Energy Star on the chopping block

Since it was established in the 1990s, the Energy Star program has saved U.S. consumers some $360 billion, mostly in electricity and water costs. According to a program report, consumers and business saved $31.5 billion in 2014 alone, while costs were about $57 million. That puts the return on investment for taxpayers at about 550 to 1.

The concept is simple: When someone goes to buy a washing machine (or drier, or blender, or light bulb), she looks at a number of factors — the price, the capacity, the size, maybe the brand name — and picks the one that is the cheapest while meeting her needs. But it's not always obvious what the ownership cost of a washing machine is. How much water does it use? How much electricity? In other words: How efficient is it? The Energy Star program (which has a whopping 85 percent brand recognition rate in the United States) offers that valuable information. 

And largely because of that high recognition rate, the program also incentivizes manufacturers to develop and offer more efficient products. Energy Star sells.

But maybe not for long. President Trump reportedly aims to kill the program entirely.

[Climate Progress]

Photos of the US before the EPA

Green Car Reports has a series of photos reminding us why the EPA was created in the first place. 

That is the George Washington Bridge below - if you can't tell. 

1970s Los Angeles smog

[Green Car Reports]

Coal and the Social Cost of Carbon

Is the Obama Administration for coal or against coal?  

Which do they believe is more important? Reducing emissions or their all of the above energy strategy? 

It is hard to tell if you read these two stories on two very different policies put in place by the federal government. 

In the first story, the federal government is ignoring its own social cost of carbon policies when it comes to setting coal lease prices. 

The Bureau of Land Management has leased 2.2 billion tons of publicly owned coal during the Obama administration, unlocking 3.9 billion metric tons of carbon pollution. This is equivalent to the annual emissions of over 825 million passenger vehicles, and more than the 3.7 billion tons that was emitted in the entire European Union in 2012. …

A ton of publicly owned coal leased during the Obama administration will, on average, cause damages estimated at between $22 and $237, using the federal government’s social cost of carbon estimates — yet the average price per ton for those coal leases was only $1.03. …

The carbon pollution from publicly owned coal leased during the Obama administration will cause damages estimated at between $52 billion and $530 billion, using the federal government’s social cost of carbon estimates. In contrast, the total amount of revenue generated from those coal leases sales was $2.3 billion.

The federal coal leasing program is the source of 40% of US coal extraction. One BLM field office in Wyoming recently proposed a plan that estimates new coal leases amounting to 10.2 billion tons, which would unlock an estimated 16.9 billion metric tons of carbon pollution.

Meanwhile, in another section of the federal government…. They are using the social cost of carbon to promote their agenda. 

Failing to adequately reduce the carbon pollution that contributes to climate change could cost the United States economy $150 billion a year, according to an analysis by the White House Council of Economic Advisers released Tuesday.

The report is part of the White House’s effort to increase public support for President Obama’s climate-change agenda, chiefly an Environmental Protection Agency proposal targeting coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of planet-warming pollution. The E.P.A. will hold public hearings on the proposal, which are expected to be heated, this week in Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh and Washington.

The rule could lead to the shutdown of hundreds of power plants, a decline in domestic coal production, an increase in electricity rates and a fundamental transformation of the nation’s power supply. The White House has repeatedly sought to make the case that the long-term cost of not cutting carbon emissions — including longer droughts, worse floods and bigger wildfires that will damage homes, businesses and the nation’s infrastructure — will be higher than the short-term expense of carrying out the regulation.

Hmmm… What lessons can we learn from this experience? 

Judge to EPA: Time for Action on Coal Ash Disposal

A federal judge has given the Environmental Protection Agency a deadline of 60 days to finish long-stalled regulations on the disposal of coal ash, the waste product that comes from burning coal for power.

Since the disastrous 2008 coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, the EPA has been working on regulations for its disposal. In that spill, a toxic sludge burst through a retaining wall, spreading a billion gallons of liquefied ash over an area of 400 acres, destroying and damaging homes and contaminating rivers.

A recent EPA study found that coal ash contamination of groundwater was widespread, and a 2010 report by Earthjustice and Physicians for Social Responsibility found that it typically contains arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, and selenium, which "can cause cancer and neurological damage in humans," and harm and kill wildlife.  [Climate Progress] 

Where can you invest $1 and get $10 in return?

