EPA Unveils New Standards For Coal-Fired Power Plants

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency announced new rules Thursday for coal-fired power plants to help curb the air pollution that has marked the eastern United States for years.

The new regulations will affect power plants in 28 states and are scheduled to go into effect in 2012. They will cut millions of tons of soot and smog emissions from power plants at a cost of less than $1 billion per year to utility companies.

E.P.A. administrator Lisa Jackson said the new regulations, known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, will improve air quality for 240 million Americans, preventing a projected 30 thousand premature deaths and up to 15 thousand nonfatal heart attacks, as well as hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and other respiratory ailments.

"As a mother of a son with asthma, I know that these numbers and the fight we wage for clean air are not just abstract concepts," Jackson told reporters on a conference call Thursday. "Behind these numbers are people's lives and livelihoods. We all know that pollution generated in one state or one community does not stop at the border or the city lines. Just because wind and weather will carry air pollution away from its source at a local power plant doesn't mean that pollution is no longer that plant's responsibility."

The new regulations, which draw heavily on Bush-era rules thrown out by the federal courts in 2008, will cost utility companies an estimated $2.4 billion in pollution-related upgrades. The industry, along with many Republican lawmakers, isn't happy about it.

"The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause," Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement. "America's coal-fueled electric industry has been doing its part for the environment and the economy, but our industry needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies to comply with new regulations. Unfortunately, EPA doesn't seem to care."

Agency officials insist the benefits are well worth the price.

"By reducing this ozone and particle pollution which are linked to costly and life threatening problems such as asthma, heart attacks and premature deaths, we anticipate up to $280 billion in annual benefits," said Jackson. "Those health and environmental benefits far outweigh the cost of the rule, which is estimated at about $800 million in 2014."

See a full breakdown of projected health benefits below:

Health Issue	Health Benefit
Non-fatal heart attacks	15,000 fewer
Cases of actue bronchitis	19,000 fewer
Premature deaths	30,000 prevented
Cases of aggravated asthma	400,000 fewer
Sick days	1.8 Million fewer

Jordan Howard contributed to this report.

Comments

[heian120]

02:25 PM on 07/18/2011

The real issue is why are they allowing any new coal plants. We should be going all nuclear.

There is noting here that says that theses new coal plants will have no harmful emissions. So instead of killing and sickening 100s of thousands it will maybe ½ that. Should we be satisfied with that?

[Joe Dallas]

12:24 PM on 07/11/2011

For example, asthma is a perplexing disease. According to the National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS), the prevalence of asthma has grown from 3.1% of the US population in 1980 to 8.2% in 2009,
particularly in the Northeast and Midwest regions. Yet, objective measurements in various cities show
that outdoor air quality has improved enormously in urban areas since the 1970s. The NCHS report states
that: “Although little is understood about preventing asthma from developing, the means for controlling
and preventing symptoms are well established.” Yet, EPA claims it can prevent 400,000 cases of asthma
per year by further regulating SO2 and NOx. EPA should be compelled to demonstrate this causal
relationship that, thus far, defies medical science. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr032.pdf

[Joe Dallas]

12:08 PM on 07/11/2011

I am all for cleaner environment - however, the estimated health care savings are greatly exaggerated. The extra money spend on electricity for health benefits which are very unlikely to be realized can be spend for other necessities that will have better impact on the individuals health

Non-fatal heart attacks 15,000 fewer
Cases of actue bronchitis 19,000 fewer
Premature deaths 30,000 prevented
Cases of aggravated asthma 400,000 fewer
Sick days 1.8 Million fewer

[tribilin219]

08:42 AM on 07/11/2011

You know what gets me mad about this ? Why do we have to wait until 2012? When it comes to the Banks or Wall St, It's done yesterday, But when it about We the people, it's 2014 or 2016 or 2012, Why?

[zero-t]

09:10 PM on 07/09/2011

thank you lisa

[worker beenumbed]

08:46 PM on 07/09/2011

This rule increases demand for construction workers who are in abundance while dreducing demand for docters who are in short supply.

[rjhuntington]

04:03 PM on 07/08/2011

"The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulation­s will cause."

Industry typically regards spending on workers and the environment as 'economic damage' which is why regulation is necessary. Industry is patently devoted to making the most profit it can, and because of that fact of life, government must regulate industry for the benefit of the society, not run interference for industry so it can pillage the society.

[Genep34]

10:53 AM on 07/09/2011

and of course they ignore the economic damage of the health problems they cause

[elblanc0]

12:33 PM on 07/08/2011

"The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause."

Well Mr. Miller, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is ignoring the cumulative environmental damage the old regulations have allowed. You suggest self-regulation as the solution?

LOL

[Lock Piatt]

03:25 PM on 07/10/2011

You got that right - now they just sell the same coal to China and India which are building a NEW COAL FIRED PLANT EACH WEEK - No they do not have the E-greens there and they emit 200% more pollution than the 28 States plants that will close.

Check out the pictures of Beijing and New Delhi India - their air is so thick you can cut it with a knife. That air will be in the USA States [28] that the EPA just shut down in a matter of weeks via global jet streams. Lot of luck E-greens.

http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/05/07/why-i-no-longer-support-the-sierra-club/

[MARYDOC531]

10:48 AM on 07/08/2011

"our industry needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies" According to the millions of dollars they spent in advertisments they already have clean coal technology. So, why can't they use the technology they already have, oh wait, thats right, theres no such thing as clean coal!

[oilfield]

10:37 AM on 07/08/2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU
energy prices will necessarily skyrocket

[white1183]

09:37 PM on 07/10/2011

Good then maybe people will finally get on board with solar which is already the cheapest way to produce energy in the long term.

[oilfield]

11:12 PM on 07/10/2011

if it was the cheapest, it would be popular!

[heian120]

02:26 PM on 07/18/2011

not eh cheapest and not space efficient and has NIMBY issues

[springsm]

10:05 AM on 07/08/2011

Brave step but the demented republican House will defund all things environmental as unnecessary. Dunderheads that they are.

[Genep34]

10:54 AM on 07/09/2011

well said

[randyferrell]

10:03 AM on 07/08/2011

I am personally willing to pay higher energy costs in the interest of improving our nations health.

[oilfield]

10:38 AM on 07/08/2011

we are glad you can afford to, what about those who cant?

[WESmith]

11:00 AM on 07/08/2011

They budget their energy use. According to government studies, The Average American wastes 25-40% of the energy they pay for. Because I couldn't afford to drive to work everyday, I car pooled and saved part of the money I didn't give to the government and the oil companies. I found I had saved $100,000 and it's value was now tripled. It is painful to not be able to pay for energy, isn't it? PS: I have now weaned myself off of gasoline and no longer buy it.

[randyferrell]

11:35 AM on 07/08/2011

I understand and am sympathetic to those who say they can't afford higher energy costs. However, I feel that I (and none of us) can afford the alternative, which is poorer health. Even if you overlook the higher likelihood of chronic disease and death, you still have higher medical costs from more trips to the doctor and more medications. Then when you also consider the devastation to our planet, it's wildlife and ecosystems, the costs are far too high not to take action.

[Lock Piatt]

03:33 PM on 07/10/2011

What is your limit - double or triple ? for that is what solar and wind and E-green cost per KWH to produce and we still must have gas or nuclear on idle to step in if it gets cloudy or the wind stops. That means the rate payer must pay for double the necessary capacity to insure uninterrupted power for hospitals and industries.

Here In San Antonio we pay $ .09 per KWH as they buy nuclear and coal at a cost of $ .02/KWH - now they are contracting for 400 Mwatts of solar at arund $ .15/KWH so I guess we rate payer will be forced to pay around $ .22/KWH so the city makes the same profit.

[baxtron]

10:02 AM on 07/08/2011

Sounds like a health care plan.

[nanimal]

08:15 AM on 07/08/2011

I tell you...I just LOVE Lisa Jackson! Finally someone heading the EPA who actually cares about pollution.

[springsm]

10:05 AM on 07/08/2011

She might be the only one who has passion for this. Obama has absolutely NO passion for th enviornment or anything dealing with it.

[elblanc0]

12:37 PM on 07/08/2011

Now, if we can just get her to take on fraking...then I might just start beliving in the EPA again.

[nanimal]

01:15 PM on 07/08/2011

I am with you on the franking, I don't know why we let these companies poison our water supply when we need ate to live and there is already a shortage of it!

[Malcolm Hensley]

08:06 PM on 07/08/2011

What if she does the research and concludes fracking is OK does this make her a terrible EPA Chief?

[Wanderland]

07:53 AM on 07/08/2011

"The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause," Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement.
-----------------------------------------

30,000+ deaths a year avoided, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks avoided... yeah, where ARE the EPA's priorities? Don't they understand the economy is a delicate prima dona?

[Malcolm Hensley]

08:13 PM on 07/08/2011

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=161559

I'm a little worried about the flip side of the EPA's priorities coin!

Heat related hospitalization and deaths in the future to save a little money because of the electric bill.