-burning power plants, oil refineries and other smokestack industries.

As reported in this morning’s Environment and Energy Daily,

"Senator Murkowski is concerned about the economic consequences of EPA command-and-control regulation of emissions," said spokesman Robert Dillon. The senator plans to file the amendment, Dillon said, adding that he did not know whether a decision has been made to press for a vote.

“Command and control,” although I think initially a military term, is inflammatory language used by opponents of government action to deal with environmental problems.

We can’t wait to hear Murkowski’s argument should she proceed with this ill-considered idea.

Is she going to claim that this is something better handled by Congress? If so, why has she denounced the comprehensive climate legislation approved by the House? http://community.adn.com/node/143256

The weird part here is that Murkowski herself has warned about the impact of global warming on Alaska (where, as Politico put it earlier this year, “the Alaskan tundra thaws and fishing villages disappear into the ocean.”)

Our guess is Murkowski is responding to the big campaign contributions she has received from the oil and electric power industries, both of which oppose EPA action. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00026050&type=I&mem=

It is a real shame that campaign cash once again appears to triumph over responsible policies. We hope Senator Murkowski’s colleagues will see her move for what it is – duplicitous special-interest pandering that should be rejected out of hand.

EPA to scrap bad Bush smog standard

2009-09-16T10:38:00.001-07:00

This is terrific news for clean air.

It means that the EPA will take a fresh look at the science of smog as well as the recommendations of EPA’s science advisers. They unanimously urged tougher standards than those issued by the Bush administration.

We commend the EPA’s decision here and urge the agency to follow the science and the law. That will inevitably mean tougher smog standards than those issued by the Bush administration.

From the Justice Department filing today with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit:

EPA has determined that it will administratively reconsider this rule.

Specifically, EPA has concerns regarding whether the revisions to the primary and
secondary NAAQS adopted in the Ozone NAAQS Rule satisfy the requirements of
the Clean Air Act, and thus EPA will reconsider the Ozone NAAQS Rule through
notice and comment rulemaking. EPA's schedule for this rulemaking is to sign the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by December 21, 2009, and to sign the Final
Action by August 31, 2010.

Smog Watch 2009: Some surprising news

2009-09-03T05:21:00.000-07:00

Dirty-air days down, but widespread problems persist

The number of dirty-air days for smog has fallen almost by half in 2009. But it’s not all good news.

Here are some statistics of note:

Number of times the federal standard for ozone (75 parts per billion) has been breached in 2009, through August: 2,631.

Compared to the number during the same period of 2008: 5,022

**

States with smog problems in 2009: 37 plus DC

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

**

Most polluted county: San Bernadino, CA=86 days. (78 at one monitoring station)

**

Here are a few likely factors in the change from 2008:
Much of the drop from 2008 appears to be due to cooler, wetter weather which has inhibited smog formation or washed it away.

Here is an example of the weather phenomenon as described last month by a meteorologist with a Washington, D.C, tv station:

Much of the summer thus far has been noted by slightly cooler than average temperatures coupled with an active weather pattern that has yielded nearly daily chances of showers and storms. Compared to 2008 when we transitioned into a more “typical” D.C. summer pattern nearly on cue. Last years “typical” pattern consisted of hot and humid strings of days with a much lower daily opportunity for cleansing rains.

http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/d.c._air_quality_2008_vs._2009.html

At the same time, the federal Energy Information Administration reports that electricity sales (particularly from coal-burning electric power plants) are down. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/flash/august2009.pdf

And the Federal Reserve has noted that industrial production has generally been down though there was a slight uptick in July.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/

Although cars sales are down,the continuing turnover of the old fleet is leading to cleaner air because new cars meet tougher clean-air standards.

Some scientists are warning that global warming could make it more difficult to achieve clean-air standards in the future: http://www.nwf.org/extremeweather/

With Senate stalled, White House begins review of EPA proposed greenhouse gas smokestack rule

2009-09-01T08:24:00.000-07:00

Yes, I do believe it is a coincidence of timing. But even so…

On the very day that Senator Barbara Boxer announced she was delaying introduction of her long-awaited climate bill, the White House began review of the first EPA proposed rules that would apply greenhouse gas requirements to big smokestack industries under the Clean Air Act.

We welcome this proposal and encourage the Obama administration to move ahead. We can’t just sit, wait and hope for Senate action some day. The climate clock is ticking.

