Isra-Mart srl: Under fire EPA hits back with stringent air pollution rules

www.isra-mart.com

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled stringent new rules that will require power plants in 27 states to deliver deep cuts in emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

Released last Thursday, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule will require power plants to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide from the start of next year and cut emissions of nitrogen oxide from May 2012.

The emissions targets imposed under the rule are also slightly deeper than those initially proposed last year. Sulphur dioxide emissions will have to fall 73 per cent against 2005 levels by 2014, while nitrogen oxide emissions will have to be cut 54 per cent by the same date.

The rules have been vigorously opposed by energy industry lobbyists and Republican lawmakers who have argued that they will impose unacceptable costs on energy firms and could result in power shortages.

However, the EPA insisted that the ruling would improve public health and deliver net economic benefits.

"No community should have to bear the burden of another community's polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses," EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.

The agency released figures suggesting that the rules will save $280bn a year in avoided health costs, far exceeding the $800m the energy industry is expected to invest complying with the rules, and the estimated $1.6bn a year of capital investments already underway to ensure the sector meets previous EPA air pollution requirements.

The rule, which comes in response to a federal appeals court order that forced the EPA to strengthen previous air quality rules, are designed to stop emissions from one state blowing into another, and apply only to states where there is a risk of air pollution crossing borders.

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia were dropped from the final EPA rule. But in a surprise move the EPA confirmed that Texas would be covered by the new targets, prompting a furious response from Republican governor and potential presidential candidate Rick Perry who has been waging a long-running battle against the environmental watchdog.

"Today's EPA announcement is another example of heavy-handed and misguided action from Washington D.C. that threatens Texas jobs and families and puts at risk the reliable and affordable electricity our state needs to succeed," Perry said in a statement.

Meanwhile, energy firm Luminant, the largest power producer in Texas, issued a statement warning that the state had not been given enough warning to comply with the new rule.

"The late decision to apply the rule to Texas and the modelling for the rule have resulted in wholly unreasonable mandates and unrealistic timelines for Texas," it said.

The announcement came as the EPA faced a fresh assault from House Republicans last week campaigning to strip the watchdog of much of its powers.

The GOP debuted a new fiscal 2012 spending bill to a House subcommittee that would block the EPA from imposing greenhouse gas emissions rules on power plants and industrial facilities for one year, slash funding for the watchdog, and eviscerate many of the environmental protections managed by the agency.

In particular, the bill would speed up permitting for oil companies planning to drill in waters off the Alaskan coast, water down EPA rules covering air pollution and coal ash, stop Interior Department efforts to ban uranium mining near the Grand Canyon National Park, and block new permitting rules designed to curb mountaintop removal coal mining that pollutes waterways.

It would also slash EPA funding from $8.7bn this year to $7.1bn next year, cutting spending on drinking water infrastructure projects, pollution clean up programmes, and conservation initiatives.

According to reports from the influential Hill blog in Washington, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar slammed the bill, warning that it represented a "very painful day for conservation", and arguing that a proposed cut of almost 80 per cent to the Land and Water Conservation Fund would "jeopardise the conservation legacy and future of the United States of America".

Even if the bill passes through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives it is highly unlikely to pass through the Democrat-controlled Senate in anything like its current form. However, some aspects of the bill have secured support from Democrats from coal states, and it forms part of an increasingly intense GOP campaign to curb the power of the EPA.

Meanwhile, President Obama last week expressed frustration at the failure of Congress to deliver a meaningful energy bill, warning that it was undermining the administration's efforts to reduce US reliance on oil.

"Unfortunately we have not seen a sense of urgency coming out of Congress over the last several months on this issue," Obama said during a White House 'Twitter Town Hall' event last Wednesday. "Most of the rhetoric has been about 'let's produce more'."

The White House said that plans to introduce new incentives for electric cars, increase clean tech research and development, and impose a Clean Energy Standard on energy firms requiring them to generate 80 per cent of their power from 'clean' sources such as renewable and natural gas by 2035, are all being held up by Congress' failure to deliver an energy bill that can command bi-partisan support.