Smog Watch '08: the Dirty Details through June

37 States with Smog Problems through June

(Washington, DC. July 3, 2008) – As many Americans hit the road for the 4th of July, the non-profit Clean Air Watch today warned that no fewer than 37 states plus the District of Columbia have already experienced unhealthful levels of smog so far this year.

The survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers is the first comprehensive snapshot of air quality in the United States under new ozone standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.

The survey of public web sites found monitored readings of dirty air in states from coast to coast – from Washington and California to Vermont, Maine and Florida.

“Even though we’ve made progress over the years in reducing smog, this survey is compelling evidence that we still have a widespread and major smog problem,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. He noted that unhealthful levels of air quality are being recorded even under standards that EPA’s independent science advisers unanimously judged to be inadequate to protect public health.

“So, if anything, this survey understates the true extent of the smog problem,” O’Donnell noted. “These findings show we must continue to reduce emissions that cause smog – including coal-burning electric power plants and existing diesel engines,” O’Donnell noted.

He warned that electric power companies led by Duke Energy have sued to derail a federal plan to reduce emissions from coal-burning electric power plants.

“It could be a disaster for air quality if Duke wins,” O’Donnell said.

He also called on the Bush administration to move forward with proposed standards to clean up lawn mowers and other dirty small engines, and to make sure those standards are strictly enforced to prevent dirty imported engines from China.

Ozone, commonly described as smog, can trigger asthma attacks, send people to hospital emergency rooms and shorten lives. The survey found that 24 states plus the District of Columbia also had air quality worse than the “old” EPA smog standard. The biggest problems generally were recorded in California, where car and factory emissions have been compounded by fires.

The list of states and more on the survey is available at http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2008/07/smog-watch-08-status-report-through.html
###

EPA Smog Plan Compromises Public Health to Save Industry Money

EPA Chief Suggests Radical Change to Weaken Clean Air Act

(Washington, DC. March 12, 2008) – The non-profit Clean Air Watch today assailed a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to ignore the agency’s science advisers in setting a new national health standard for smog.

“Once again, the Bush administration has chosen to disregard the advice of the EPA’s own independent science advisers,” who had unanimously recommended a tougher standard than that selected by the agency, said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. O’Donnell noted that the administration also rejected the advisers’ advice in 2006 regarding national standards for particle soot.

The EPA is supposed to set these standards based solely on science.

“Unfortunately, real science appears to have been tainted by political science,” O’Donnell added.

“The Bush Administration is compromising public health to save industry money,” he said.” EPA documents show that public health benefits would be far greater under tougher standards recommended by the science advisers.

At the same time, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson articulated what he called “principles” that would seek changes in the Clean Air Act to permit costs when setting national clean air standards – something the Supreme Court has ruled is illegal under the current law.

“This would be a radical attack on the Clean Air Act,” O’Donnell said. “It is taking a page directly from the playbook of polluters and their most ardent supporters in Congress, including Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) of Texas, who previously introduced legislation seeking such a change.

O’Donnell predicted this idea would be “dead on arrival” in Congress, though he added that “Johnson “quite obviously was considering costs in this smog decision. He interpreted the law the way he wishes it were.”

Smog, technically known as ozone, is the nation’s most widespread air pollutant. It can cause lung damage, trigger asthma attacks – even shorten someone’s life.

The national health standards were last revised in 1997. Since then, numerous studies have shown that the current standards need to be made tougher.

EPA’s science advisers had unanimously recommended that the current standard, 0.08 parts per million, be lowered to a level between 60 and 70 parts per billion. The agency’s Children’s Health Advisory Committee recommended a standard of 60.

But EPA announced today that the health-based standard would be made somewhat tougher, but only down to 75 parts per billion – a level that will require relatively few areas of the country to take additional smog cleanup steps beyond those already planned.

Big oil visits White House in apparent bid to kneecap tougher smog standards

Well, friends, the clock is ticking. (No, we’re not talking about the Florida primaries, or “Super Tuesday” for that matter.)

It’s only about six weeks until the US EPA announces whether it plans to set tougher national health standards for ozone, or smog. That means it’s time for the White House to focus on the issue, which pits scientists (and kids with asthma) against the biggest and nastiest polluters.

The health evidence is overwhelming that tougher smog standards are needed to protect kids with asthma and many millions of other Americans. That is the unanimous conclusion of EPA’s independent scientific advisers.

And so – as it so often happens – representatives of big polluters have started going to the White House in an apparent big to kneecap any effort to make existing standards better.

The White House Office of Management and Budget records that several oil industry consultants came to pay a visit January 25. (See below.)

