This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year
(about 2 hours later)
Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for our Climate Fwd: newsletter.Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for our Climate Fwd: newsletter.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday made public the details of its new pollution rules governing coal-burning power plants, and the fine print includes an acknowledgment that the plan would increase carbon emissions and lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths annually. WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has hailed its overhaul of federal pollution restrictions on coal-burning power plants as creating new jobs, eliminating burdensome government regulations and ending what Mr. Trump has long described as a “war on coal.”
The proposal, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, is a replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was an aggressive effort to speed up the closures of coal-burning plants, one of the main producers of greenhouse gases, by setting national targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and encouraging utilities to use cleaner energy sources like wind and solar. The administration’s own analysis, however, revealed on Tuesday that the new rules could also lead to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 from heart and lung disease, up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, a rise in the extremely fine particulate matter that can trigger bronchitis, and tens of thousands of missed school days because of to increased pollution.
The new proposal, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, instead seeks to make minor on-site efficiency improvements at individual plants and would also let states relax pollution rules for power plants that need upgrades, keeping them active longer. Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, which crafted the regulation, said that other rules governing pollution could be used to reduce those numbers.
“We love clean, beautiful West Virginia coal,” President Trump said a political rally Tuesday evening in West Virginia, the heart of American coal country. “And you know, that’s indestructible stuff. In times of war, in times of conflict, you can blow up those windmills they fall down real quick. You can blow up pipelines, they go like this,” he said making a hand gesture. “You can do a lot of things to those solar panels, but you know what you can’t hurt? Coal.”
Nevertheless, Tuesday’s release of the rule along with hundreds of pages of technical analysis for the first time acknowledged that the rollback of the pollution controls would also reverse the expected health gains from the tougher regulations.
A similar analysis by the E.P.A. of the existing rules, which were adopted by the Obama administration, calculated that they would prevent between 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths per year by 2030, and would reduce the number of school days missed by 180,000 annually.
The Trump administration proposal, called the Affordable Clean Energy rule, would replace the stricter Obama-era regulations that were designed to fight global warming by forcing utilities to switch to greener power sources, but which President Trump, the coal industry and electrical utilities have criticized as overly restrictive.
But the supporting documents show that the E.P.A. expects it to allow far more pollutants into the atmosphere than the regulation it supersedes, the Clean Power Plan.
The Trump administration has made deregulation a centerpiece of its political strategy, and the E.P.A. has led the charge. The proposed weakening of the rules on coal-burning plants follows a plan to let cars to emit more pollution. Transportation and the power sector are the two largest contributors of carbon emissions.
The data detailing the health effects of the coal-plant rules is the product of a longstanding E.P.A. requirement that new regulatory proposals go through a rigorous assessment. But as the agency works to roll back regulations on industry, it has also taken steps to sharply restrict the way it uses data to assess its own proposals.
Critics say that these changes could make it more difficult to perform calculations like the one that the E.P.A. made public on Tuesday. As a result, the costs and benefits of sweeping new rules like these would be harder to assess.
The numbers in both the analysis of the Clean Power Plan and its likely successor, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, are derived from an intricate three-part modeling system that the E.P.A. has used for decades to calculate the benefits and drawbacks of pollution regulation. The premature mortality numbers used in those models draw from a landmark Harvard University study, known as Six Cities, that definitively linked air pollution to premature deaths.
Ultimately that study formed the backbone of the kind of federal air pollution regulations now being weakened. Today, however, the Six Cities study itself is under attack at the E.P.A.
The agency is considering a separate rule that would restrict the use of any study for which the raw, underlying data cannot be made public for review. The argument for the rule is that the research work isn’t sufficiently transparent if the data behind it isn’t available for analysis.
But scientists overwhelmingly oppose the move, pointing out that participants in long-term health studies typically agree to take part only if their personal health information won’t be made public.
If the E.P.A. finalizes that rule, it would restrict the use of one of the main pieces of research that ties pollution to premature death, potentially making it easier for future E.P.A. assessments of health impact to assign a lower premature death rate by instead using other research.
“What it would do is change the understanding of the benefits, or in this case the disbenefits, of a particular rule-making,” said Paul Billings, senior vice president for public policy at the American Lung Association. “It would exclude that important piece of information.”
The E.P.A.’s analysis of the new Trump administration plan does include premature death calculations based on studies that are considered less comprehensive than the Six Cities study. Those analyses start at the possibility of an extra eight to 25 deaths a year under Mr. Trump’s climate plan.
The E.P.A. didn’t respond to questions about its proposal to limit the scientific research used in its assessment.
At its heart, the administration’s Affordable Clean Energy rule will give individual states vast authority to set more modest goals and to regulate emissions from coal plants as they see fit. Critics assailed it on Tuesday as a shortsighted effort that could set back the effort to tame global warming.
“The Trump administration sees political value in this rollback, but our health and the economic promise of clean energy is at stake,” former Vice President Al Gore said in a statement.
Trump administration officials say the Clean Power Plan, in its effort to reduce carbon emissions, illegally tried to force electric utilities to use greener energy sources. The new plan, they said, would achieve many of the benefits sought by the Obama administration but in a way that is legal and allows states greater flexibility.Trump administration officials say the Clean Power Plan, in its effort to reduce carbon emissions, illegally tried to force electric utilities to use greener energy sources. The new plan, they said, would achieve many of the benefits sought by the Obama administration but in a way that is legal and allows states greater flexibility.
“Today’s proposal provides the states and regulated community the certainty they need to continue environmental progress while fulfilling President Trump’s goal of energy dominance,” Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the E.P.A., said in a statement Tuesday. “However much people may want E.P.A. to regulate power grids, however much people may want E.P.A. to demand that renewables be built instead of coal plants, we do not have that authority,” said William J. Wehrum, the E.P.A.’s air chief, on Tuesday.
However, the hundreds of pages of technical analysis that accompany the new proposal indicate that emissions would grow under the plan. A former coal industry attorney, Mr. Wehrum said that the agency had the authority only to “regulate emissions from things that emit” and not try to direct the broader direction of energy development.
Compared to the Obama-era plan, the analysis says, “implementing the proposed rule is expected to increase emissions of carbon dioxide and the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health.” Andrew R. Wheeler, the E.P.A.’s acting administrator, said on Tuesday: “We are proposing a better plan. It respects the rule of law and will enable states to build affordable, clean, reliable energy portfolios.”
The analysis also includes a section called “foregone” climate and human health benefits. That is, instead of listing the health gains of the Trump plan — preventing premature deaths, for example, or avoiding a certain number of increased emergency room visits from asthma attacks — it is instead describing the effect of the Trump plan as benefits lost. The administration’s proposal lays out several possible pathways that individual states might use for regulating coal-fired power plants, and what the consequences would be for pollution and human health in each case. In the scenario the E.P.A. has pegged as the most likely to occur, the health effects would be significant.
The proposal lays out several possible pathways that individual states might use for regulating coal-fired power plants, and what the consequences would be for pollution and human health in each case. In the scenario the E.P.A. has pegged as the most likely to occur, the health effects would be significant. It is in that scenario where the E.P.A. estimates its plan will see between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 because of increased rates of microscopic airborne particulates known as PM 2.5, which are dangerous because of their link to heart and lung disease as well as their ability to trigger chronic problems like asthma and bronchitis.
In that scenario, the Trump E.P.A. predicts its plan will see between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 because of increased rates of microscopic airborne particulates known as PM 2.5, which are dangerous because of their link to heart and lung disease as well as their ability to trigger chronic problems like asthma and bronchitis. The Trump administration analysis also found that its plan would see 48,000 new cases of what it described as “exacerbated asthma,” and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030 because of an increase of pollutants in the atmosphere.
By contrast, the Obama administration’s central argument for its Clean Power Plan was that the measure protected human health as well as the climate. Specifically, it said, the plan would help avoid between 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths annually by 2030. Mr. Wehrum acknowledged Tuesday that there would be “collateral effects” on traditional pollutants compared to what the Clean Power Plan might have achieved. But, he said, “We have abundant legal authority to deal with those other pollutants directly, and we have aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants.”
The Clean Power Plan aimed to curb planet-warming greenhouse gases by steering the energy sector away from coal and toward cleaner energy sources like wind and solar. According to its calculations, the decreased coal burning also would reduce other pollutants like sulfur dioxide, which poses respiratory risk, and nitrogen oxides that create ozone, which, in the form of smog, can damage lung tissue.
Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. also estimated that, by 2030, the Clean Power Plan would result in 180,000 fewer missed school days per year by children because of ozone-related illnesses. Asthma instances would also drop significantly, according to the analysis.
By contrast, the Trump administration analysis finds that own its plan would see 48,000 new cases of asthma and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030 because those pollutants would increase in the atmosphere rather than decrease.
“With the Trump dirty power plan we see again that the Trump administration cares more about extending the lives of coal plants than the American people,” said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental nonprofit group.
William L. Wehrum, acting administrator of the E.P.A.’s office of air and radiation, acknowledged Tuesday that there would be “collateral effects” on traditional pollutants compared to what the Clean Power Plan might have achieved. But, he said, “We have abundant legal authority to deal with those other pollutants directly, and we have aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants.”
The numbers in both the analysis for the Clean Power Plan as well as the Trump plan are derived from an intricate three-part modeling system reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences that the E.P.A. has used for decades to calculate the benefits and drawbacks of pollution regulation.
The premature mortality numbers also draw from a landmark Harvard University study that definitively linked polluted air to premature deaths. The study, known as Six Cities, tracked thousands of people for nearly two decades and ultimately formed the backbone of federal air pollution regulations.
That study itself is now under attack at E.P.A. The agency is considering a separate rule to restrict the use of any study for which raw data cannot be published, as is the case with Six Cities, which is based on the confidential health records of its participants. Scientists overwhelmingly oppose the move, pointing out that participants in long-term health studies typically agree to take part only if their personal health information won’t be made public.
If the E.P.A. finalizes that restriction rule, Mr. Schneider said, it would be able to claim in future studies a far lower premature death rate for the Clean Power Plan replacement because the Harvard study would no longer be taken into account.
The analysis of the new Trump administration plan does include premature death scenarios based on studies that are considered less comprehensive than the Harvard study. Those analyses start at the possibility of an extra eight to 25 deaths a year under Mr. Trump’s climate plan.