ST. PAUL, Minn. – Environmental groups call the Trump administration's plan to relax pollution rules for coal-fired power plants a "dirty power scam" that would affect public health by stalling efforts to slow global warming.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposal would replace President Barack Obama's signature climate change policy, the Clean Power Plan.
It shifted the power sector away from coal and toward renewable energy to cut carbon emissions from power plants by about one-third by 2030.
The Trump administration says its new alternative would lower energy costs for families and businesses.
But Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel and deputy legal director of the Sierra Club, sees it as more likely to increase profits for the coal industry.
"This proposal if it were finalized, wipes out all the gains that would be made by the Clean Power Plan in an effort to essentially resuscitate a dying coal industry," she states.
The proposal, called the Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, Rule, would give states authority to make their own plans for regulating emissions from coal plants.
There's a 60-day public comment period before it can be adopted.
For economic reasons, Minnesota-based utilities are phasing out coal, so the state would not have seen much impact from the Clean Power Plan. But air pollution could increase anyway if other states burn more coal.
A coalition of states is already threatening to sue over the ACE Rule, and Spalding says if it's implemented, environmental groups may do the same.
"And so, its own analysis shows that this is horrible for our country and yet, you know, this is what they are proposing,” she states. “It's clear that this administration cares only about its allies in the coal industry and not about the people, and not about the planet."
The administration acknowledges that greenhouse-gas emissions "that adversely affect human health" would increase by about 3 percent under its proposal, compared to the Clean Power Plan.
That means thousands of additional asthma attacks and hundreds more heart attacks, as well as five times the number of premature deaths.
get more stories like this via email
New federal funding aims to revolutionize solar energy access within New Mexico's Native American communities and benefit the state overall.
The Environmental Protection Agency's $7 billion "Solar for All" program is designed to create new or expanded low-income solar programs.
Talia Martin, co-executive director of the National Tribal Program for GRID Alternatives, said the funding will help bridge the clean energy gap in Native American communities.
"In New Mexico, tangible impacts would be for household savings," Martin explained. "Which means working directly with the tribes to ensure that the savings are going to individual households as well as to the community as a whole."
According to Martin, the $62 million EPA grant awarded to the GRID Tribal Program is its largest ever. Nationwide, the agency's program is set to help at least 4,700 households in Native American communities. Across the U.S., the EPA said the program will enable more than 900,000 low-income households and disadvantaged communities to benefit from distributed solar energy.
Martin emphasized the program will allow GRID to help bolster solar storage capabilities and implement essential upgrades, while at the same time advancing their mission to support the self-determined efforts of Native American tribes to deploy clean energy on tribal lands, arguing it will be important to recruit contractors who understand the needs of tribal communities they're working with.
"It's an amazing window for Indian Country to be involved in energy development," Martin pointed out. "We want to just help foster all these relationships that it is going to take to do that."
The state of New Mexico also received a grant of $156 million from the program to overcome existing barriers to widespread adoption of distributed solar generation. In addition to the federal money for solar, Array Technologies announced last week it will build a new $50 million solar manufacturing campus near Albuquerque.
Disclosure: The Rural Democracy Initiative contributes to our fund for reporting on Environment, Health Issues, Rural/Farming, and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A round of public testimony wrapped up this week as part of renewed efforts by a company seeking permit approval in North Dakota for an underground pipeline carrying carbon emissions. Economic benefits were again touted but the plan still has opponents.
Last year, North Dakota's Public Service Commission denied a permit request from Summit Carbon Solutions, which wants to build a maze of pipelines in several Midwestern states. Emissions from ethanol plants would be captured for underground storage in North Dakota.
Skott Skokos, executive director of the Dakota Resource Council, said they remain unconvinced it would be a worthwhile project.
"It felt like déjà vu," Skokos observed. "I don't think Summit did anything to relax the concerns of the public."
Company officials have submitted a new application with a revised route as they try to ease concerns about safety and landowner rights. During comment periods, Summit leaders and other speakers discussed how the project would provide economic boosts, including corn prices. However, skeptics restated their concerns about potential ruptures and lasting negative effects on the landscape.
Skokos pointed out large carbon-capture projects like these have yet to prove themselves, noting smaller initiatives are not as likely to rile up opponents. He pointed to the Red Trail ethanol plant in North Dakota.
"They're storing it, basically, almost on-site, next to the facility and they're not affecting a bunch of landowners in the process," Skokos emphasized.
The Summit regulatory case has two upcoming public hearings in North Dakota, one scheduled for May 24 and the other on June 4. The company has run into similar opposition and permitting headwinds in other states, including South Dakota.
Disclosure: The Dakota Resource Council contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Rural/Farming. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Leaders concerned about pollution and climate change are raising awareness about a ballot measure this fall on whether the state should mandate buffer zones around new oil and gas wells.
Voters will be asked to uphold or revoke Senate Bill 1173, which would require a 3,200-foot setback around any new well near schools, neighborhoods and hospitals.
Meghan Sahli-Wells, former mayor of Culver City and a leader with the group Elected Officials to Protect America, fought to phase out the Inglewood oil field and said no community should be a sacrifice zone.
"A study from Harvard found that in California, 34,000 people died in 2018, prematurely, from fossil fuel air pollution," Sahli-Wells pointed out. "These figures are three times higher than other studies."
The Stop the Energy Shutdown campaign, supported by the California Independent Petroleum Association, opposes the setback rule, arguing it could constrict local supply and cost jobs in the industry. A court put the bill on hold pending the outcome of the November election. A "yes" vote would keep the setbacks. A "no" vote would rescind them.
Clean energy advocates are also speaking out against companies operating older low-producing wells rather than pay to shut them down and seal them up properly.
Ahmad Zahra, a city council member in Fullerton, said Assembly Bill 2716 would incentivize their closure by charging companies $10,000 a day to operate so-called "stripper wells."
"We have over 40,000 oil wells currently sitting orphaned or idle, leaking methane and volatile organic compounds into the air, water and soil," Zahra emphasized.
Other states are following California's lead. Rep. Debbie Sariñana, D-Albuquerque, New Mexico, is sponsoring a bill to require setbacks near sensitive locations since more than 32,000 children in the state attend school within a mile of an oil and gas extraction site.
"Over 80 schools in northwestern New Mexico - the San Juan Basin and southeastern New Mexico, the Permian Basin - are within one mile of an oil and gas well," Sariñana noted. "Some schools are surrounded by dozens and even hundreds of wells within a single mile."
Disclosure: Pacific Environment contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, and Oceans. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email