Remembering Rosanell Eaton, An Outspoken Advocate for Voting Rights

When the Supreme Court shot down a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act — which required that certain places with a history of discriminating against voters get federal

With Trump At The Border, A Look Back At U.S. Immigration Policy

President Trump traveled to a Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas, today, continuing on his campaign to drum up support for a $5.7 billion border wall. The visit came after

What A Case Of Mistaken Identity Tells Us About Race In America

Jazmine Barnes, a 7-year-old black girl, was buried this week in Harris County, Texas. She was fatally shot while sitting in the car with her mother and siblings on the

Trump EPA Says Mercury Limits On Coal Plants Too Costly, Not ‘Necessary’

In another proposed reversal of an Obama-era standard, the Environmental Protection Agency Friday said limiting mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants is not cost-effective and should not be considered “appropriate and necessary.”

The EPA says it is keeping the 2012 restrictions in place for now, in large part because utilities have already spent billions to comply with them. But environmental groups worry the move is a step toward repealing the limits and could make it harder to impose other regulations in the future.

In a statement, the EPA said it is “providing regulatory certainty by transparently and accurately taking account of both costs and benefits.”

The National Mining Association welcomed the move, calling the mercury limits “punitive” and “massively unbalanced.”

When coal is burned it releases mercury into the air, where it can cause health risks to people including neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and compromised immune systems. Babies developing in the womb and young children are especially at risk. The main source of exposure is through eating contaminated fish and seafood.

“What has changed now is the administration’s attitude towards public health,” said Clean Air Task Force Legal Director Ann Weeks in a statement. Weeks called the EPA’s estimates outdated and said more recent research finds billions of dollars in public health benefits from reducing mercury emissions alone.

Others are concerned about the future impact.

“We should not limit ourselves in the ongoing fight against this dangerous pollutant,” said mercury expert Celia Chen of the Dartmouth Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program. In a statement, she said the warming climate, for example, might affect mercury’s impact on the environment but the EPA’s proposal could make it harder to address that. “Regulators need the tools to strengthen mercury controls in the future if needed,” she said.

Jeff Holmstead doesn’t think that’s necessarily so. He’s a former EPA air administrator now with Bracewell LLP, which represents energy industry clients. In a statement, he said the EPA is not restricting courts from considering the co-benefits of a certain regulation but merely saying it should not justify a regulation like “this case, where virtually all the benefits are co-benefits.”

Coal Plants

Since many regulators have included the equipment costs in utility rates, some worry that no longer requiring the limits could leave customers paying for the pollution controls without getting cleaner air. That’s because it also costs money to continue operating that equipment.

“It’s not unreasonable to expect that if the standards go away there will be some number of utilities that will choose to no longer operate pollution controls that they’ve installed,” says Janet McCabe, former acting assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA during the Obama administration.

In 1990 Congress amended the Clean Air Act and advised the EPA to limit mercury emissions from a variety of industries. It took 21 years before the EPA finalized the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants.

The proposal to weaken the mercury limits is the latest in a series of efforts the Trump administration has taken to help the struggling coal business. The federal Energy Information Administration says U.S. coal consumption in 2018 is expected to be at its lowest level in nearly four decades.

In December the administration proposed a revision that would allow coal-fired generators to emit more CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. The EPA has also moved to relax Obama-era regulations on carbon emissions and roll back existing regulations that govern coal ash.

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Once Again On The Rise

Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are on the rise again after several years of decline, and a booming economy is the cause.

That’s according to a report out today from the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm that tracks CO2 emissions in the U.S.

“It appears based on preliminary data that emissions in the U.S. grew by the highest rate since 2010 when we were recovering from the great recession,” says Trevor Houser, a partner at Rhodium and an author on the new estimate.

The big drivers were increased electricity demand and growth in trucking and aviation.

The report underscores an unusual upside to an economic downturn: When the economy shrinks, greenhouse gas emissions also go down. That’s what happened in the throes of the financial crisis in 2008 — carbon dioxide emissions plummeted. They’ve been bouncing up and down since then. But last year, the strong economic growth meant a rise. A cold winter was also a factor, particularly because it led to higher consumption of natural gas and fuel oil in homes for heat.

There were some areas where decisions by government and industry helped to reduce some types of emissions. A record number of coal-fired power plants closed last year. And emissions from passenger automobiles dropped slightly, due to better fuel-economy standards. But it wasn’t enough, and Houser wants more aggressive policies to drive drown CO2. That seems unlikely for now. Policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions started under the Obama administration are now being halted and even reversed under President Trump.

Carbon Dioxide

“What we’ve seen is backsliding in federal policy, and we’re starting to feel the effects of that now,” Houser says.

The report means the U.S. is less likely to meet its reduction targets under the global Paris climate agreement, according to Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute. When the U.S. signed on to the agreement in 2015, then-President Obama promised a 26-28 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2025.

There’s still time to catch up, Light says. “If we do get back on track in the United States toward having an energy policy that’s consistent with the threat of climate change then we can turn these things around,” he says.

Stock markets have faltered in recent months, indicating the U.S. might be headed toward another recession. That could cause emissions to drop, but Houser says it would not be productive.

“A short-term emissions decline as a result of a recession is not something anyone’s cheering for,” he says. “We do the best on this issue when the economy is thriving, and there are policies in place that can channel investment into clean energy technologies.”