Anne Smith of CRA International is recorded to have represented the American Petroleum Institute, which has gone on record against tougher smog standards.

Teresa Gorman of LPI Consulting (once a White House environmental adviser in the first Bush administration) is listed as representing “Bingham McCuthen.” That is probably a typo.

Gorman also happens to be a registered lobbyist for Bingham McCutchen – and represents ExxonMobil on “clean air regulatory issues,” according to lobbying disclosure reports! Gorman has also visited the White House on other occasions representing ExxonMobil. You do have to wonder if there was some effort here at deception, since ExxonMobil is never mentioned. Perhaps just a clerical error.

I predict this will be the first of many White House visits as big polluters try to smogify the issue.

Note, by the way, the link below to a separate White House meeting that included corn and tobacco growers. The topic is not disclosed, though it seems pretty intriguing.

**
Link to oil industry meeting at White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2000/meetings/692.html

Meeting Record Regarding: Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Date: 1/25/2008
-->
Name
Affiliation
Client (if applicable) -->
Art Fraas
OMB/OIRA

Heidi King
OMB/OIRA

Margo Schwab
OMB/OIRA

Teresa Gorman
LPI
Bingham McCuthen
Anne Smith
CRA International
API
Lydia Wegman
EPA

Harvey Richmond
EPA


**
Link to meeting with corn and tobacco growers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2000/meetings/691.html

Time to pull the plug on Florida's "Dirty Dozen" sources of global warming pollution

(Washington, DC. January 28, 2008) – It’s time to pull the plug on Florida’s “Dirty Dozen” electric power industry sources of global warming pollution, according to a new report by the non-profit Clean Air Watch.

In order to meet the laudable greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, these “Dirty Dozen” electric power plant units will probably need to be retired or repowered, Clean Air Watch noted.

The power they produce “could and should be reduced by aggressively improving energy efficiency and stepping up use of renewable energy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Clean Air Watch.

The “Dirty Dozen” power plant units on average are 47 years old – older than the 35-year-old national average of coal-fired power plants.

O’Donnell noted that Florida is a critical battleground in the fight against global warming because it ranks third in the nation in terms of power plant carbon dioxide emissions.

“States like Florida are leading the way against global warming because the federal government’s response has been so slow and indecisive,” O’Donnell said. “The Sunshine State could influence the shape of federal legislation.”

O’Donnell noted that Governor Crist issued a series of executive orders last year aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. These would require adoption of standards to reduce power plant emissions in the state to 2000 levels by 2017 and to 1990 levels by 2025.

Because of continuing growth in the state Florida will need to reduce power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent to meet the 2017 goal. To do that – while still meeting the state’s growing energy needs – Florida will need to retire or repower the biggest polluters while promoting energy efficiency and conservation.

In its report, Clean Air Watch compiled an inventory of the most polluting electric generating units in Florida over the age of 35 (based on their CO2 emission rates) and calculated the approximate CO2 savings that would result from replacing these units with clean renewable energy projects.

“We found that retiring the 12 highest polluting units in the state would achieve almost half of Florida’s phase one emissions reduction goal,” said O’Donnell.
“Meeting the rest of the goal may require shutting down additional high-polluting plants as well as more use of renewable energy and better energy efficiency.”

#



Florida’s Dirty Dozen: The Highest Emitting Generating Units in Florida Over the Age
of 35 (Ranked according to their CO2 emission rates).

Plant Name Owner Fuel Type Age

Scholz 2 Gulf Power coal 55
Scholz 1 Gulf Power coal 55
Suwannee 2 Progress Energy oil 54
Big Bend ST1 Tampa Electric coal 38
Crist 4 Gulf Power coal 49
Suwannee 1 Progress Energy oil 55
Lansing Smith 2 Gulf Power coal 41
Bartow ST2 Progress Energy oil 47
Crist 6 Gulf Power coal 38
Lansing Smith 1 Gulf Power coal 43
Crist 5 Gulf Power coal 47
Crystal River Progress Energy coal 42

Clean Air Watch Warns Big Polluters Try to Shape Global Warming Legislation with Campaign Cash

(Washington, DC. October 4, 2007) -- The non-profit Clean Air Watch today warned that the nation’s biggest electric power polluters appear to be trying to shape global warming legislation through campaign cash.

Clean Air Watch detailed industry contributions in a new report, Hot Checks, based on official information filed this year with the Federal Election Commission.

“The nation’s biggest power polluters appear to be systematically using campaign contributions to target key lawmakers,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

During the first eight months of this year, O’Donnell noted, the ten biggest electric power producers of carbon emissions and their lobbying group doled out more than $400,000 to a majority of the law makers on the key U.S. House and Senate committees that deal with global warming legislation.

According to official documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, political action committees affiliated with these companies contributed to 45 of the 57 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Big 10 power PAC checks went to 16 of the 23 members of the Senate Energy Committee, and to 12 of the 19 members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

O’Donnell noted that the biggest carbon polluter – Ohio-based American Electric Power – alone has contributed to no fewer than 46 members of the key House and Senate panels. AEP was also the biggest spender – distributing $65,500 in PAC contributions to members of the key panels.

“These aren’t like contributions to the March of Dimes,” said O’Donnell. “These companies want a seat at the table when the deals get cut.”

The report comes on heels of a white paper on possible legislation by two of the leading cash recipients, Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA), and as two key Senate law makers, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) ready legislation they hope to move through the Senate this year.

O’Donnell noted that the biggest carbon polluters have a key goal: to shape any legislation to the advantage of big coal-burning companies through cost limits on cleanup obligations and through a system allocating emission allowances that would, in essence, subsidize coal.

Clean Air Watch recently noted in a separate report that the draft Lieberman-Warner plan could mean windfall profits for the biggest polluters.

###

Clean Air Watch Warns of Windfall Profits to Global Warmers

(Washington, D.C., June 25, 2007) -- Should big polluters own the sky?

That’s one of the key questions as we consider how to limit and reduce global warming pollution. A U.S. Senate committee is set to examine this and related issues on June 28.

Many of the biggest coal-burning power companies claim they own the sky – and should be paid billions of dollars to reduce their emissions.

A new Clean Air Watch white paper concludes that the 10 most polluting electric power companies collectively could pocket $9 billion annually under the wrong kind of cap-and-trade program.

One company alone – Ohio-based American Electric Power – could rake in more than a billion and a half dollars every year. AEP has been among the polluters that have argued in favor of handing out global warming emission credits free to companies based on past pollution levels.

“The very companies that have polluted the upper atmosphere now want to be rewarded,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

“It would be unconscionable to reward their destructive behavior by simply giving them free credits – and windfall profits,” O’Donnell said. “The polluters should have to pay to clean up the mess they’ve made for us, and for future generations.”
The white paper argues that rather than subsidizing big polluters by handing out free emission credits or “allowances” based on past pollution levels – as Congress did with the 1990 acid rain program – the government should embrace the “polluter pays” principle used in other federal environmental laws including Superfund.
Specifically, it recommends that the federal government auction off allowances. Polluting companies would have to bid against each other for a portion of the atmosphere they intend to use — within overall limits that reduce carbon dioxide levels. Auction proceeds could be used for socially beneficial programs, which could include help for low-income residents, worker transition assistance or protecting wildlife.
In a foreword to the white paper, Larry J. Schweiger, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said “it’s time these companies started getting the bill.”

Schweiger added that “a cap-and-trade program that does not require companies to pay for carbon permits, and instead gives them away for free in perpetuity, would be fundamentally unjust. No-cost licenses to pollute would deprive the public of the resources and revenues with which to aid the economic transition to a low-pollution world, and with which to address the impacts of global warming.”

The white paper echoes a call made last week on public radio’s Marketplace by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:

“I mean, it's our atmosphere, right?” Reich said.

“Think of a national park or a national forest. No company is simply allowed to take what they want from it, free of charge. Why should the atmosphere be any different?” he added. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/20/AM200706202.html

The white paper is online at Clean Air Watch’s web site, www.cleanairwatch.org

Reactions to EPA's smog plan from Clean Air Watch, Northeastern clean-air agencies

Clean Air Watch: Why Does EPA Dither Over Smog?


(Washington, D.C., June 21, 2007) -- The following is a statement by Frank O’Donnell, president of the non-profit Clean Air Watch on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed new standards for ozone, or smog:

EPA’s smog proposal sends a mixed message:

The good news is that EPA agrees that current smog standards are too weak to protect people’s health. Its proposal would be a step in the right direction, though weaker than the standards recommended by EPA’s science advisers.

But EPA is also inviting comments on keeping the existing standards.

That’s an outrageous idea, driven by politics instead of science.

Why is EPA dithering? Evidence points to the secret hand of the White House.

We know that industry has aggressively lobbied the White House to force EPA to consider keeping the current standards. And we also know that in a separate, related rule, the White House forced EPA to pretend that smog doesn’t kill.

The science is crystal-clear that we need better standards to protect kids with asthma and millions of other breathers. Every credible scientist says so.

But EPA seems to be hedging its bets. It has suggested a range of possibilities. Most disturbingly, it has left open the door to keeping the current standards, which are outdated and don’t reflect recent science.

