Zjork Durst

November 4, 2011

EPA's ruling on Sunday, October 30 requires the GenOn Energy coal-fired power plant in Portland, Pa. to cut its sulfur dioxide emissions by 81 percent. The ruling is an important step for states like New Jersey, where one-third of pollution in the state comes from out of state. Current regulations under the Clean Air Act create a problem where areas are designated non-attainment because of emissions from other states migrating across the state's borders and polluting their air.

The GenOn plant, located on the other side of the Deleware River from Warren County, New Jersey, is one of the 44 percent of coal-fired power plants in the nation that do not have advanced pollutant control equipment. Although the GenOn plant is causing pollutants to migrate into New Jersey, which is does not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Clean Air act does not impose strict standards on the plant because it is located in Pennsylvania.

However, the GenOn plant is not the only target of EPA's new regulations. The ruling appears to be part of new air toxic standard and cross-state air pollution rules EPA is developing that will put a cap on toxic emissions in 27 states, including New Jersey. Power Plants in those states will have to install better pollution control equipment, or perhaps even shut down.

Opponents of the new rules argue that they will lead to higher electricity prices and lost jobs, stressing the importance of these concerns given the current state of the economy. Estimates put job losses resulting from the closing at coal-fired power plants at 183,000 per year between 2013 and 2020. Additionally, electricity prices are estimated to rise 12 percent on a national level.

Nevertheless, for places like Knowlton Township in Warren County, New Jersey, the rule is a much-needed victory. In Knowlton Township, the people are subjected to the negative externalities of air pollution from coal-fired power plants despite having no local industry of their own. Coal emissions can cause health problems such as asthma and respiratory failure, as well as contribute to acid rain. The rules should reduce these effects.

A stricter cap on toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants is long overdue. The changes proposed under the new originated in 1990, but EPA will finalize the rule by December 16 of this year. The United States currently relies on coal for the majority of its electric energy needs, largely because coal is a cheap fuel source. However, coal's current cost does not take into account all of the negative externalities associated with burning coal, both on the environment and on human health.

By capping toxic emissions from utilities, EPA estimates that public-health benefits will decrease health care costs by $59 to $140 billion per year, with $13 to $32 billion of savings attributed to Pennsylvania alone. This number seems substantial compared to the $17.8 annual compliance cost, estimated by a study from National Economic Research Associates Inc., for the new EPA rules. In addition, there are indirect benefits for clean generation methods; they will become a more viable alternative for capital investments when utilities take into account the external costs of coal during production capacity planning

     With EPA's rulemaking going forward, and the final deadline approaching, more coal-fired power plants can expect EPA enforcement actions regarding their toxic emissions similar to the GenOn plant, and more states can expect to reap the benefits as a result.

Sources:

Christopher Baxter, Pennsylvania coal power plant blamed for polluting N.J. air must better control its emissions, federal authorities rule, nj.com (Oct. 31, 2011, 7:04 PM) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/pennsylvania_coal_power_plant.html.

Puneet Kollipara, Republicans to question EPA official on air-toxics rule for power plants, fuelfix (Nov. 1, 2011, 6:00 AM), http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/11/01/republicans-to-question-epa-official-on-air-toxics-rule-for-power-plants/.

Star-Ledger Editorial Board, EPA rule will limit pollution that floats to NJ with the wind, nj.com (July 13, 2011, 6:07 AM), http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/07/epa_rule_will_limit_pollution.html.

Mary Ann Bourbeau, In a first for EPA, agency sides with N.J. over pollutants from PA. power plant, NJBIZ (Nov. 1, 2011, 12:45 PM), http://www.njbiz.com/article/20111101/NJBIZ01/111109981/In-a-first-for-EPA-agency-sides-with-NJ-over-pollutants-from-Pa-power-plant.

Timothy Puko, Pa. among those saying EPA rules would cost jobs, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Oct. 30, 2011, 12:26 PM), http://www.wsbtv.com/ap/ap/education/pa-among-those-saying-epa-rules-would-cost-jobs/nFQWK/.