air quality

How the American Lung Association ranks Pennsylvania’s air

By John L. Micek | Editor, Pennsylvania Capital-Star

It’s Earth Day 2021 in America and in Pennsylvania. So what better time to step back and take stock of the health of one of our most important natural resources: the very air that we breathe.

A new report by the American Lung Association gave letter grades to nearly all of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. And for its two largest, it’s off to clean air summer school: Philadelphia and Allegheny County each got an ‘F’ from the Lung Association for high ozone days.

But before suburbanites in Philadelphia’s four collar counties start getting too smug, you have some remedial work ahead of you as well. Bucks and Montgomery counties each got an ‘F’ from the Lung Association, while Chester and Delaware counties received a ‘D’ grade in the report for the same metric. 

Counties also were graded for particle pollution. The report includes data from 2017, 2018 and 2019, which is “the most recent quality-assured nationwide air pollution data publicly available,” the document reads.

“The American Lung Association’s 2021 ‘State of the Air’ report shows that despite some nationwide progress on cleaning up air pollution, more than 40 percent of Americans live with unhealthy ozone or particle pollution,” the Lung Association’s director of environmental health, Kevin Stewart, said in a statement. “People of color are significantly more likely to breathe polluted air than white people. As the nation works to address climate change and continue reducing air pollution, we must prioritize the health of disproportionately burdened communities.”

Below, a look at how Pennsylvania’s most populous counties finished across the two grading areas.
Grade, by county, high ozone days:
Berks County: D
Blair County: A
Centre County: A
Cumberland County: DNC (no monitor collecting such data)
Dauphin County: B
Erie County: B
Lackawanna County: A
Lancaster County: C
Lebanon County: B
Lehigh County: C
Luzerne County: B
Northampton County: D

Grade, by county, particle pollution:
Allegheny County: F
Berks County: D
Blair County: B
Bucks County: DNC (no monitor collecting such data)
Centre County: B
Chester County: B
Cumberland County: C
Dauphin County: C
Delaware County: C
Erie County: A
Lackawanna County: A
Lancaster County: F
Lebanon County: C
Lehigh County: C
Luzerne County: DNC (no monitor collecting such data)
Montgomery County: A
Northampton County: B
Philadelphia: A

You can read the full grading list for all 67 counties here.

Don’t miss environmental news stories like this Click for Blog updates

How the American Lung Association ranks Pennsylvania’s air Read More »

A new report from environmental groups re-ignites a long-standing debate over the future of solid waste incinerators

Covanta incinerator Newark NJ
The Covanta plant in Newark has operated since 1990. They take in 2,800 tons of waste from 22 municipalities in Essex County as well as New York City. The garbage is burned and then converted into energy. The company says burning trash is a better alternative to dumping garbage in a landfill that produces methane. (Karen Yi | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

By Michael Sol Warren | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Scattered across New Jersey, four looming incinerators spend day and night torching our trash.

The facilities receive tons of waste from homes and businesses each day, burn it all, then recycle the metal that’s left behind and sell the electricity generated in the process to power thousands of homes.

It’s a model that incinerator companies have held up as a cleaner alternative to simply dumping trash in methane-belching landfills. But many Garden State residents living in their shadow, often in places plagued by dirty air, have long seen incinerators as a threat to their health. Organizations advocating for these communities have for years railed against the incinerators and pushed for their closures.

Now, a newly-released catalog of pollution and violations associated with those incinerators, plus information about subsidies provided to the facilities, has opened a new chapter in the controversy.

A new report published Wednesday by a coalition of environmental groups details the scope of collective pollution from New Jersey’s four active incinerators, plus one that was retired less than two years ago.

The report also highlights millions of dollars worth of subsidies paid to the incinerators by electric customers, and questions whether such payment was legal.

The findings are presented by Earthjustice, the Vermont Law School Environmental Advocacy Clinic, the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance and the Newark-based Ironbound Community Corporation. The information matches much of what the groups sent in a letter to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities last April. That letter was first reported by Politico.

The two companies that operate New Jersey’s incinerators, Morristown-based Covanta and New Hampshire-based Wheelabrator Technologies, blasted the new report as anti-industry misinformation and defended their environmental records to NJ Advance Media.

Major sources of dirty air

The report focuses on four incinerators currently operating in the state — three facilities run by Covanta in Newark, Camden and Rahway, and another run by Wheelabrator in Gloucester County — plus the former Covanta facility in Warren County that closed in 2019.

Those five incinerators, according to the report, consistently ranked among the largest sources of air pollution in New Jersey between 2015 and 2018, when compared to all 215 facilities with major air permits in in the state — places like factories and power plants.

That pollution is compounded by the incinerators’ proximity to other major industrial facilities, leaving nearby communities to breathe air dirtied by the cumulative effects. The Newark incinerator, for example, is on the edge of the city’s Ironbound neighborhood and near to factories, tank farms, a natural gas power plant and a sewage treatment facility.

“They’re not standalone facilities that are in the middle of nowhere,” Ana Baptista, a Newark-native and professor at The New School who focuses on environmental justice, told NJ Advance Media.