Turns out the answer is the EPA. Surprised? 

It's Official. 

OMB's annual report to Congress on the benefits and costs of all major rules adopted by most federal agencies over the past 10 years shows the EPA has the highest return on investment of any agency in the US Government.  

[Environmental Defense Fund]

EPA criticizes State Department's report on Keystone XL

The Environmental Protection Agency sharply criticized the State Department's impact statement for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying the report failed to adequately consider the climate change impacts of building the pipeline or to realistically assess alternative pipeline routes or modes of transport.

Cynthia Giles, a top E.P.A. official said in a letter to State Department officials that the department's latest environmental statement for the 1,700-mile pipeline provided "insufficient information" to adequately judge the project, and that the E.P.A. could not sign off on the pipeline unless more complete studies were performed. [NY Times]

Lisa Jackson steps down from EPA

Lisa P. Jackson is stepping down as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency after a four-year tenure that began with high hopes of sweeping action to address climate change. 

"Under her leadership, the E.P.A. has taken sensible and important steps to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink, including implementing the first national standard for harmful mercury pollution, taking important action to combat climate change under the Clean Air Act, and playing a key role in establishing historic fuel economy standards that will save the average American family thousands of dollars at the pump, while also slashing carbon pollution."

Ms. Jackson's departure comes as many in the environmental movement are questioning Mr. Obama's commitment to dealing with climate change and other environmental problems. After his re-election, and a campaign in which global warming was barely mentioned by either candidate, Mr. Obama said that his first priority would be jobs and the economy and that he intended only to foster a "conversation" on climate change in the coming months.

That ambivalence is a far cry from the hopes that accompanied his early months in office, when he identified climate change as one of humanity's defining challenges. 

[NY Times]

US Sets Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards

"Our nation will be more secure, our environment will be cleaner, and consumers will have more money in their pockets as a result of the new rule," said Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Clean Energy Program, an environmental organization based in Washington.

The Obama administration issued the final version of new rules that require automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks by 2025.

Current rules for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, program mandate an average of about 29 miles per gallon, with gradual increases to 35.5 m.p.g. by 2016.

The administration called the new rules "historic," and estimated that Americans would reduce their oil consumption by 12 billion barrels over the course of the program. "These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," Mr. Obama said in a statement.

Federal court upholds Clean Air Act

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that heat-trapping gases from industry and vehicles endanger public health, dealing a decisive blow to companies and states that had sued to block agency rules.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared that the agency was "unambiguously correct" that the Clean Air Act requires the federal government to impose limits once it has determined that emissions are causing harm.

The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies.

In addition to upholding the E.P.A.'s so-called endangerment finding, the court let stand related rules setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and limiting emissions from stationary sources. Opponents had also challenged the agency's timetable for enforcement and its rules singling out big polluters, but the court said the plaintiffs lacked the standing to do so.

http://nyti.ms/NMMsCp

6 coal plants shutting down

FirstEnergy Corp. said Thursday that new environmental regulations led to a decision to shut down six older, coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The plants, which are in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio, Adrian, Pa. and Williamsport, Md., will be retired by Sept. 1. 

Two other factors have made it easier for utilities to shut old coal plants in recent years. Power demand has been weakening in recent years because of the slow economy and energy efficiency programs. And natural gas prices, which have fallen to decade-low levels in recent weeks, have allowed utilities to switch from coal to natural gas without impacting customer bills. Meanwhile, demand from China and elsewhere has driven up the price of coal.

70 million people at risk of lung cancer

Currently, 70 million Americans live in areas that are in violation of the health standards set by EPA. That's 70 million people routinely exposed to fine particles at levels that the EPA deems unsafe.

What are the resulting health effects?

According to the EPA, PM 2.5 causes irritation of the airways, coughing, and difficulty breathing, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart or lung disease.

Now we can add lung cancer to that terrible list of environmental effects of air pollution.

A study published last month in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine examined the relationship between long-term fine particle pollution and deaths from lung cancer in 188,000 Americans.

The researchers, led by Michelle Turner of the University of Ottawa, followed their study subjects for 26 years, from 1982 to 2008. They found that PM 2.5 exposure, as measured by air monitoring systems, was significantly correlated with deaths from lung cancer. Turner and her colleagues are fairly certain that these lung cancers were not caused by cigarette smoking, a potent carcinogen and a common confounder in cancer studies, because they studied only those people who had never smoked.

EPA said this week that it needed more time to finish drafting new standards for fine particles from power plants. The agency is required by the Clean Air Act to set science-based standards every five years. It missed its October 2011 deadline and indicated in a court filing last week that the new standards would not be finalized until June, 2013. It's a disappointing delay.


Here's what you can do to help reduce your family's exposure to fine particle pollution:


Know your air. Find out whether the air you breathe is persistently polluted with fine particles here. Also, you can find out what is the quality of the air you are breathing right now at AirNow, a government website that provides real time air quality mapping.


Avoid exercising outdoors in air that is high in fine particle pollution. Don't let your kids exercise outside on such days either. Vigorous exercise brings more of the fine particles deep into the lungs.


Use less electricity. Power plants are one of the largest pollution sources in the US.


Drive less. Cars increase air pollution, including fine particle pollution.


Don't burn wood or trash. Such fires are a large source of fine particle pollution.


Clean up your school system's school buses. Old diesel buses can be a significant source of particle pollution. Make sure your school system is retrofitting old buses and has a strong anti-idling policy.

National standards on mercury pollution from power plants

EPA - Protecting our health

by Administrator Lisa P. Jackson


From historic efforts to cut pollution from American automobiles to strong measures to prevent power plant pollution from crossing state lines, 2011 was already a banner year for clean air and the health of the American people. And the EPA is closing out the year with our biggest clean air protection yet.


Last week, we finalized the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, a rule that will protect millions of families and, especially, children from air pollution. Before this rule, there were no national standards that limited the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases power plants across the country could release into the air we breathe. Mercury is a neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to children, and emissions of mercury and other air toxics have been linked to damage to developing nervous systems, respiratory illnesses and other diseases. MATS will require power plants to install emissions controls that will also reduce particle pollution, which has been linked to premature death and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.


As a result, MATS will provide between $37 billion and $90 billion in health benefits for the American people. Once the rule is fully implemented in 2016, it will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma among children between six and 18 years old.


That last point is especially significant to me as a mother. I understand the importance of MATS in very profound ways, because both of my sons have struggled with asthma. Fifteen years ago, my youngest son spent his first Christmas in the hospital fighting to breathe. Like any parent of a child with asthma, I can tell you that the benefits of clean air protections like MATS are not just statistics and abstract concepts.


What we’re really talking about with all those numbers above are pregnant mothers who can rest a little easier knowing their children won’t be exposed to harmful levels of mercury in critical development stages. We are talking about reducing the levels of mercury in the fish that we and our kids eat every day. We are talking about future generations growing up healthier because there is less toxic pollution in the air they breathe.


Find out how MATS will protect health in your state.

What we’re also talking about with MATS are thousands of new opportunities for American workers. Not only will MATS provide health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance, it will also support jobs and innovation for our economy.


To meet the MATS standards over the next several years, many power plants will have to upgrade their operations with modern and widely available pollution control technology. There are about 1,100 coal-fired units that are covered by MATS, and about 40 percent do not use advanced pollution controls to limit emissions. Increased demand for scrubbers and other advanced pollution controls will mean increased business for American companies that lead the way in producing pollution control technology.


But that’s just the start. Power plants making upgrades will need workers to build, install, operate and maintain the pollution controls. As the CEO of one of the largest coal-burning utilities in the country recently said about cutting emissions by installing pollution control technology, “Jobs are created in the process – no question about that.” The EPA estimates that the demands for workers will support 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term jobs.


The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution, provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance, and support job creation and innovation that are good for our economy. Families across the country – including my own – will benefit from the simple fact of being able to breathe cleaner air. That is what environmental protection and the work of the EPA is all about.


In this holiday season as we gather with our friends and families, Americans can take pride in the gift of clean air. Our children and future generations will have healthier air to breathe because of MATS and this historic year for clean air protection.