This proposal is a part of EPA’s response to the big 2007 Supreme Court ruling on global warming. These requirements, like planned standards for motor vehicles, would not take effect before EPA issues a final “endangerment” finding. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that decision would be made within the next few months. EPA appears to be getting its ducks in a row.

See below from an executive branch website. It notes that the White House Office of Management and Budget yesterday began review of proposed EPA greenhouse gas requirements. (The ever-alert Matt Madia of OMB Watch was the first person I’m aware of to flag this item.) The item has a fairly obscure title:

“Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.” And, no, we don’t think this involves inseams or sleeve lengths. “Tailoring,” in this context, probably refers to an attempt to limit the requirements to very large sources of greenhouse gas emissions such as coal-burning electric power plants. (Limiting the requirements to big pollution sources would counter the scaremongering charges by the US Chamber of Commerce, which has alleged that EPA would regulate mom-and-pop stores, donut shops, etc.)

As we understand it, this proposal would be an attempt to put requirements on facilities that emit 25,000 tons or more a year of carbon dioxide. It would require new and modified sources of pollution at that size or greater to use the best available control technology to limit greenhouse gases.

This plan would be an obvious reversal of the Bush administration’s hands-off policy. In December 2008, then-EPA chief Stephen Johnson issued a memo which declared that carbon dioxide was not a regulated pollutant and that EPA did not has authority to limit emissions or require the best possible technology through the “prevention of significant deterioration” requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is reconsidering that memo in response to a petition from our friends with Sierra Club.

Here is the link:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoReviewSearch;jsessionid=f6a16626eaf9fd09224addee6699f0a5468e8455cef2e53d290b56bead650da8.e38Nch4NbhuNa40Lc30Ta3iQaNeMe6fznA5Pp7ftolbGmkTy

AGENCY: EPA-AR RIN: 2060-AP86
TITLE: Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 08/31/2009 LEGAL DEADLINE: None

GE brings good things to... GE!

2009-08-27T11:27:00.001-07:00

An interesting story in the Washington Examiner on GE's lobbying efforts in DC:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-GE-puts-the-government-to-work-for-GE-8154266-54820577.html

Obama administration moving forward on climate

2009-08-27T11:24:00.000-07:00

As the nation mourns the loss of Senator Kennedy and we await Senate action on climate (likely delayed by the healthcare issue), the wheels continue to turn within the Obama administration.

This week, the White House (at long last) began its review of upcoming greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles along with tougher fuel efficiency standards. A government web site notes the review by the Office of Management and Budget began on Tuesday Aug. 25.

You may recall the Obama administration announced its deal with the car industry and the state of California last May. It’s high time they put these new standards into place.

The review suggests that EPA is nearing a final “endangerment” finding that global warming emissions threaten health and the environment. That decision – the right response to the big Supreme Court decision on global warming -- may be interpreted by some as a polite reminder to the Senate that it cannot ignore the climate issue. The EPA finding could be the starting point for additional administrative action on climate if the Senate fizzles.

**

A related item under current OMB review: final EPA greenhouse gas reporting rules, explained here:

The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law on December 26, 2007, authorized funding for EPA to “develop and publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and a final rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.” The accompanying joint explanatory statement directed EPA to "use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act" to develop a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule. The joint explanatory statement went on to say that "The Agency is further directed to include in its rule reporting of emissions resulting from upstream production and downstream sources, to the extent that the Administrator deems it appropriate.” Accordingly this rulemaking would establish monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements on facilities that produce, import, or emit greenhouse gases above a specific threshold in order to provide comprehensive and accurate data to support a range of future climate policy options

As some of you may know, the oil industry met with the White House earlier this month to raise concerns about the rule:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_081109/

**

Finally, something of a sleeper: a cautionary note from the EPA that pumping carbon dioxide underground could damage groundwater aquifers that supply drinking water. The basic concern, as an excellent story in today’s Energy Daily points out, is that “if carbon dioxide injected underground were to migrate to shallow aquifers, concentrations of arsenic and other heavy metals in the groundwater could increase and thus contaminate the water. “ Oh, that.

Capturing and pumping this stuff underground, of course, is, as Energy Daily notes, is “seen as crucial to the continued use of coal for electricity generation in a carbon-constrained regulatory environment.”

Here is some relevant background, including EPA’s new “notice of data availability” and the interesting research by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/prefr_uic_noda_2009-08.pdf

http://fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/partnerships/index.html

http://esd.lbl.gov/GCS/projects/CO2/index_CO2.html

Coal lobby says a quarter of a trillion dollars in freebies is not enough

2009-08-07T06:43:00.000-07:00

When it comes to chutzpah, you’ve got to hand it to the coal lobby.

Here it is, ready to walk away with literally hundreds of billions of dollars from the House-passed climate bill. It’s at the center of a lobbying scandal involving forged letters to members of Congress. And now it has the audacity to demand an even bigger payoff from taxpayers as the Senate scrutinizes climate legislation.

An excellent – and rather shocking – piece yesterday in Greenwire noted that

Coal's biggest lobbying group is launching a $1 million campaign to win support from Senate Democrats, an effort that employs the same public relations firm ensnared by a scandal over forged letters to Congress.

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), an alliance of coal and utility companies, hired Alexandria, Va.-based Hawthorn Group for the new effort. Hawthorn worked for the coal group earlier this year, coordinating outreach on the House climate bill. During that project, Hawthorn subcontractor Bonner & Associates sent at least three members of Congress a total of 12 fraudulent letters purporting to be from groups opposed to the legislation…

Coal received many provisions it sought in the House bill but is pressing for more in the Senate.

Coal interests want a provision in climate legislation that would limit how much businesses must pay for carbon dioxide emissions under a cap-and-trade program. Coal also wants financial support for research into ways to capture carbon emissions and sequester them underground. And the industry wants to slow down the pace of the cap, which in the House bill tightens over time.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/08/06/06greenwire-citizen-army-carries-coals-climate-message-to-39075.html

There is probably no need to re-hash the lobbying scandal. We hope that Rep. Ed Markey’s investigation will get to the bottom of it.

http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0142#main_content

As we tried to remind people yesterday http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-06-hawthorn-group-astroturfing-climate-bill , the Hawthorn Group boasted earlier this year that it had manipulated both politicians and the media to believe there was public support for something it called “clean coal.” (Show us where it is.)

And since the coal lobby (which includes coal-burning power companies such as Duke Energy and American Electric Power Company and Southern Company

http://www.cleancoalusa.org/docs/members/ ) is now demanding even more ransom from the Senate, it might be worth taking a moment to consider how much money it would make from the House legislation that it now considers inadequate.

Clean Air Watch estimates that the coal lobby would receive more than a quarter trillion dollars in economic value between 2012 and 2030 under the House legislation. Yes, that is not a misprint – the word is trillion. The total includes the value of carbon permits given for free to coal-burning electric companies, “bonus” allowances for carbon capture and sequestration, free permits given to “merchant” coal plants and other freebies.

But you don’t need to take our word for it. An independent body such as the Congressional Budget Office or the GAO should examine the issue. We hope someone in Congress will press for such an unbiased analysis.

Look out, "King Coal" -- EPA staff urges tough new standards for sulfur dioxide

2009-08-05T17:17:00.000-07:00

Look out, “King Coal.” You may be winning hundreds of billions of climate bucks in Congress (money, by the way, that could and should go to residential consumers.)

But EPA;s career staffers are recommending that the agency set a tough new air quality standard to limit sulfur dioxide – one of the primary components of coal burning.

Please note the final EPA staff assessment of this issue, quietly published online this week:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/data/Risk%20and%20Exposure%20Assessment%20to%20Support%20the%20Review%20of%20the%20SO2%20Primary%20National%20Ambient%20Air%20Quality%20Standards-%20Final%20Report.pdf

I particularly want to commend your attention to pages 396-397, in which the EPA staffers argue that the scientific evidence “most strongly” supports a standard that would limit one-hour average concentrations to no more than 50-75 parts per billion. (This is within the range previously endorsed by EPA’s outside science advisers.) The EPA staff said higher levels could be justified if some of the scientific evidence is ignored. There is no one-hour standard today. See table regarding current annual and 24-hour standards http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html .

If the EPA sets a standard at the lower end of the recommended range, it calculates that 54 counties (mainly in the Southeast and Midwest), home to 43.5 million people, would be out of compliance. See chart on page 388. These, of course, are areas where coal-burning power plants dominate.

The message here is clear: EPA standards could prompt the need to clean up many of the still-filthy coal-burning power plants.

These recommendations come as members of Congress appear to be falling all over each other to give hundreds of billions of dollars away to coal-related concerns and boast about their fealty to allegedly “clean coal,” while coal is at the center of a new lobbying scandal.

Sulfur dioxide, of course, is especially dangerous for children, senior citizens, and those with asthma and heart problems:

http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/hlth1.html ,

EPA is under a court agreement to propose new standards by Nov. 11 of this year and to set final standards by June 2, 2010.

Clean Air Watch testimony on EPA NO2 proposal

2009-08-03T05:04:00.000-07:00

My name is Frank O’Donnell and I am president of Clean Air Watch, a non-profit, non-partisan clean air watchdog organization.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I will be very brief and I hope to the point.

I think you know Clean Air Watch has long praised the diligent efforts of EPA’s professional staff, even when staff appeared to be hamstrung by political appointees from the prior administration who all-too-frequently appeared to put politics ahead of science.

We are glad today to renew our praise for the career staff even as we welcome an administration that is willing to listen to science – and to EPA’s science advisers.

Let me put this issue into a little context:

The news has been dominated in recent weeks by health care reform. The need to protect more people. To reduce costs. To cut down on emergency room visits.

Dirty air is the forgotten topic when it comes to health care reform. It will cost a lot less to keep people out of the emergency rooms. And one way to do this is to reduce dangerous nitrogen dioxide pollution.

There’s also been prominent news about the flu and flu shots. Nitrogen dioxide can make you more susceptible to the flu. So one way to help with the flu issue is to reduce dangerous nitrogen dioxide pollution.

And most of us, of course, remain anxious about the economy. Cleaning up dirty air is good for the economy. And an obvious way to do this is to reduce dangerous nitrogen dioxide pollution.

This issue is a test for how the Obama administration’s EPA will deal with national clean air standards.

The Bush administration failed miserably. All too often it ignored the science – and the agency’s own science advisers.

By contrast, we think the new EPA is on track for a passing grade with its proposal for nitrogen dioxide. But it’s a long way from an A+ when it comes to protecting kids with asthma and other breathers. We think it’s probably more like a B or C right now, depending on the range you’ve put forward.

We’d like you to get that grade up. We think kids with asthma deserve no less than A+ public health protection.

Specifically, we agree with the position advanced by the American Lung Association. We believe that the EPA should:

• Set a one-hour standard of 50 ppb or below. We believe a short-term standard at that level would better protect children with asthma and keep them out of hospital emergency rooms.

• Strengthen the annual average standard to protect against harm from long-term exposure. We believe you adopt the California annual average air quality standard for NO2, which is 30 ppb, as compared to the current federal standard of 53 ppb.

• Set up the roadside monitoring network to detect the problem where it is likely most serious. We do urge you to keep that regardless of the level of the standard. The level of the standard must depend on what is necessary to protect human health, not on the existence of a monitoring network.

Thank you.

Smog alert! New studies argue for tougher ozone standards, caution about corn ethanol

2009-07-24T12:05:00.000-07:00

There are several new scientific studies that I want to make sure you don’t miss.

These studies bolster the case for tougher new national health standards for smog. And they should raise a real yellow flag about the political push to put more corn-based ethanol in gasoline.

The first study found that ozone exposure, even at levels deemed safe by current clean air standards, can have a significant and negative effect on lung function, according to researchers at the University of California Davis.

The researchers found a decrease in lung function among healthy, non-smoking people exposed to ozone at a level of 70 parts per billion. (One of the researchers dryly remarked that “these findings highlight the need to study susceptible individuals, such as asthmatics, at similar ozone concentrations and durations of exposure. These studies are needed to better understand the acute rise in hospitalizations that often occur in conjunction with high-ozone periods.” Ya think?)

The results were published in the August 1 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Research_270/Even_Healthy_Lungs_Labor_at_Acceptable_Ozone_Levels.shtml

A little context for why this is important: you may recall that the ever-consistent Steve Johnson, head of the US EPA in the last years of the Bush administration, ignored the agency’s science advisers and set an ozone standard of 75 parts per billion.

In March, the Obama EPA signaled that it would reconsider this move. (It asked a federal appeals court to stall proceedings over pollution limits for smog to give the EPA time to determine whether to revise the controversial Bush-era standards.)

We expect EPA will indeed review the scientifically deficient Bush standards. Even if they simply review the earlier science, an honest assessment would lead to tougher national standards than those put out by the Bush team. This new research absolutely confirms the need for tougher smog standards.

**

Now, about another smog study noted by Reuters Health: http://www.rtmagazine.com/reuters_article.asp?id=20090723clin003.html

This one, published in the July issue of Allergy http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204077/abstract , suggested that ozone appears to have an adverse effect on childhood asthma even in rural areas.

“The major finding was that, even in rural areas, ozone might have an adverse impact on the worsening of childhood asthma," one of the researchers told Reuters Health in an email.

**

Both studies should raise a real warning about the politically popular push to increase use of corn-based ethanol to boost the income of farmers and agri-giants such as Archer Daniels Midland.

I realize it is politically incorrect to challenge the notion that we should be extolling the virtues of corn as a fuel. (As part of the political price to pass the recent climate legislation, the House of Representatives went along with the farm lobby’s demand that we do phony math and pretend that corn-based ethanol is a good thing for global warming. And corn champions like Senator Tom Harkin are making similar demands in the Senate. As those of you following this issue well know, this sort of deal-making undercuts the goals of that legislation.)

But a couple of things are very clear: putting ethanol in gasoline (with the possible exception of E85) causes more smog. Even the Bush EPA admitted this!

And now the corn lobby and its champions on Capitol Hill and the various governors are making a big political push to force the EPA to permit even more ethanol in regular gasoline. That will lead to even more smog, and more health problems.

These new studies suggest that would be a tragic mistake. As the second study notes, smog isn’t a problem just for those of us living in urban areas.

Duke's Rogers: Senate should trash House climate deal, give more freebies to coal

2009-07-23T08:27:00.001-07:00

Well, that rascal Jim Rogers is at it again.

The Duke CEO and chairman, who worked to construct the compromise climate deal approved by the House of Representatives, now wants to change the deal. Not surprisingly, Rogers wants more freebies for coal!

In an interview this week (see excerpt below) with SNL Energy, Rogers said the “transition” to a “low-carbon” economy “must be fair to the consumers in the 25 states that are dependent on coal.” He said the Senate should change the allocation formula to give more free credits to power companies that burn coal. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa has made similar comments in recent days, perhaps fueled by guys like Rogers, who I am told has been making the rounds in the Senate trying to sell his more coal-friendly strategy. (I assure you, Harkin is not hearing that sort of message from actual “consumers!” As you may know from the press call my friends had yesterday, public interest groups ranging from AARP to Public Citizen want more carbon permits to be auctioned – with the proceeds going directly to consumers – as well as better residential consumer protections.)

One would think the Rogers comments would be a real point of contention even within the electric power industry, since the House bill reflected a deal with the Edison Electric Institute. Now Rogers wants to change the deal to boost his own company’s profits.

As usual, Rogers tailors his message to his audience, as the politically correct folks might put it.

**
Duke CEO: Different CO2 allowance formula needed to pass Waxman-Markey in Senate

July 21, 2009 3:15 PM ET
By Kathleen Hart SNL Energy

With half of U.S. senators representing states that rely heavily on coal for their electricity, the Senate will have to strike a different deal on allocating emissions allowances than the House of Representatives struck in passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, Duke Energy Corp. Chairman, President and CEO James Rogers said July 20.

"I think the politics is fundamentally different in the Senate," Rogers told SNL Energy in an interview. He noted that 25% of the votes for the Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives came from the representatives of just two states — California and New York — but those states only represent 4% of the Senate.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., "did an excellent job of coming up with something that would work in the House. Chairman Waxman and Speaker [Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.] did a good job of getting that out of the

House because they calibrated the allocations in a way to get the vote out," Rogers continued. But he emphasized that in anticipating Senate floor action on the bill, it is important not to underestimate the power of the 25 states where more than 50% of the electricity comes from coal.

"They did a terrific job getting it out of the House with the allocation formula there," Rogers said. "I think the calculus is fundamentally different in the Senate and the stats that I gave you, you'll find interesting and compelling. Four percent says they're going to have to cut a different deal to bring those other states along."...

While advocating the transition to a low-carbon economy in the United States, Rogers said the transition must be fair to the consumers in the 25 states that are dependent on coal.

Public interest groups urge better consumer protections in climate bill

2009-07-22T07:52:00.000-07:00

AARP

Consumer Federation of America

National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients

Public Citizen

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Essential Consumer Protections:

Critical Improvements to the House Climate Change Bill

July 22, 2009

Dear Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

We appreciate your leadership on protecting residential consumers in the drafting of climate change legislation. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important challenge and an opportunity that will transform many aspects of everyday life for the average consumer.

President Obama proposed in February a climate plan that featured a 100% auction, thereby ensuring ample rebates to consumers and investments in clean energy technologies. But the American Clean Energy & Security Act that passed the House abandoned this equitable approach by giving 85% of the emission allowances away for free to utilities, oil refiners and manufacturers. These free allocations deny the government access to revenues to ensure that most consumers are held harmless, will result in windfall profits for many large polluters, and will delay our transition to cleaner energy technologies.

Our clear preference is to provide a greater percentage of allowances for auction with more of the revenues used for direct consumer relief. However, to the extent that the Committee builds on the House-passed bill, we ask you to establish a stronger system of consumer protection. Specifically:

(1) Ensure residential electric and natural gas consumers directly receive the benefit of the electric and natural gas local distribution company (LDC) allowances provided to mitigate consumer cost impacts in the following manner:

· The electric and natural gas local distribution companies (LDCs) must pass through the ratable share of the value of the emissions allowances to residential consumers to reduce the costs impacts on residential consumers. No more than 25% of the value of these allowances can be used for cost-effective, measurable and verifiable energy efficiency measures that include low-income ratepayers.

· Ratepayer benefits from the LDC emission allowances shall be distributed among ratepayer classes ratably based on revenues to each class.

(2) Ensure consumer representation in the implementation of the climate change bill in the following manner:

· Establish an Office of Consumer Advocate within the federal agencies tasked with implementing the long-term climate change policy.

· Facilitate consumer participation in federal and state utility commission proceedings through intervener fees funded through the emission allowances.

(3) Ensure that fixed-income, seniors and working families are not left behind by dedicating more than 15% of emission allowances to distribute to a greater number of households.

(4) Improve protections against windfall profits funded at the expense of consumers by reducing the amount and number of years over which allowances are given freely to corporations. Of particular concern are free allowances granted to merchant coal power plants charging market-based rates and generators with long-term power-supply contracts. Since these generators are not exposed to international competitiveness problems, it is unclear as to why they require free allowances. Clearly, the House bill fails to provide adequate protections for consumers against windfall profits by these generators.

We look forward to working with your offices to develop climate change legislation that provides meaningful mitigation of utility cost increases for all consumers, especially those on fixed-incomes, seniors and the working poor.

Sincerely,

David P. Sloane

Senior Vice President

Government Relations & Advocacy

AARP

Dr. Mark Cooper

Consumer Federation of America

Olivia Wein

National Consumer Law Center

On behalf of its low-income clients

Tyson Slocum

Public Citizen

Frank O’Donnell

Clean Air Watch

National Community Action Foundation

Judy Dugan

Consumer Watchdog

John Atkeison

Alliance for Affordable Energy, Louisiana

Mike Tidwell

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana

Jan Jarrett

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future

Ben Moore

Coastal Conservation League, South Carolina

Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition of Dayton

Jesse Glickstein

Faiths United for Sustainable Energy, Florida

Daniel Ziskin

Jews of the Earth, Colorado

Tom Kelly

KyotoUSA, California

Jim Jensen

Montana Environmental Information Center

John Fogarty, MD MPH

New Energy Economy, New Mexico

Lauren Schuster

NY Public Interest Research Group

Sandy Buchanan

Ohio Citizen Action

Joy Bergey

Pennsylvania Interfaith Climate Change Campaign

Al Weed

Public Policy Virginia, Inc.

Jere Locke,

Texas Climate Emergency Campaign

Mark Toney

TURN

Boxer faces challenge of a lifetime on climate change bill

2009-07-13T14:31:00.000-07:00

Boxer faces challenge of a lifetime' on climate change bill
By ROB HOTAKAINEN
McClatchy Newspapers

Published: Sunday, Jul. 12, 2009

WASHINGTON -- If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children.

Boxer is engaged in her biggest sales job ever. The stakes couldn't be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

"For Barbara Boxer, it's both the opportunity and a challenge of a lifetime," said Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch.

more at: http://www.sacbee.com/838/story/2019614.html

GAO: mercury from power plants can be controlled -- and very cheaply

2009-07-09T14:34:00.000-07:00

In his oral testimony this morning to a Senate subcommittee, GAO’s John Stephenson reported that “at least 90% reduction” of mercury “appears achievable and affordable at most power plants.”

His formal testimony is here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=3cbea978-802a-23ad-49c8-900366f93da1&Witness_ID=bf2b89cf-e8a2-4601-a781-ef4239581850

Stephenson noted that for the vast majority of power plants, the cleanup could be done at a cost as little as a dime a month extra on a consumer's electricity bill.

This GAO analysis is powerful evidence that the EPA should set tough requirements to limit mercury pollution from every power plant.

Meanwhile, give credit to state environmental agencies, which pushed ahead with mercury controls while the Bush administration was busy cutting deals with the coal-burning power industry.