“Even when they’re within their permit limits, they’re part of the problem,” she added.

The legacy of heavy pollution in these places has left residents, who are largely people of color, with higher rates of respiratory problems and at higher risk of COVID-19.

James Regan, a Covanta spokesman, said the locations of the company’s incinerators were chosen years before the company took them over.

“These facilities were sited by local governments for their use,” Regan said. “Covanta operates them as best we can with minimal environmental impact.”

Regan stressed that pollution from incinerators is dwarfed by tailpipe pollution from cars, trucks, buses and other transportation sources in the communities. The transportation sector is the state’s largest source of air pollution, according to the DEP.

But environmentalists argue it is misleading to compare a single source of pollution to the collective total of thousands of other smaller sources. They also point out that transportation pollution is predictable, and theoretically easier to address. Pollution from incinerators, however, can fluctuate based on the type of trash is being burned at a given time.

Read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from NJ, PA, NY, Delaware…and beyond. Try it free for an entire month.

A new report from environmental groups re-ignites a long-standing debate over the future of solid waste incinerators Read More »

California Bill Seeks Additional Greenhouse Gas Disclosures from Major Public Corporations

Image result for report images

By K&L Gates attorneys Robert M. Smith, Buck B. Endemann, Ankur K. Tohan and Matthew P. Clark

State Senator Scott Weiner recently introduced the Climate Corporation Accountability Act (SB 260 or the Bill) on the California Senate floor. If enacted, SB 260 would create mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for large corporations that do business in California.

While California regulations currently encourage private entities to volunteer GHG emissions information regarding their inventories, goals, and agreements, SB 260 would make this disclosure mandatory for large corporations and would require those entities to produce a comprehensive, publicly available report detailing a wide array of GHG emissions directly generated by the company or incidental to business operations. Companies would also be required to adopt GHG emissions targets and employ measures to reduce those emissions.

Don’t miss information like this. Sign up for FREE EP Blog updates

SB 260 would apply to all publicly traded, domestic and foreign corporations with annual revenues in excess of US$1 billion that do business in California. The Bill envisions a two-prong approach, mandating (1) accurate and science-based reporting of all associated GHG emissions from covered entities and (2) a measured approach to reduce those emissions starting in 2025. Each covered entity under the Bill would be required to provide GHG emissions data in three scopes:

  • Scope One – All direct GHG emissions from sources that an entity owns or directly controls, such as fuel combustion;
  • Scope Two – Indirect GHG emissions related to electricity that is purchased and consumed by an entity; and
  • Scope Three – Indirect GHG emissions the entity does not directly control or own, which may include emissions associated with supply chain, business travel, water usage, employee commuting, and waste.

All three sources of emissions would need to be verified by a third-party auditor, approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and publicly disclosed on widely available digital platform at the beginning of each calendar year, starting 1 January 2024. By the time the first reporting period ends, the Bill would require CARB to have developed and adopted regulations setting reduced annual emissions targets for each entity, derivative of the entity’s reported emissions.

Read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Try it free for an entire month.

California Bill Seeks Additional Greenhouse Gas Disclosures from Major Public Corporations Read More »

D.C. circuit court vacates Trump’s ACE rule

By: David J. Raphael, Sandra E. Safro, Cliff L. Rothenstein, Dean Brower,
K&L Gates attorneys

On 19 January 2021, the eve of inauguration for the Biden Administration, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) struck down the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE Rule).1 

Issued under the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the ACE Rule repealed and replaced the formerly enacted Clean Power Plan (CPP)2 and sought to establish a more narrowly defined framework for the regulation of power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.3 

Don’t miss information like this. Sign up for FREE EP Blog updates

As a premise for the ACE Rule, the Trump EPA argued that Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7411, contains clear and unambiguous language limiting the EPA’s emission reduction measures to improvements “at” and “to” existing GHG emissions sources.4 However, the D.C. Circuit held that the CAA does not require the EPA to confine its GHG regulation in this way and, in fact, that the Trump EPA’s interpretation under the ACE Rule constituted a “fundamental misconstruction” of the statute.5 

The D.C. Circuit also found that the ACE Rule’s extended compliance deadline requirements were arbitrary and capricious insofar as they relaxed the schedules for federal action and state compliance under Section 7411(d).6 The D.C. Circuit’s decision clears the way for the Biden EPA to establish a new regulatory framework for power plant GHG emissions.

Read the full Public Policy and Law Alert here

D.C. circuit court vacates Trump’s ACE rule Read More »

EPA Finalizes Ozone NAAQS, Retaining Current Standards

News release from the USEPA

WASHINGTON (December 23, 2020) — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing its decision to retain, without changes, the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the Obama-Biden Administration. With this action, EPA is following the principles established in the earliest days of the Trump Administration to streamline the NAAQS review process and to fulfill the statutory responsibility to complete the NAAQS review within five-years. Today’s action marks the second time in Clean Air Act history that the agency has completed an ozone NAAQS review within the congressionally mandated five-year timeframe. This is a needed departure from previous administrations’ failure to meet statutory deadlines, often taking years longer under court-imposed deadlines to complete reviews.

