Under the GHG Reporting Program entities required to submit data must register with the electronic GHG reporting tool (e-GGRT) no later than 60 days before the reporting deadline.  With this reporting deadline extension, the new deadline for registering with e-GGRT is August 1, 2011.

Following conversations with industry and others and in the interest of providing high quality data to the public this year, EPA is extending this year’s reporting deadline to September 30, 2011. This extension will allow EPA to further test the system that facilities will use to submit data and give industry the opportunity to test the tool, provide feedback, and have sufficient time to become familiar with the tool prior to reporting.

In addition to the nine rulemakings necessary to comply with congressional direction for the program, over the past two years EPA has established a public help center that operates through our website and efficient mechanisms for stakeholders to get answers from EPA experts to detailed technical questions. EPA has also conducted training sessions with each affected sector and held hundreds of meetings with stakeholders across the country.

EPA’s GHG Reporting Program, launched in October 2009, requires the reporting of GHG data from large emission sources across a range of industry sectors, as well as suppliers of products that would emit GHGs if released or combusted. The data will help guide policy decisions and the development of future programs which the Agency might implement to reduce these emissions.  It will also help industries and businesses find ways to be more efficient and save money.

• For more information on these actions: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/extension.html
• For more information on the GHG Reporting Program: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html

Seeking advice of federal partners, states, a diverse group of expert scientists including industry and other stakeholders, and an independent scientific panel, will help to determine how these emissions should be treated under the EPA’s air permitting program. In July 2010, EPA issued a call for information seeking public comment.

New EPA guidance is also being provided to help permitting authorities determine that using biomass as a fuel can be considered the best available control technology for CO2 emissions from the large sources needing permits. The guidance can be used until EPA takes final action on the deferral.

Sources covered by this proposal would include facilities that emit CO2 from burning forest or agricultural products for energy, wastewater treatment, waste management (landfills), and fermentation processes for ethanol production. Facilities meeting the requirements under the agency’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program will still need to report their CO2 emissions.

Beginning on January 2, 2011, the Clean Air Act required large plants and factories planning to make major modifications or build new facilities to obtain pre-construction permits addressing their GHG emissions. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these permitting requirements.

EPA will accept comments on the proposed deferral for 45 days following publication in the Federal Register.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/nsr

Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, Ranking Members Rush and Green, and Members of the Subcommittees: Thank you for inviting me to testify about President Obama’s budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and America’s other bedrock environmental protection laws on a broadly bipartisan basis.  It did so to protect American children and adults from pollution that otherwise would make their lives shorter, less healthy, and less prosperous.  It did so to make the air and drinking water in America’s communities clean enough to attract new employers.  It did so to enable America’s local governments to revitalize abandoned and polluted industrial sites.  It did so to safeguard the pastime of America’s forty million anglers.  It did so to protect the farms whose irrigation makes up a third of America’s surface freshwater withdrawals.  And it did so to preserve the livelihoods of fishermen in American great waters such as the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Congress gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those laws.  Each year, Congress appropriates the money that makes EPA’s implementation and enforcement work possible.

As head of the EPA, I am accountable for squeezing every last drop of public health protection out of every dollar we are given.  So I support the tough cuts in the President’s proposed budget.  But, I am equally accountable for pointing out when cuts become detrimental to public health.  Without adequate funding, EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans’ health, livelihoods, and pastimes.  Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground.  Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop.  There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems.  And the standards EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing.

So if Congress slashed EPA’s funding, concentrations of harmful pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike, and hunt.  The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed school and work days, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths, and more polluted waters.

Needless to say, then, I fervently request and deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in Congress for funding the essential work that keeps American children and adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they drink and the air they breathe.

Decreasing federal spending is no longer just a prudent choice; it is now an unavoidable necessity.  Accordingly, President Obama has proposed to cut EPA’s annual budget nearly thirteen percent.

That cut goes beyond eliminating redundancies.  We have made difficult, even painful, choices.  We have done so, however, in a careful way that preserves EPA’s ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect the health and wellbeing of America’s children, adults, and communities.

You have been reviewing the budget request for more than three weeks, so I will save the details for the question period.  Before turning to your questions, I will address Chairman Upton’s bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act.

The most extreme parts of that bill remain unchanged since I testified about it a month ago.  It still would presume to overrule the scientific community on the scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers Americans’ health and wellbeing.  Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question – you might be remembered more for that than for anything else you do.

The bill still would block any Clean Air Act standards for greenhouse gas pollution from cars and trucks after 2016.  Alone, the Department of Transportation’s CAFÉ standards do not achieve nearly as much pollution reductions or oil savings as when they are backed up by the Clean Air Act’s enforcement provisions.  All told, nullifying this part of the Clean Air Act would forfeit many hundreds of millions of barrels of oil savings.  At a time when gas prices are rising yet again, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would vote to massively increase America’s oil dependence.

The Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes dump unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe.  I respectfully ask this Committee to think twice before gutting that landmark law.

Thank you, Chairmen. I look forward to your questions.

The EPA report received extensive review and input from the Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, an independent panel of distinguished economists, scientists and public health experts established by Congress in 1991.

“The Clean Air Act’s decades-long track record of success has helped millions of Americans live healthier, safer and more productive lives,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.”This report outlines the extraordinary health and economic benefits of one of our nation’s most transformative environmental laws and demonstrates the power of bipartisan approaches to protecting the health of the American people from pollution in our environment.”

“The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020” shows that the benefits of avoiding early death, preventing heart attacks and asthma attacks, and reducing the number of sick days for employees far exceed costs of implementing clean air protections. These benefits lead to a more productive workforce, and enable consumers and businesses to spend less on health care — all of which help strengthen the economy.

In 2010 alone, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than:

• 160,000 cases of premature mortality
• 130,000 heart attacks
• 13 million lost work days
• 1.7 million asthma attacks

In 2020, the study projects benefits will be even greater, preventing more than:

• 230,000 cases of premature mortality
• 200,000 heart attacks
• 17 million lost work days
• 2.4 million asthma attacks

This report estimates only the benefits from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments built on the significant progress made in improving the nation’s air quality through the Clean Air Act of 1970 and its 1977 amendments. The overall benefits of the Clean Air Act exceed the benefits estimated in this report, with millions of lives saved since 1970.

The report is the third in a series of EPA studies required under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that estimate the benefits and costs of the act. The reports are intended to provide Congress and the public
with comprehensive, up-to-date, peer-reviewed information on the Clean Air Act’s social benefits and costs, including improvements in human health, welfare, and ecological resources, as well as the impact of the act’s provisions on the U.S. economy.

More information and a copy of the summary report: http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2.html

Mercury, soot, lead and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to developmental disabilities in children, as well as cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death in Americans. These standards will avoid between 2,600-6,600 premature
deaths, prevent 4,100 heart attacks and avert 42,000 asthma attacks per year in 2014.

In response to a September 2009 court order, EPA issued the proposed rules in April 2010, prompting significant public input.  The proposed rules followed a period that began in 2007, when a federal court vacated a set of industry specific standards proposed during the Bush Administration.  Based on the public input received following the April 2010 proposal, EPA made extensive revisions, and in December 2010 requested additional time for review to ensure the public’s input was fully addressed. The court granted EPA 30 days, resulting in today’s announcement.

Based on input from key stakeholders including the public, industry and the public health communities, today’s announcement represents a dramatic cut in the cost of implementation, while maintaining maximum public health benefits. As a result, EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see between $10 to $24 in health benefits, including fewer premature deaths.

The agency received more than 4,800 comments from businesses and communities across the country in response to the proposed rules. Public input included a significant amount of information that industry had not provided prior to the proposal. Based on this feedback, and in keeping with President Obama’s executive order on regulatory review, EPA revised the draft standards based on the requested input to provide additional flexibility and cost effective techniques – achieving significant pollution reduction and important health benefits, while lowering the cost of pollution control installation and maintenance by about 50 percent, or $1.8 billion.

“The Clean Air Act standards we are issuing today are based on the best available science and have benefitted from significant public input,” said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.  “As a result, they put in place important public health safeguards to cut harmful toxic air emissions that affect children’s development, aggravate asthma and cause heart attacks at costs substantially lower than we had estimated under our original proposal.”

Because the final standards significantly differ from the proposals, EPA believes further public review is required.   Therefore, EPA will reconsider the final standards under a Clean Air Act process that allows the agency to seek additional public review and comment to ensure full transparency.  EPA’s reconsideration will cover the emissions standards for large and small boilers and for solid waste incinerators. EPA will release additional details on the reconsideration process in the near future to ensure the public, industry and stakeholders have an opportunity to participate.

About 200,000 boilers are located at small and large sources of air toxic emissions across the country. The final standards require many types of boilers to follow practical, cost-effective work practice standards to reduce emissions.  To ensure smooth implementation, EPA is working with the departments of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA) to provide the diverse set of facilities impacted by the standards with technical assistance that will help boilers burn cleaner and more efficiently. DOE will work with large coal and oil-burning sources to help them identify clean energy strategies that will reduce harmful emissions and make boilers run more efficiently and cost-effectively. In addition, USDA will reach out to small sources to help owners and operators understand the standards and their cost and energy saving features.

The types of boilers and incinerators covered by these updated standards include:

• Boilers at large sources of air toxics emissions: There are about 13,800 boilers located at large sources of air pollutants, including refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. These   standards will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including  mercury, organic air toxics and dioxins at some of the largest pollution sources. EPA estimates that the costs of implementation have been reduced by $1.5 billion from the proposed standard. Health benefits to children and the public associated with reduced   exposure to fine particles and ozone from these large source boilers are estimated to be $22 billion to $54 billion in 2014.
• Boilers located at small sources of air toxics emissions: There are about 187,000 boilers located at small sources of air pollutants, including universities, hospitals, hotels and commercial buildings that may be covered by these standards. Due to the small amount of emissions these sources are responsible for, EPA has limited the impact of the final rule making on small entities. The original standards for these have been dramatically refined and updated to ensure maximum flexibility for these sources, including for some sources, revising the requirement from maximum achievable control technology to generally available control technology. The cost reduction from the proposed standard to the final is estimated to be $209 million.
• Solid waste incinerators: There are 88 solid waste incinerators that burn waste at a commercial or an industrial facility, including cement manufacturing facilities. These standards, which facilities will need to meet by 2016 at the latest, will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including mercury, lead, cadmium, nitrogen dioxide and particle pollution. The cost reduction from the proposed standard to the final is estimated to be $12 million.

In separate but related actions, EPA is finalizing emission standards for sewage sludge incinerators. While there are more than 200 sewage sludge incinerators across the country, EPA expects that over 150 are already in compliance. These standards will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including mercury, lead, cadmium, and hydrogen chloride from the remaining 50 that may need to leverage existing technologies to meet the new standards.

EPA has also identified which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid waste when burned in combustion units. This distinction determines which Clean Air Act standard is applied when the material is burned. The non-hazardous secondary materials that can be burned as
non-waste fuel include scrap tires managed under established tire collection programs. This step simplifies the rules and provides additional clarity and direction for facilities. To determine that materials are non-hazardous secondary materials when burned under today’s rule, materials must not have been discarded and must be legitimately used as a fuel.

The agency recognizes that secondary materials are widely used today as raw materials, as products, and as fuels in industrial processes.  EPA believes that the final rule helps set protective emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.

The emissions standards for sewage sludge incinerators and the definition of solid waste are not part of today’s reconsideration.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion

Brightly-lit Cowboys Stadium during Sunday’s Super Bowl XLV may symbolize one of the hottest new pieces of scientific intelligence about air pollution: Researchers have discovered — in a classic case of scientific serendipity — that the bright light from sports stadiums and urban street lights may boost daytime levels of ozone, a key air pollutant in many heavily populated areas. That’s among the topics included in a broader article about the chemistry of air pollution in the current edition of Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN), ACS’ weekly newsmagazine.

The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken, or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public. I respectfully ask the members of this Committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe.

Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives; avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and kept American kids healthy and in school.

EPA’s implementation of the Act also has contributed to dynamic growth in the U.S. environmental technologies industry and its workforce.  In 2008, that industry generated nearly 300 billion dollars in revenues and 44 billion dollars in exports.

Yesterday, the University of Massachusetts and Ceres released an analysis finding that two of the updated Clean Air Act standards EPA is preparing to establish for mercury, soot, smog, and other harmful air pollutants from power plants will create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court concluded in 2007 that the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollutant includes greenhouse gas emissions.  The Court rejected the EPA Administrator’s refusal to determine whether that pollution endangers Americans’ health and welfare.

Based on the best peer-reviewed science, EPA found in 2009 that manmade greenhouse gas emissions do threaten the health and welfare of the American people.

EPA is not alone in reaching that conclusion.  The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that the climate is changing and that the changes are caused in large part by human activities.  Eighteen of America’s leading scientific societies have written that multiple lines of evidence show humans are changing the climate, that contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science, and that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and the environment.

Chairman Upton’s bill would, in its own words, repeal that scientific finding.  Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question– that would become part of this Committee’s legacy.

Last April, EPA and the Department of Transportation completed harmonized standards under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act to decrease the oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of Model Year 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.

Chairman Upton’s bill would block President Obama’s plan to follow up with Clean Air Act standards for cars and light trucks of Model Years 2017 through 2025.  Removing the Clean Air Act from the equation would forfeit pollution reductions and oil savings on a massive scale, increasing America’s debilitating oil dependence.

EPA and many of its state partners have now begun implementing safeguards under the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution from the largest facilities when they are built or expanded.  A collection of eleven electric power companies called EPA’s action a reasonable approach focusing on improving the energy efficiency of new power plants and large industrial facilities.

And EPA has announced a schedule to establish uniform Clean Air Act performance standards for limiting carbon pollution at America’s power plants and oil refineries.  Those standards will be developed with extensive stakeholder input, including from industry.  They will reflect careful consideration of costs and will incorporate compliance flexibility.

Chairman Upton’s bill would block that reasonable approach.  The Small Business Majority and the Main Street Alliance have pointed out that such blocking action would have negative implications for many businesses, large and small, that have enacted new practices to reduce their carbon footprint as part of their business models.  They also write that it would hamper the growth of the clean energy sector of the U.S. economy, a sector that a majority of small business owners view as essential to their ability to compete.

Chairman Upton’s bill would have additional negative impacts that its drafters might not have intended.  For example, it would prohibit EPA from taking further actions to implement the Renewable Fuels Program, which promotes the domestic production of advanced bio-fuels.

I hope this information has been helpful to the Committee, and I look forward to your questions.

The current health standards are 9 parts per million (ppm) measured over 8 hours, and 35 ppm measured over 1 hour. To ensure people are protected from high concentrations of CO and to develop better information about CO and its health impacts, EPA is proposing to revise the air monitoring requirements.  The proposed changes would require a more focused monitoring network with CO monitors placed near highly trafficked roads in urban areas with populations of 1 million or more. The data from these sites would be available for scientific studies that could help inform future reviews of the standard.

EPA estimates that the proposal would require approximately 77 CO monitors in 53 urban areas.  EPA expects that states would not need to purchase new monitoring equipment. They could relocate some of their existing CO monitors to the near-road monitoring stations already required in connection with the revised nitrogen dioxide standards issued in January 2010. CO monitors at the new locations would be required to be operational by January 1, 2013.

The proposed rule only addresses the primary CO standards and is consistent with the advice and recommendations from the agency’s independent science advisors, the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee.

CO is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from combustion processes.  Nationally and, particularly in urban areas, the majority of CO emissions come from motor vehicles.

EPA will accept comments for 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. If requested, the agency will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule on Feb. 18, 2011. EPA will take final action by Aug. 12, 2011.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/carbonmonoxide

In a move that will benefit ethanol producers nationwide, the U.S. EPA announced Jan. 12 that it will defer greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements for biogenic emissions for three years while it conducts scientific analysis and develops a rulemaking to specifically address emissions from those sources.

This article originally appeared on the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard blog, and is reprinted with permission.

In the aftermath of the California Air Resources Board’s historic vote to adopt the nation’s first-of-its kind program to cap global warming pollution across California’s economy, understandably there are questions about what the program will accomplish and how it will get us there.  Below, I will attempt to clear up 10 common misconceptions about the program.