As federal authorities struggle to deal with the BP oil disaster in A draft version of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act would Specifically, the draft bill establishes a highly A spokesman for the utility industry said it welcomed The language of the American Power Act is the latest in a long Law makers in 1990 probably could not have imagined that two long This saga 1995: EPA missed 2000: Despite massive lobbying by the coal-burning power industry, 2005: After Congress rejected the “Clear Skies” plan, the Bush EPA is currently under a legal agreement to propose toxic pollution As the Environmental Integrity Project recently reported, overall It’s a no-brainer that we need to reduce global warming from power Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n A chat with energy analyst Trevor Houser about how to assess climate legislation<\/a><\/p>\n Deforestation reductions could save U.S. farmers, ranchers, and foresters $220 Billion<\/a><\/p>\n
\nthe Gulf of Mexico, it is probably useful to remember that power
\ncompanies continue poisoning water bodies throughout the nation. The
\npower industry’s successful campaign to sidestep toxic pollution
\ncontrols has left a legacy of poisoned
\n rivers and lakes<\/a>. As ugly as this legacy seems, the power industry
\n appears to be maneuvering once again for further delays, trying to use
\npending Senate climate legislation as an escape hatch.<\/p>\n
\ncreate a new task force to examine pending EPA air pollution rules for
\nthe power industry, and make recommendations about weakening or
\neliminating public health safeguards in the name of electricity
\ngeneration reliability. The American Lung Association has warned that
\nthis provision could undermine
\n EPA’s efforts<\/a> to tackle toxic emissions from power plants. That
\nconcern was echoed by NRDC, long a leader in the effort to clean
\n up toxic mercury<\/a>:<\/p>\n
\nobjectionable task force to examine utility industry calls for
\nexemptions from federal environmental laws and regulations that
\nutilities allege are impeding power plant retirements or transitions to
\ncleaner energy. The provision’s language is suffused with utility
\nindustry complaints and rhetoric and pleas for payment, making clear the
\n design for a biased exercise. Polluter lobbyists deliver a
\nderegulatory wish list to Congress and federal agencies<\/strong>. The
\nagencies then are authorized by this bill to propose regulatory changes
\nto carry out those wishes.<\/p>\n
\n the provision<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nhistory of compromises. When Congress passed sweeping and generally
\npositive revisions to the Clean Air Act in 1990, the legislation
\ncompromised on toxic air pollution. Frustrated with the generally slow
\npace in cleaning up hazardous air emissions, Congress ordered the U.S.
\nEnvironmental Protection Agency to take action to clean up industrial
\nsources of mercury and other hazardous pollutants. But, in one fateful
\nlast minute compromise, Congress caved to pressure and gave a special
\ndeal to the powerful electric power industry: EPA was told it could
\n not set toxic air pollution standards<\/a> for electric power plants
\nuntil it had completed a special study of the industry.<\/p>\n
\ndecades later, mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants
\nremain uncontrolled—even though the power industry is the biggest
\ndomestic source of toxic mercury air pollution in the nation, which has
\ncontaminated all 50 states<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n of delay<\/a> has several
\n low points<\/a> worth recalling:<\/p>\n
\n its initial study deadline<\/a>, but agreed in a legal settlement with
\nthe Natural Resources Defense Council to complete work on the project.<\/p>\n
\nEPA found that “mercury emissions from electric utility steam generating
\n units are considered a threat to
\n public health<\/a> and the environment,” and decided to require maximum
\n achievable controls at all power plants by 2008. But industry
\ncontinued its lobbying campaign—both in Congress and at the EPA. The
\nBush administration’s Orwellian “Clear Skies Initiative” would have
\neliminated the mercury control requirement and substituted a weaker
\ncap-and-trade control strategy. This may have reduced mercury levels
\nbut could have perpetuated mercury “hot spots.”<\/p>\n
\nadministration attempted to rescind tough toxic air pollution control
\nrequirements for the power industry and substitute a weak cap-and-trade
\nsystem that would not have required any mercury-specific pollution
\ncontrols before 2018. Because of delays inherent in such a trading
\nsystem, the plan would have required approximately a 70 percent reduction in
\nmercury emissions—but not until the year 2026! A federal court threw
\n out the Bush plan as illegal<\/a>, and ordered EPA to go back and follow
\n the law.<\/p>\n
\nrequirements for the power industry by March 2011 and to set final
\nstandards by November 2011. These standards are critical. As the EPA
\nnotes, “Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source
\nof mercury emissions<\/a> to the air in the United States, accounting for
\n over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions.”<\/p>\n
\nmercury emissions from power plants were virtually
\n the same in 2008 as in 2000<\/a>—and more than half of the dirtiest
\npower plants actually increased their mercury emissions from 2007 to
\n2008!<\/p>\n
\nplants, and the American Power Act would be a step in that direction.
\nBut it’s critical to reduce mercury and other toxics as well. Two
\ndecades of delay is far too long.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"