About the author: Lisa P. Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

The Mercury Moment: Choose Health

by Michael Bloomberg 

Over the next few days, the Obama administration will decide whether to address a major public health challenge facing the country: the large amount of mercury that continually pours out of coal-fired power plants, contaminating our air and drinking water.

Every year, mercury from coal-fired power plants is responsible for thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks, and serious respiratory illnesses. In addition, mercury is one of the leading causes of preventable birth defects.

Today, because of mercury, a baby may be born with brain damage or cerebral palsy. An infant may begin developing asthma, which will mean missed school days, visits to the hospital, less physical exercise, and potentially a greater risk of diabetes. And a parent or grandparent may go to the hospital with a heart attack or severe bronchitis.

We can stop this. We can spare children this tragic injustice and the pain it brings their families. We can spare adults from losing years off their lives. And we can spare taxpayers the enormous health care costs that come with mercury-related-illnesses.

Coal-fired power plants are responsible for 70 percent of our nation's mercury emissions. After being released into the air we breathe, mercury -- a heavy metal -- also falls into our soil and water, where it can contaminate the food we eat, especially fish.

The EPA has proposed rules that would reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90%, preventing 12,200 emergency room visits and saving $80 billion a year in health care costs. The rules -- now sitting on the president's desk -- are two decades overdue.

In 1990, when the Clean Air Act was last revised, Congress directed the EPA to establish limits on mercury and other emissions of coal-fired power plants. In March, after 20 years of delay, the EPA has finally issued a set of draft rules. By Monday, the president will decide whether to adopt the draft rules, weaken them, or withdraw them entirely. It will be one of the defining tests of the administration's commitment to public health and environmental protection.

The big power companies have had years to improve mercury emissions controls, and a majority of coal-fired plants (54%) have already done so. The remaining coal-fired plants are generally old and inefficient, and should have been retired years ago. The owners of these plants have been promoting the idea that the EPA's rules will destroy the American economy and cause rolling blackouts. They won't. It's just a scare tactic. In fact, some of the leading voices in our nation's utility industry -- the businesses that run our power lines -- do not object to the EPA's proposed rules.

The utility industry knows that if plant owners decide it is not cost-effective to adopt mercury emission controls, those plants can be converted to cleaner-burning natural gas. That would create even more jobs and reduce costs for consumers, because natural gas plants are more efficient than coal plants. Many old plants have already undergone this transformation, and the American economy -- not to mention our public health -- is stronger for it.

Owners of mercury-emitting coal-fired plants also argue they need more time, as well as long-term exemptions for some plants. There will always be excuses for delay. But two decades is long enough for the American people to wait for mercury to be removed from the air we breathe.

Coal-fired power plants and the pollution they produce -- including mercury -- are the number one threat to our public health and the environment. That is why my foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, recently provided a $50 million grant to the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, with the goal of retiring one-third of the nation's coal fleet by 2020. But the federal government must not wait another decade -- or another week -- to begin phasing out a pollutant that has harmed so many people's health.

This is not an issue of jobs versus the environment. It's an issue of the American people's public health versus a narrow special interest. And it is now up to the President to declare the winner.

http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=3D1CD84B-C29C-7CA2-F34E765EBAA44389

Americans Want the EPA

A new national poll demonstrates that some of the loudest voices are distinctly out of touch with the public's preference for strong regulations to protect the country's health. Voters aren't buying the specious "jobs versus clean air/water" argument. More importantly, they have a clear preference for the findings of Environmental Protection Agency scientists over the talking points of "corporate polluters."

The poll, conducted October 6-9, 2011 by Public Policy Polling, surveyed 1,249 registered voters across the country. It included voters in 2012 "battleground" states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, Colorado, Nevada).


The numbers show that a clear majority (70 percent) of those queried were in opposition to Obama's decision to block the ozone pollution standard. This is one of many examples evidencing that women and Latina women support regulations, and their disappointment with Obama's walk back skewed higher—79 percent and 71 percent, respectively.


