By: Katie O’Brien
Brandywine is a town of less than 7,000 people located in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The population in the county is 60% African American and they are all victims of environmental racism. Brandywine is a 21 square mile town is already home to one large gas-fired power plant. A few months ago, not one, but TWO additional gas fired power plants were approved to be built in the town. The neighboring towns already have a gas-fired power plant with another under construction. The area will have FIVE gas-fired power plants in the future, making the Brandywine area have more fossil fuel power plant capacity than 99.9% of the country according to the Energy Justice Network.
The area already has unacceptable air quality and was declared by the EPA to be in “non-attainment” for ground level ozone pollution. According to the EPAs ozone health page, breathing ozone can cause a decrease in lung function, inflammation of the airways, and induction of respiratory symptoms such as coughing, throat irritation, pain and burning while breathing, and chest tightness, among others. It even states that ozone is associated with increased mortality. In some studies on lab animals, long-term exposure to ozone could cause “morphological changes that could be a market of chronic respiratory disease”. It is crazy to think that in an area where there are already non-attainable levels of ozone, that two more ozone producing power plants were approved to be built, especially with the clear information from the EPA about the dangers of ozone exposure.
Residents of the area are just learning of the power plants approval. Many of the local newspapers in the area shut down in recent years. When residents of the area found out about the proposed sites, they requested an extension on public comment to alert more people; they were given “tiny legal notice in a newspaper, which was inadequate to notify people of public hearings”. Since the sites have already been approved residents are having a hard time trying to fight back against the power plants. The surrounding communities in the Brandywine area are all victims of environmental racism and their rights are being violated with the construction of these gas-fired plants.
To learn more: http://www.energyjustice.net/files/md/PG-NGPP-factsheet5pg.pdf
Tag: Coal Power Plants
By Dylan Lenzen
Despite recent efforts by the federal government, such as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, to phase out one of the dirtiest forms of energy generation in coal power plants, a new report shows the US government still provides ample financial support to the coal industry by spending billions of taxpayer dollars on subsidies. According to this recent report, the US government subsidizes the coal industry to the tune of $2.9 billion a year in the Powder River Basin alone. These subsidies come in the form of direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, discounted leases, government-funded infrastructure, and reduced funding for cleanup efforts after mining is complete.
This report comes as the climate change, public health, and environmental justice effects of coal energy generation are increasingly being realized. Coal power plants are responsible for roughly one-third of the America’s carbon dioxide emissions. On top of that, coal power plants have long been associated with adverse health effects as a result of toxic SO2, NOx , and particulate matter emissions that lead to billions of dollars in healthcare costs. In addition, according to a report by NAACP, the negative effects of coal power are more likely to be experienced by low-income and minority communities, as power plants are often located in such areas. Also, NAACP found that the worst performing coal power plants disproportionately affect low-income people of color. So, not only are American citizens forced to bear significant costs of coal energy generation in the form of adverse health effects, but also through their tax dollars, which subsidize the industry and support its proliferation.
While efforts, such the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, are working to reduce coal power’s contribution to climate change and negative public health outcomes, authors of the study on coal subsidies argue that the elimination of this financial support would be the best route to take in order to phase out the dirty energy source. The authors of the study suggest that elimination of subsidies going to the Powder River Basin would result in CO2 emission reductions that are equivalent to closing 9 to 32 coal power plants.
The US and other governments also support other forms of fossil fuel energy generation through subsidies. The International Monetary Fund recently estimated that coal, oil, and gas were supported by $5.3 trillion in subsidies. This figure includes not only direct subsidies, such as tax breaks, but also indirect costs imposed on society that result from the adverse effects of pollution and climate change.
So, maybe the United States government deserves some credit for their work in enacting the Clean Power Plan, but efforts will not adequately address the issues of coal energy generation until the US eliminates opposing policies such as coal subsidies.
By Dylan Lenzen
In the wake of some truly momentous Supreme Court decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act and marriage equality, a small battle was lost for public health when the Supreme Court decided to reject the EPA’s regulation of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury. These regulations were enacted in 2012 under the Clean Air Act and have significant implications for coal-fired power plants. Following the June 29 ruling, industry groups and congressional opponents of the regulation claimed significant victory, freeing power plants from costly regulation. While it may appear as such on the surface, a careful reading of the decision implies that this will be but a small bump in the road for the EPA’s effort to protect Americans from the toxic effects of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The decision is also unlikely to have any effect on the more ambitious efforts to regulate other pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions that are expected to be released later this year.
When the EPA made the initial decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants, it did not take into account the costs that would be imposed on industry. Like other regulations, the exact emission limits were not established until later on in the implementation and it was not until the establishment of these exact limits that the EPA considered the full costs of the regulation. This is essentially what the ruling was concerned with. Justice Scalia, representing the majority, deemed that it was unreasonable for the EPA to fail consider the costs before making the initial decision to regulate emissions as opposed to later on in the process. Luckily, for citizens concerned for their future health, the rejection will not eliminate the important regulations on hazardous emissions. Instead, implementation of the regulation is likely to continue while the standards are sent back to the D.C. Circuit Court where the EPA will be forced to reassess the costs and benefits of the program. Since the standards were enacted back in 2012, most power plants have actually already established compliance under the regulation.
Public health will likely not be threatened with the loss of important protections from hazardous air pollutants. The EPA determined that these Mercury Air Toxics standards would prevent 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks each year. While the EPA did not assess the costs and benefits when proposing the standards, they were assessed later on and show that the overall benefits far outweigh the costs felt by industry. Because power plants would be forced to install methods to control mercury emissions that simultaneously reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and other pollutants, these co-benefits could result in almost $90 billion per year in savings. This figure compares to the estimated costs of compliance of $9.6 billion. Because these benefits vastly outweigh costs, the regulations are likely to remain in place.
It is also important to note that this recent Supreme Court decision will have no impact on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan that is expected to be finalized by the end of the summer. This plan will seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. As EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stated, “making a connection between the Mercury Air Toxics standards and the Clean Power Plan is comparing apples to oranges,” and went on to say in reference to the Clean Power Plan, “last week’s ruling will not affect our efforts.”