Changes in the federal Clean Air Act are moving ahead as midterm elections near, while efforts by some Alabama politicians could define how the act will impact several state lawsuits and the air in Anniston.Last week, Attorney General Bill Pryor testified before a joint Senate committee hearing at the request of U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions. Pryor said he wants clarification on a part of the Clean Air Act called the New Source Review policy.
His testimony comes as seven power plants in Alabama are facing lawsuits from the Environmental Protection Agency for violating the act and as Anniston-area residents continue breathing some of the worst air in the nation.
Anniston was ranked third in the country among cities with the worst air in terms of particulate matter, which alone contributes to 37 premature deaths in Anniston each year, according to a study done by ABT and Associates, a statistical firm the EPA uses.
Gadsden and Chattanooga are ranked one and two respectively.
Given these facts, changing policies in the Clean Air Act would be devastating, said Kelley Hall, program coordinator for Alabama’s Environmental Council.
“If the New Source Review is gutted and these lawsuits are not pursed, we will have about two-thirds more sulfur dioxide (being produced) … the main component of particulate matter causing problems in Anniston,” Hall said.
Alabama Power officials and Pryor, however, take a different view. They said the EPA dramatically changed the way it enforces the New Source Review policy in 1999, reversing 20 years of interpretation, and then took them to court.
Pryor and Sessions are fighting for re-election this year and both have received contributions from PACs of Alabama Power’s parent company, Southern Company.
Pryor denies the more than $40,000 he has received in donations from them had anything to do with his testimony in Washington Tuesday. Sessions has received $46,200 from Southern Co.
Sessions could not be reached for comment.
Proposed changes
Speaking before a joint meeting of the Senate Judiciary and Environment and Public Works committees, senators argued Tuesday that changes the Bush administration is proposing for the Clean Air Act would make it easier for power plants to pollute and would undermine enforcement cases against polluting power plants. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has vowed to continue fighting these lawsuits and others around the country even if the Clean Air Act is changed.
Currently, the EPA follows the New Source Review policy, which requires power plants to install state-of-the-art pollution control equipment in old plants (those built before the Clean Air Act was passed in 1977) when they are upgraded so they can keep functioning.
Jill Johnson, the southern field organizer for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said older plants are four to 10 times dirtier than plants built since 1977.
The White House has suggested the Clear Skies Initiative, which sets national limits on power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury and gives companies greater flexibility on how to comply. Bush has said his initiative is a more market-based approach that would save Americans from higher energy bills and still control pollution.
Opponents argue that the Clear Skies Initiative is too soft on pollution because limits on specific pollution are only enforced at specific intervals in 2010 and 2018, not every time the company improves the plant as is required now.
Sessions’ spokesman Mike Brumas said the Mobile senator is considering supporting the Clear Skies Initiative.
Closer to home
This affects Anniston and the air quality of surrounding cities because the air from some of the highest polluting plants floats into Calhoun County, causing asthma attacks and even keeping employees from their jobs. Sulfur dioxide is the main contributor of particulate matter, said Hall, with the Alabama Environmental Council.Hall said data collected from the late 1990s found that because of power plants’ particulate matter pollution in Alabama, more than 1,100 people died prematurely; more than 20,000 people suffered asthma attacks; and employees missed 173,000 days of work because of sickness.
Alabama Power officials have said these reports are not conclusive and not scientific and that dozens of reports have found no association between sulfates from power plants and health effects.
Pryor said he is not involved in any debate over policy changes for the Clean Air Act. He said he was in Washington to ask Congress to clarify what improvements power plants can make before the Clean Air Act’s rules of installing anti-pollution controls come into play.
“When they have to replace pipes and equipment, does it fall under routine repair or does that trigger another new source review permitting process?” Pryor said as an example of his confusion concerning the current law.
Pryor said when a plant has to follow the New Source Review policy, it is required to undergo a permitting process, which sometimes takes a year or more and during that time the power plant must stop operations, costing it money and hurting business.
Questions with the law
From the time the Clean Air Act was passed until about 1999, the Alabama Department of Emergency Management oversaw improvements power companies made to their plants and decided when the plants were required to install anti-pollution controls.In 1999, the Clinton administration decided to enforce those rules more tightly and found that seven of the plants in Alabama had not installed the required equipment. Federal lawsuits were filed against those plants.
Pryor said changing the way the law has been enforced so quickly is unfair to power plants.
“Look, I want us all to be able to breathe clean air, and I want our utilities to operate within the law,” Pryor said. “But 20 years after (the Clean Air Act was passed), if the EPA comes in and says you are not operating within the law, and other states agree with our definition of the law, then I think we have a problem that needs to be resolved, and that is what the Bush administration is trying to do.”
The attorney general has written Whitman asking her to clarify the law and explaining how the EPA’s recent enforcement of the law has hurt Alabama’s power plants. In a language that mirrors the Bush proposal, he wrote, “… the Clean Air Act should be applied in a way to encourage such investments which provide tangible benefits to the citizens of Alabama.”
While Pryor and Hall are both concerned with Alabamians’ health, Pryor is also concerned with the cost in terms of the state’s economic development. Hall remains staunchly focused on the issue of cost to residents’ health.
Hall said she understands that it is hard to convince people to pay more now for energy, but that it will save them money in their long-term health costs. She cites an EPA study that said if plants in violation of the New Source Review would spend $1,000 to clean up the plant, it would save people more than $7,000 in health-care costs.
Cleaner power plants
Recently, Alabama Power has been working on cleaning up its plants. In late June, it announced it has spent $62 million to install environmental technology at Plant Gorgas in southern Walker County to reduce ground-level ozone.
Alabama Power officials said that since 1990, it has cut its statewide nitrogen oxide emissions rate, the emissions it produces for each megawatt-hour of electricity it generates, by 44 percent. According to a company press release, Alabama Power plans to spend $1.5 billion on environmental upgrades from now until 2010 and $500 million in the next four years, officials said.
Buddy Eiland, senior public information representative for Alabama Power, said all of Alabama Power’s plants in the state are in compliance with their interpretation of the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review policy, as it was interpreted prior to 1999.
Southern Company officials declined to comment on the lawsuits or the hearings in Washington.