This suggests that recent polluter visits to the White House helped shape this decision. It raises huge concerns about what EPA will do with its final decision. Why leave the door open to doing something you know is wrong -- unless that came from political pressure?

It’s time for the White House to stop promoting the interests of its polluter friends, and permit EPA to do its job – to protect people’s health.

*** [and from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 21, 2007 Contact: Arthur Marin 617-259-2017
Paul Miller 617-259-2016
NESCAUM 617-259-2000

EPA’S PROPOSED AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH

June 21, 2007 (Boston, MA) – The Northeast states expressed concern with today’s proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise the national ambient air quality standard for ozone air pollution.

EPA is under a court-order to review and revise as necessary the national ozone air pollution standard.

The current ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours. EPA staff previously recommended that the EPA Administrator consider revising the standard to a level within a range from somewhat below 0.080 down to 0.060 ppm. A panel of outside scientific experts advising EPA unanimously recommended that the new standard be lowered to within a range between 0.070 and 0.060 ppm, which NESCAUM supports. Today, the Administrator proposed that the ozone standard be set somewhere within a range from 0.070 to 0.075 ppm. In addition, the Administrator chose to solicit comments on not changing the current ozone standard; an unsupportable option at odds with the large body of existing health evidence.

“The science clearly shows that the current standard does not adequately protect public health from the harm caused by ozone,” stated Arthur Marin, NESCAUM’s Executive Director. “EPA recognized this shortcoming, but unfortunately, it didn’t go far enough with its proposed change. Because the new standards will be in place for many years to come, there could be long-term adverse public health consequences associated with this decision. Even more disturbing, EPA left the door open to no change at all.”

Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant, and can reduce lung function and cause asthma attacks. It may inflame and damage -- maybe permanently -- cells that line the lungs, and aggravate chronic lung and cardiac diseases. Some of the symptoms may include: coughing; shortness of breath; increased susceptibility to respiratory infection; nose and throat irritation; chest pain; and other respiratory ailments.

While ozone pollution is a potent threat to those with respiratory disease, it can also affect healthy children, joggers, and others who spend time outdoors on warm, sunny, but smoggy summer days.

A number of recent studies from several separate research groups analyzing the available health research in the U.S. and Europe independently and consistently found a strong linkage between increases in ground-level ozone and risk of premature death. Recent studies also indicate that ozone may contribute to cardiac morbidity. These health consequences have not been accounted for previously, thus the costs of
not reducing ozone pollution are far higher than once believed.

“Ozone pollution can affect healthy individuals as well as those with respiratory problems, and the science shows it can increase the risk of premature death,” said David Shaw Director of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Air Bureau and current Chair of the NESCAUM Board of Directors. “Areas of New York State and other parts of the Northeast have among the highest childhood asthma rates in the country. Given the abundant scientific evidence available upon which to base this decision, we had hoped EPA would focus on a more protective standard.”

“EPA has been under pressure to consider costs in support of a less protective health standard, but, as the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court have plainly stated, EPA must set health standards based on science, not costs,” stated Mr. Marin. “Costs come into play later when deciding how to meet the health standards established through the science.”

NESCAUM is the regional association of air pollution control agencies representing Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
# # #

Smog Watch 2007: smog's up in May!

(Washington, DC. June 6, 2007) – The non-profit Clean Air Watch today warned that smog problems around the nation generally have been worse so far this year than last year at this time.

At least 29 states plus the District of Columbia have experienced serious smog problems already this year – an increase from a year ago at this time, when 22 states plus D.C. had monitored dirty air levels.

In May alone, unhealthful smog levels were monitored more than 35 percent more often than in May 2006, based on an unofficial survey by Clean Air Watch volunteers. Last year’s levels may have been lower because rains put a damper on potential problems in the Northeast and much of the Midwest.

“We’ve made great progress over the years in combating smog, but this evidence is a painful reminder that we still need to do more before we can breathe easy,” noted Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

“We need to tackle such big sources of pollution as existing diesel engines, trains and diesel boats, among other things,” O’Donnell noted.

He also noted that EPA’s independent science advisers and EPA’s own scientists have determined that the current smog standards are not strong enough to protect kids with asthma and others. EPA is under a court order to propose a decision on new smog standards by June 20.

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming that we need tougher smog standards,” O’Donnell said. “We hope the EPA won’t let polluter-generated political pressure smog up its judgment.”

The survey of public web sites found monitored readings of dirty air in states from California to Vermont and Maine. In May alone, air pollution monitors recorded unhealthful levels of smog an estimated 330 times, compared to about 240 the previous May.

More on the survey is available at http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2007/06/smog-watch-2007-trouble-continues.html