Findings showed that:

• 78 percent of Americans want the EPA to hold corporations responsible for toxins they release into the environment, with 83 percent of women and 80 percent Latina women agreeing.
• 69 percent of Americans agree with health experts who support the reduction of air pollution from industrial sources, rather than those  who advocate overruling the EPA to protect jobs, with 75 percent of women and 73 percent of Latina women agreeing.
• 70 percent of Americans support the EPA requiring stricter limits on the amount of toxic chemical industrial facilities can release, with 77 percent of women and 76 percent of Latina women agreeing.

http://www.momscleanairforce.org/2011/10/21/national-poll-says-america-wants-the-epa/

Republicans' assault on our environmental laws must be stopped

by Lisa Jackson


Americans must once again stand up for their right to clean air and clean water.


Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. They have picked up the pace recently — just last week they voted to stop the EPA's efforts to limit mercury and other hazardous pollutants from cement plants, boilers and incinerators — and it appears their campaign will continue for the foreseeable future.


Using the economy as cover, and repeating unfounded claims that "regulations kill jobs," they have pushed through an unprecedented rollback of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and our nation's waste-disposal laws, all of which have successfully protected our families for decades. We all remember "too big to fail"; this pseudo jobs plan to protect polluters might well be called "too dirty to fail."


The House has voted on provisions that, if they became law, would give big polluters a pass in complying with the standards that more than half of the power plants across the country already meet. The measures would indefinitely delay sensible upgrades to reduce air pollution from industrial boilers located in highly populated areas. And they would remove vital federal water protections, exposing treasured resources such as the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Erie, the Chesapeake Bay and the Los Angeles River to pollution.


How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of citizens.


This is not hyperbole. The link between health issues and pollution is irrefutable. Mercury is a neurotoxin that affects brain development in unborn children and young people. Lead has similar effects in our bodies. Soot, composed of particles smaller across than a human hair, is formed when fuels are burned and is a direct cause of premature death. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds contribute to the ozone alert days when seniors, asthmatics and others with respiratory problems are at serious risk if they do nothing more dangerous than step outside and breathe the air.


"Too dirty to fail" tries to convince Americans that they must choose between their health and the economy, a choice that's been proved wrong for the four decades that the EPA has been in existence. No credible economist links our current economic crisis — or any economic crisis — to tough clean-air and clean-water standards.


A better approach is the president's call for federal agencies to ensure that regulations don't overburden American businesses. The EPA has already put that into effect by repealing or revising several unnecessary rules, while ensuring that essential health protections remain intact.


We can put Americans to work retrofitting outdated, dirty plants with updated pollution control technology. There are about 1,100 coal-fired units at about 500 power plants in this country. About half of these units are more than 40 years old, and about three-quarters of them are more than 30 years old. Of these 1,100 units, 44% do not use pollution controls such as scrubbers or catalysts to limit emissions, and they pour unlimited amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gases into our air. Despite requirements in the bipartisan 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, these facilities have largely refused to control their emissions — creating an uneven playing field for companies who play by the rules and gaming the system at the expense of our health.


If these plants continue to operate without pollution limits, as a legislative wish list from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) would allow, there will be more cases of asthma, respiratory illness and premature deaths — with no clear path to new jobs.


By contrast, the nation's first-ever standards for mercury and other air toxic pollutants which the EPA will finalize this fall — and which the Republican leadership aims to block — are estimated to create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term jobs in the utility sector through modernizing power plants. And the savings in health benefits are estimated to be up to $140 billion per year by 2016.


Contrary to industry lobbying, this overhaul can be accomplished without affecting the reliability of our power grid.


Our country has a long tradition of treating environmental and public health protections as nonpartisan matters. It was the case when President Nixon created the EPA and signed into law the historic Clean Air Act, when President Ford signed into law the Safe Drinking Water Act and when President George H.W. Bush oversaw important improvements to the Clean Air Act and enacted the trading program that dramatically reduced acid rain pollution.


Our environment affects red states and blue states alike. It is time for House Republicans to stop politicizing our air and water. Let's end "too dirty to fail."


Lisa P. Jackson is the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
LA Times Op-Ed

5 Reasons we need the EPA

by Gina Carroll

In the clean air fight, opponents of the Mercury Standards and Toxics Rules have begun to step up their game with fresh attacks on the EPA. There is an apparent collective Congressional brain fog about the history and origins of the EPA, the agency established as a bipartisan effort under Republican president, Richard Nixon. Given the aggressive attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency, I think a little reminder of what the EPA has done and is doing might be a timely discussion.

FIVE REASONS WHY WE NEED THE EPA

1. Companies won't clean up on their messes. They will not manage their emissions without regulations and  oversight. If there is one thing history's shown us, it's that corporate polluters will continue to pollute until they are made to stop. In fact, they will fight vehemently for their right to dirty our air, water and land. Central New York's Lake Onondagais one of many (many) examples of this. In words of Norbrook, a New York blogger, Lake Onondaga was very important to the development of the city, and various industries. Today, the entire lake is a Superfund site. For over 125 years industrial and chemical operations disposed a variety of pollutants to the lake. At one time, industry discharged approximately 20 pounds of mercury to the lake each day. It's the most polluted lake in the country! No one has been allowed to swim in it since 1940, or eat most fish from it since 1970. See what else NorBrook's blog says about how the industry in NY polluted freely pre-EPA and the price taxpayers are still paying to for the toxic aftermath.

2. EPA regulations save lives. The Environmental Defense Fund created a map that shows among the eastern states, just how many lives will be saved by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the Clean Air Act saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone. Check out their ticker here. It shows how much money the Act has saved to date. The EPA estimates that Mercury Standards and Toxic Rules will prevent up to 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, and over 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits.

3. EPA regulations create jobs. If you don't believe the EPA estimates for job creation, take it directly from the electric industry leaders themselves. Eight power plant operators, in a joint statement in the Wall Street Journal said this:

Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability.

4. EPA protects the most vulnerable segments of society. The EPA protects those most impacted by pollution – children, elderly and the poor. The American Public Health Association said this about protecting the clean air act:

Climate change and rising temperatures expose more Americans to conditions that result in illness and death due to respiratory illness, heat-related stress and insect-born diseases. These maladies fall most heavily on our most vulnerable communities, including children, older adults, those with serious health conditions and poor people.

5. EPA is especially concerned about children. The Mercury Standards and Toxics Rules will improve the lives of everyone. But they will positively impact children by preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

It's difficult to even fathom that I am compelled to extol the virtues of the EPA after all of these years. The EPA has a 40 year record that boasts major environmental improvements that have been good for the economy and everyone's quality of life. If the opponents of the EPA choose to ignore history, many of them their very own political history,  we cannot let them encourage us to forget ours. African-American families have too much on our plates to have to do battle for victories already won. But, if we must stand up and say that our community is tired of paying the heaviest price for corporate polluters, then we will.

House trying to overturn Clean Water Act

EPA warned of the potential dire consequences of legislation being fast-tracked through the House that would give states final say on rules concerning water, wetlands and mountaintop-removal mining.

In a four-page legal analysis (pdf), EPA said the measure (H.R. 2018 (pdf)) sponsored by House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) and ranking member Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) "would overturn almost 40 years of federal legislation by preventing EPA from protecting public health and water quality."

EPA said the Mica-Rahall bill would "significantly undermine" the agency's role of overseeing states' establishment and enforcement of water pollution limits and permits. It said the measure would hinder EPA's ability to intervene on behalf of downstream states harmed by pollution coming from a state upstream. And it said the bill would prevent EPA from protecting local communities from ill-conceived mountaintop-removal and similar projects allowed to go forward under Army Corps of Engineers-issued permits.

"This would fundamentally disrupt the balance established by the original [Clean Water Act] in 1972 -- a law that carefully constructed complementary roles for EPA, the Corps, and states," the analysis said.

Rahall and Mica have both bristled over EPA's recent actions affecting their home states, including the decision to subject mountaintop-removal mining applications to tougher review and to replace vague, state-established water pollution limits in Florida with tougher, numeric standards.

"This bill is a recipe for increased pollution, dirtier waters and more mountaintop removal mining," said Jon Devine, senior attorney in the water program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Its supporters seem intent on taking us back to the 'good old days' when rivers like the Cuyahoga caught fire and Lake Erie was declared dead."