“For only the second time in agency’s history, EPA is fulfilling its statutory obligation to complete NAAQS review for ozone within a five-year time frame,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Our actions today show the Trump Administration is fulfilling its promise of protecting human health and environment for all Americans, regardless of where they live.”

The decision to retain the existing ozone standards comes after careful review and consideration of the most recent available scientific evidence and technical information, consultation with the agency’s independent science advisors, and consideration of more than 50,000 public comments on the proposal.

Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, EPA has re-designated to attainment eight nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone standards. In this same timeframe, U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions have dropped ten percent and volatile organic compound emissions have dropped three percent. Similarly, national average ozone concentrations have gone down four percent. Since 1990, national average ozone concentrations have dropped 25 percent.

“With air continuing to get cleaner as states implement existing standards, this measure strikes the right balance between protecting public health while supporting recovering communities… We commend EPA for [retaining] existing ozone standards. This proposal supports local communities now fighting to get back on their feet, while continuing to drive improved air quality under existing programs. It is backed by both EPA and its outside scientific advisors,” said U.S. Congressmen John Shimkus (IL-15), Greg Walden (OR-02), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Bob Latta (OH-05), Brett Gurthrie (KY-02), Pete Olson (TX-22), David McKinley (WV-01), Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Billy Long (MO-07), Larry Buschon (IN-08), Bill Flores (TX-17), Markwayne Mullin (OK-02), Buddy Carter (GA-01), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Greg Gianforte (MT-At Large), Scott Perry (PA-10), Alex Mooney (WV-02), Glenn Grothman (WI-6), Randy Weber (TX-14), Carol Miller (WV-03), Troy Balderson (OH-12), Dan Newhouse (WA-04), Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Steve Chabot (OH-01), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Kelly Armstrong (ND-At Large), and Debbie Lesko (AZ-08). 

In May 2018, EPA issued a “Back-to-Basics” memo to improve EPA’s process for reviewing the NAAQS. The memo laid out goals to get EPA back on track with Clean Air requirements, statutory deadlines, and the issuance of timely implementation rules, to ensure continued improvements in air quality across the country. Today’s action is the first NAAQS review to do so and charts a path to continue this statutory responsibility in the future.   

Background

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set NAAQS for “criteria pollutants.” Currently, ozone (and related photochemical oxidants) and five other major pollutants are listed as criteria pollutants. The law requires EPA to periodically review the relevant scientific information and the standards and revise them, if appropriate, to ensure that the standards provide the requisite protection for public health and welfare.

In the prior review of the ozone standards, which was completed in 2015, the Obama-Biden EPA increased the stringency of the levels of the ozone standards to 70 parts per billion (ppb), from the 2008 standard of 75 ppb.

Try our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics, FREE for a full month!

EPA Finalizes Ozone NAAQS, Retaining Current Standards Read More »

NJ enviro groups urge governor to reject regional anti-pollution pact.

Critics say Transportation & Climate Initiative would do little for communities already overburdened by pollution

Environmental groups critical of the pact want state policymakers to focus the proposed initiative on mandatory pollution reductions in overburdened communities.

Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight

One of the most prominent environmental organizations in New Jersey is opposing a regional cap-and-trade program being pushed by Northeastern states to curb global-warming emissions from motor vehicles.

Clean Water Action joined the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance and Ironbound Community Corporation in urging the Murphy administration to reject joining the Transportation & Climate Initiative, a proposal most clean-energy advocates view as a critical step toward reducing the single largest source of greenhouse gas pollution.

Many environmentalists consider the still emerging climate initiative, modeled after the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — a program that aims to reduce pollution from power plants — as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernize and decarbonize the region’s transportation system.

Not so much though for those who represent environmental justice communities — already overburdened with the cumulative effects of pollution — which have shown a growing voice in the Murphy administration.

Need for ‘bold, visionary solutions’

“TCI to date has been tone deaf at best and racist at worst. The world is on fire and we need bold, visionary solutions that center those most directly impacted to build a just society,’’ said Maria Lopez-Nuñez, deputy director of the Ironbound Community Corporation.

Clean Water Action wants state policymakers to focus the proposed pact on mandatory pollution reductions in overburdened communities, targeted funding and action in those areas.

“We need big bold solutions that the environmental justice communities in New Jersey has been  demanding a long time like mandatory pollution reductions in communities of color and low-income communities,’’ said Amy Goldsmith, New Jersey state director of Clean Water Action.

Their concerns include the possibility that a cap-and-trading program is likely to disproportionately impact environmental justice communities and that monies raised by the program would be diverted for other purposes, as has occurred in the past, when more than $ 1 billion in clean-energy funds have been diverted by past administrations in New Jersey.

The Transportation & Climate Initiative envisions funding the programs through a proposal that could boost the price of gasoline at the pump by as much as 5 cents to 17 cents a gallon, according to estimates by the alliance. The alliance is comprised of 12 states, including New Jersey as well as Washington D.C. If implemented, the program could slash tailpipe emissions by 25% over the next decade.

Read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

NJ enviro groups urge governor to reject regional anti-pollution pact. Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights