Skip to content Skip to footer
|

House GOP Bill Would Roll Back Basic Air-Pollution Rules

Washington — The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on a bill that's mushroomed recently into a plan to block the Obama administration's two main rules to clean up air pollution from power plants and change the way the Clean Air Act has worked for 40 years. House Republicans who crafted the bill say environmental regulations harm economic competitiveness. In recent days, they've added amendments that would stop new air-pollution regulations that operators of coal-fired electric plants have objected to for years. Environmental and health groups call it an extreme attack on the air pollution law. The amendments would eliminate two air pollution rules for power plants that are nearly ready to go into effect after years of delays. It also would require the Environmental Protection Agency to base acceptable levels of pollution on economic, as well as health, considerations.

Washington — The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on a bill that's mushroomed recently into a plan to block the Obama administration's two main rules to clean up air pollution from power plants and change the way the Clean Air Act has worked for 40 years.

House Republicans who crafted the bill say environmental regulations harm economic competitiveness. In recent days, they've added amendments that would stop new air-pollution regulations that operators of coal-fired electric plants have objected to for years. Environmental and health groups call it an extreme attack on the air pollution law.

The amendments would eliminate two air pollution rules for power plants that are nearly ready to go into effect after years of delays. It also would require the Environmental Protection Agency to base acceptable levels of pollution on economic, as well as health, considerations.

“The complaint is that EPA does all the benefits, many of which are questionable, but has refused to look at the collective cost or (electric) reliability impacts,” said Jeff Holmstead, a lobbyist for the electric power industry who was the EPA's air administrator during the George W. Bush administration.

The EPA has said it plans to take the combined effects of the upcoming rules into account as far as it legally can.

The TRAIN Act — for Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation — began as a requirement for a new federal committee to analyze the cumulative effects of environmental regulations before they take effect, but amendments have expanded its reach.

One, by Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, would force the EPA to redo the two pending regulations: One would reduce air pollution that crosses state lines in the Eastern half of the country, and the second would limit mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants for the first time nationwide.

Whitfield said earlier this year that he was “especially concerned about what impact these rules will have on the coal producers in my state and the jobs tied to the industry that plays such a vital role in meeting our energy demands, as well as the impact on electricity consumers.”

The interstate pollution rule is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The EPA estimated it would save up to 34,000 lives a year. The mercury and air toxics rule, which is to be finalized by November, is expected to save 17,000 lives a year.

Air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and increase the risk for lung diseases, heart attacks and strokes.

Another amendment would change the way the law sets acceptable levels of pollution.

Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, the EPA sets standards for major air pollutants based only on what's necessary to protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety.” Once the level of unhealthy air is set, the agency takes cost into account in determining what methods industries can use and how long they'll have to reduce the pollution.

The amendment by Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, would require the EPA to consider feasibility and cost when setting the amount of pollution in the air that's acceptable. This change would negate a unanimous 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the Clean Air Act doesn't allow the EPA to take costs into account when it's setting air standards.

John Walke, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog that the change would force the EPA “to set unprotective air quality standards for smog and soot and lead pollution that are at odds with health science, based on cost complaints by polluting industries.”

House passage of the TRAIN Act is considered certain.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Wednesday that she thought she could block the act in the Senate. But “this is not a slam dunk for us,” she added, because the bill could get recycled into budget or deficit-reduction measures.

The White House issued a statement Wednesday that said top staff there would advise President Barack Obama to veto the TRAIN Act if it reached his desk. In a statement, the administration said the bill would block two “landmark public health regulations under the Clean Air Act” that were long overdue.

Power plants got an exemption on mercury requirements under the Clean Air Act for many years. Some states have such regulations, but there's no nationwide requirement. Mercury in air settles in water. Humans ingest it from eating contaminated fish. It can damage the brain and reduce IQ in fetuses and children.

Whitfield's amendment would require the cross-state pollution rule to be revised to be more palatable for industry and not to go into effect for at least three years after the government finished studying it. The mercury rule also would be revised to make it more favorable for industry. Further, it couldn't be put out for a year after the study ended, and industries would have at least five years before they'd have to comply with it.

Plants need several types of large pollution-control equipment to meet the requirements, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars at each facility, Holmstead said.

Pollution-control supporters say that a U.S. pollution-control equipment industry creates jobs and exports. They also say that EPA data show that health benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

© 2011 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.

Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn

Dear Truthout Community,

If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.

We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.

Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.

There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.

After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?

It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.

We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.

We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.

Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.

We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.

With love, rage, and solidarity,

Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy