Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.

Today, the Obama administration proposed a sweeping plan to reduce power plant emissions that cross state lines and kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. The proposed Clean Air Transport Rule replaces the Bush administration’s so-called Clean Air Interstate Rule that was shot down by the courts because it permitted so much interstate emission trading that even some power companies filed suit. A federal court ordered EPA to fix the shaky legal grounds of the Bush plan. Power industry pollution remains so pervasive — and so often blows from one state to another — that it basically handcuffs state efforts to reduce pollution within a state’s borders. As EPA noted in a fact sheet:

Specifically, this proposal would require significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions that cross state lines. These pollutants react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and ground-level ozone and are transported long distances, making it difficult for other states to achieve national clean air standards.

Emissions reductions will begin in 2012. By 2014, “the rule and other state and EPA actions would reduce power plant SO2 emissions by 71 percent over 2005 levels,” and power plant NOx emissions “would drop by 52 percent.”

It has been nearly 40 years since passage of the landmark Clean Air Act of 1970. Since then, we’ve made significant progress towards cleaner air. Cars are dramatically cleaner. Lead is gone from gasoline. New trucks no longer belch out the familiar puff of smoke. And EPA statistics document the continuing overall trend of cleaner air with respect to traditional pollutants. Despite that progress, one major source of air pollution remains a notorious problem: the electric power industry. Indeed a recent assessment by Ceres, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and several power companies described the footprint of fossil-fueled power plants:

In 2008, power plants were responsible for 66 percent of SO2 [sulfur dioxide] emissions, 19 percent of NOx [smog-forming nitrogen oxides] emissions, and 72 percent of toxic mercury emissions in the U.S. — not to mention that the electric industry also pumps out nearly 40 percent of the nation’s heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.

A recent Clean Air Watch survey noted that no fewer than 40 states and the District of Columbia have experienced unhealthful levels of smog so far this year.

The Obama EPA hopes to put the cleanup concept on a sound legal footing by limiting the amount of emission trading. Anyone interested in clean air should hope this plan holds up in court. EPA projects the plan could prevent up to 36,000 premature deaths a year — and bring monetary benefits of at least $120 billion a year — at an annual cost of about $2.2 billion.

It is a big step towards taming the environmental monster known as the coal-fired power plant. But it is only the first step. EPA plans nest year to propose rules to limit mercury and other toxic emissions including arsenic, dioxins, and hydrochloric acid. The power industry has been evading toxic pollution requirements for two decades.

EPA has also pledged to follow up with a subsequent interstate pollution rule, if needed, as it surely will be, to make further reductions in smog-forming power plant emissions after the agency moves to set tougher national health standards for ozone, or smog, as it plans to do by the end of the summer.

As federal authorities struggle to deal with the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it is probably useful to remember that power companies continue poisoning water bodies throughout the nation. The power industry’s successful campaign to sidestep toxic pollution controls has left a legacy of poisoned rivers and lakes. As ugly as this legacy seems, the power industry appears to be maneuvering once again for further delays, trying to use pending Senate climate legislation as an escape hatch.

A draft version of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act would create a new task force to examine pending EPA air pollution rules for the power industry, and make recommendations about weakening or eliminating public health safeguards in the name of electricity generation reliability. The American Lung Association has warned that this provision could undermine EPA’s efforts to tackle toxic emissions from power plants. That concern was echoed by NRDC, long a leader in the effort to clean up toxic mercury:

Specifically, the draft bill establishes a highly objectionable task force to examine utility industry calls for exemptions from federal environmental laws and regulations that utilities allege are impeding power plant retirements or transitions to cleaner energy. The provision’s language is suffused with utility industry complaints and rhetoric and pleas for payment, making clear the design for a biased exercise. Polluter lobbyists deliver a deregulatory wish list to Congress and federal agencies. The agencies then are authorized by this bill to propose regulatory changes to carry out those wishes.

A spokesman for the utility industry said it welcomed the provision.

The language of the American Power Act is the latest in a long history of compromises. When Congress passed sweeping and generally positive revisions to the Clean Air Act in 1990, the legislation compromised on toxic air pollution. Frustrated with the generally slow pace in cleaning up hazardous air emissions, Congress ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take action to clean up industrial sources of mercury and other hazardous pollutants. But, in one fateful last minute compromise, Congress caved to pressure and gave a special deal to the powerful electric power industry: EPA was told it could not set toxic air pollution standards for electric power plants until it had completed a special study of the industry.

Law makers in 1990 probably could not have imagined that two long decades later, mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants remain uncontrolled — even though the power industry is the biggest domestic source of toxic mercury air pollution in the nation, which has contaminated all 50 states.

This saga of delay has several low points worth recalling:

1995: EPA missed its initial study deadline, but agreed in a legal settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council to complete work on the project.

2000: Despite massive lobbying by the coal-burning power industry, EPA found that “mercury emissions from electric utility steam generating units are considered a threat to public health and the environment,” and decided to require maximum achievable controls at all power plants by 2008. But industry continued its lobbying campaign — both in Congress and at the EPA. The Bush administration’s Orwellian “Clear Skies Initiative” would have eliminated the mercury control requirement and substituted a weaker cap-and-trade control strategy. This may have reduced mercury levels but could have perpetuated mercury “hot spots.”

2005: After Congress rejected the “Clear Skies” plan, the Bush administration attempted to rescind tough toxic air pollution control requirements for the power industry and substitute a weak cap-and-trade system that would not have required any mercury-specific pollution controls before 2018. Because of delays inherent in such a trading system, the plan would have required approximately a 70 percent reduction in mercury emissions — but not until the year 2026! A federal court threw out the Bush plan as illegal, and ordered EPA to go back and follow the law.

EPA is currently under a legal agreement to propose toxic pollution requirements for the power industry by March 2011 and to set final standards by November 2011. These standards are critical. As the EPA notes, “Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions.”

As the Environmental Integrity Project recently reported, overall mercury emissions from power plants were virtually the same in 2008 as in 2000 — and more than half of the dirtiest power plants actually increased their mercury emissions from 2007 to 2008!

It’s a no-brainer that we need to reduce global warming from power plants, and the American Power Act would be a step in that direction. But it’s critical to reduce mercury and other toxics as well. Two decades of delay is far too long.

Why is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) behaving like an outlaw? It’s jarring to learn that Sen. Murkowski wants to take away U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from oil refineries, coal-burning power plants and other smokestack industries. As reported in Environment and Energy Daily, Murkowski has filed a proposed amendment to spending legislation for EPA that would prohibit the agency from regulating greenhouse pollutants except those from cars or other “mobile” sources:

“Senator Murkowski is concerned about the economic consequences of EPA command-and-control regulation of emissions,” said spokesman Robert Dillon. The senator plans to file the amendment, Dillon said, adding that he did not know whether a decision has been made to press for a vote.

Murkowski’s amendment would thwart the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said EPA does have authority under the Clean Air Act to deal with climate pollution, as long as the agency determines that it is a threat to health and/or the environment. EPA is moving ahead with that determination. Because the judicial branch has spoken so definitively, EPA must follow the law. By trying to block the agency through such a sneaky, back-door approach, Murkowski is bidding to become a climate outlaw.

The weird part here is that Murkowski herself has warned about the impact of global warming on Alaska — where, as Politico put it earlier this year, “the Alaskan tundra thaws and fishing villages disappear into the ocean.” USA Today once called Alaska the “poster state” for climate concerns.

And no wonder: Alaska’s climate has warmed about 4°F since the 1950’s. That has prompted more rain, the melting of two major glaciers and permafrost melting which has caused erosion, landslides, and damaged infrastructure. Some coastal towns could be overwhelmed by flooding. Carbon-caused ocean acidification threatens fish populations.

Grotesque evidence of the problem was recently reported as scientists determined the Arctic sea ice had reached the third-lowest level ever recorded: up to 200 walruses, which appear to be mostly new calves and yearlings, were reported dead near Icy Cape on the north coast of Alaska.

We can’t wait to hear Murkowski’s argument should she proceed with this ill-considered idea. Is she going to claim that this is something better handled by Congress? If so, why has she denounced the comprehensive climate legislation approved by the House? We suspect Murkowski is responding to the big campaign contributions she has received from the oil and electric power industries, both of which oppose EPA action. One major contributor is ExxonMobil, which continues to operate in Alaska despite its notoriety over the Exxon Valdez spill.

Several hours after Clean Air Watch alerted reporters by email about the Murkowski plan, a spokesman for Murkowski argued she “is not trying to subvert the process”:

The senator has no interest in trampling on that Supreme Court decision as it relates to mobile sources.

Exactly our point: she does want to trample on the Supreme Court decision as it relates to stationary sources. Murkowski has shown no interest in being constructive on the climate debate, so her defense of waiting for congressional action is obviously a fraud designed only to kill the Clean Air Act. Which is exactly what the Big Oil companies and her other financial supporters want. Her plan to handcuff the EPA is nothing but duplicitous special-interest pandering that should be rejected out of hand.

Since 2000, Hawthorn has worked for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electrcity (ACCCE), the alliance of coal companies, coal-burning power companies and coal-hauling railroads that seeks to convince us that coal is “essential” to America’s future.

After the forgery scandal broke, Hawthorn quickly moved to blame its subcontractor, Bonner & Associates.   Noted Hawthorn CEO Michael Coe:

The Hawthorn Group deeply regrets that Bonner & Associates caused the fabricated letters to be sent to the congressional offices and its failure to follow up appropriately when they discovered the error. We maintain the highest ethical and quality control standards for our work, and nothing like this has happened in our 17 years in business.

What Coe didn’t mention, of course, was that earlier this year Hawthorn was boasting to ”Friends & Family” about how it had manipulated both politicians and the major media to extol the virtues of “clean coal” — something that doesn’t even exist!

The presidential campaign concluded with both candidates, their running mates and surrogates talking about and supporting clean coal technology… This was a 180-degree turn from earlier in the campaign.”

So whether Hawthorn knew about the recent forgeries or not — and we hope Rep. Ed Markey’s investigation will uncover the truth — the company appears to pride itself in conducting practices that deceive officials about the public’s support for “clean coal.”

Across the Capitol, however, another important mini-drama is playing out. There, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has recommended approval of the very qualified Gina McCarthy, the environmental commissioner from Connecticut, to become head of the U.S. EPA air pollution control division. 

But two Republicans, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming, have said they’ll try to “hold” the McCarthy nomination — preventing a formal vote by the full Senate. The reason?  They don’t like EPA’s proposed ”endangerment” finding (that greenhouse gases pose a threat to health and the environment.)

The Senate leadership ought to put a quick stop to this nonsense.  It’s one thing for them to sit back and watch their House colleagues agonize over the climate bill. 

But the EPA can’t function properly without having someone in charge of the air division.  We still have a huge air pollution problem, as the American Lung Association noted this week in its annual “State of the Air” report. McCarthy was a good choice, and she ought to be permitted to do her job.  And the way the special interests are mobilizing to undermine the very good intentions of Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, we’re going to need the best minds possible at EPA to make some progress on climate as well as “conventional” air pollutants like smog, soot and mercury.

The New York Times reveals that New York state’s accidental Gov. David A. Paterson has caved in to energy industry demands and now appears ready to run roughshod over his own experts to give industry free carbon emission permits.

Aside from the fact that this is a major policy retreat — and threatens to undermine President Obama’s strategy of requiring polluting power companies to buy carbon permits through an auction — there are several reasons why this is a rotten idea:

First, it looks as if Paterson has prejudged the issue by requiring his Department of Environmental Conservation to “reopen” state regulations. It smells like a violation of the state administrative procedures act. (Agencies like this aren’t supposed to commit to an end point of a regulatory process until the process itself ends.)

Second, it threatens to undermine the integrity of the regional greenhouse gas trading program, or RGGI, that has helped pave the way for a national program. Will other states follow Paterson in retreat?

And, third, it is a shocking reversal from the state that was a pioneer in the carbon auction approach (under the leadership of then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer).

By giving away free permits to polluters, Paterson appears to be aligning himself with people like Duke Energy’s Jim Rogers, who is maneuvering to kill climate legislation in Congress unless his company gets a major payoff in the form of free permits.

Why this change of course? The Times alludes to industry campaign contributions to Paterson. More reporting ought to be done on this. And reporters ought to ask Patterson if he supports Obama — or now is really in bed with the people who want to kill Obama’s climate initiative.

The opportunity for the “policy change” described in the piece could be at hand as soon as the day after the inauguration, Wednesday, Jan. 21, when the House Appropriations Committee takes up the economic recovery bill. The committee already recognized the desire to include the cleanup of existing diesel engines as part of the stimulus bill. See the bottom of page 4 of the House plan [PDF], which includes $300 million for a diesel green jobs program.

It’s a good basic idea, noting that diesel cleanup would create jobs, benefit public health, and reduce global warming emissions. The only problem here is that the amount is far too little. Coal demonstration projects, by contrast, would receive eight times as much money.

And so an extraordinary coalition is urging members of both the House and the Senate to ramp up the diesel cleanup spending, to a tune of $1.5 billion dollars.

When have you ever seen the American Lung Association and the American Trucking Association on the same page?!

We understand the incoming Obama administration does support the concept of diesel cleanup as part of the stimulus package, but we haven’t tracked down a funding level.

We continue to monitor this issue closely. These would be truly “green” jobs. And diesel cleanup would not only reduce noxious fumes and the resulting lung cancer, bronchitis, asthma attacks, etc., but would also be a near-term way to do something positive about global warming by reducing heat-trapping black carbon emissions.

This could be one of the first real tests of how much appetite for change there is in the new Congress. The Bush crowd talked a good game on diesel, and did do some positive things about new diesel engines. But they were pikers when it came to putting money behind cleanup of existing engines, as were prior Congresses.

Dingell’s corporate-lobbyist friends on K Street are coyly staying off the record on this — I guess they don’t want to make it too obvious that Dingell is their guy — though unnamed sources have begun floating the idea that some sort of compromise might be appropriate. This is probably a sign of weakness from the Dingell camp. (One reporter did suggest the following compromise to me: that Waxman and Dingell exchange chairmanships, since Waxman is currently chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, and Dingell excels at oversight.)

Waxman, meanwhile, has received a vote of confidence from the progressive Working Assets organization, which is urging members of Congress to dump Dingell in favor of Waxman if Congress is serious about global warming. The organization noted in an email to House members:

The most important pieces of legislation addressing climate change must pass through the House Energy and Commerce Committee. As chair of that committee, Congressman Dingell has exerted his power time and again to kill bills that could roll back global warming. Dingell has lined his campaign war chest with millions of dollars of contributions from electric, oil and coal companies. His wife (and potential successor to his Congressional seat) is a senior executive at General Motors. What’s more, until recently, he wouldn’t even admit that climate change was a real threat.

Dingell’s opposition to clean-air controls goes back decades. In an earlier post, I made reference to a 1982 piece I wrote for The New Republic called "Tailpipe Johnny." (I should have clarified that I did not originate the Tailpipe Johnny moniker. That should appropriately be attributed to the late Republican Rep. Ed Madigan of Illinois.)

More than a decade after Dingell unsuccessfully tried to weaken the Clean Air Act — and after he delayed efforts to control acid rain and other emerging problems — the Michigan Democrat led an industry-supported effort in Congress to repeal the tougher air pollution standards for smog and soot adopted by the Clinton administration. Dingell’s effort collapsed only after Waxman announced he had lined up enough votes to sustain a Clinton veto.

Had Dingell succeeded, we likely would not have seen the numerous pollution control programs adopted in the past decade to help meet those standards, including tougher smog-season controls on power plants, tougher standards for cars and SUVs, cleaner gasoline and diesel fuel, and better standards for highway trucks, off-road diesel vehicles, trains and boats and small engines, to cite just a few.

Last week the Washington Post reported that Dingell is rallying friendly K Street lobbyists in an effort to fend off Waxman and hold on to his chairmanship. And so the corporate propaganda now ham-fistedly attempts to portray Waxman as less effective at building consensus on effective legislation.

I’ve had a ringside seat for more than three decades — as a reporter and later an environmental analyst — watching these two lawmakers in action. It seems like only yesterday (in fact it was 1982) that I penned “Tailpipe Johnny” for The New Republic, an account of how Dingell joined forces with the anti-environmental Ronald Reagan administration in an effort to weaken the Clean Air Act on behalf of car companies and other special interests. Fortunately for the breathing public, Waxman and a large majority of the House Democrats beat back that assault.

Throughout the ensuing decades, it’s been Waxman who sought clean air and other environmental solutions. The result has been a strong law that has brought us cleaner air while strengthening the economy. If Waxman had not prevailed on so many issues over Dingell, pollution in this country would undoubtedly be worse today.

Even after the Democrats regained a majority in the current Congress, we soon were reminded of the saying about old dogs and new tricks. Soon after the Supreme Court ruled (in the case Massachusetts v. EPA) that the EPA had authority to control global warming emissions from cars, Dingell circulated a draft plan to overturn the court decision.

Hearkening back to his antics of the early ’80s, Dingell’s proposal risked fracturing the new Democratic majority, which hoped to reverse the anti-environmental policies of the previous Congress.

Dingell was effective at one thing — his actions prompted immediate opposition from governors from California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. Attorneys general from Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont protested as well. These states would later supply nearly 60 percent of the electoral votes to elect Barack Obama. Needless to say, environmental groups ranging from the League of Conservation Voters to Defenders of Wildlife also opposed Dingell’s draft.

Fortunately, Waxman stood up in opposition to Dingell’s plan, and the Michigan Democrat backed down — for a little while. On October 7, 2008, Dingell released new draft climate legislation which confirmed that he remains both consistent and persistent. This draft also would repeal the Supreme Court case, however that action is presented as an “option” that the committee chairman can choose later in the legislative process. No wonder Duke Energy and other big polluters immediately hailed the Dingell plan.

While Dingell has remained focused on his parochial issues, Waxman has carefully developed principles for climate legislation that are supported by a majority of the House Democratic caucus.

As he did with clean air in the 1980s, Dingell has bucked the Democratic caucus on other environmental issues as well. For instance, in August now-Senator-elect Tom Udall offered an amendment to increase the share of electricity from renewable energy. While 85 percent of Democrats voted for the amendment at the urging of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Dingell voted against it.

Renewable energy, of course, is widely supported throughout the nation. Twenty-six states plus Washington, D.C. have adopted renewable electricity standards. (The map of these states looks a lot like Obama’s electoral map.) In fact, they gave Obama 272 electoral votes, or 75 percent of his total. Renewable electricity, of course, is a key element of Obama’s energy plan. A new Zogby poll shows that more than 3 in 4 voters — 78 percent — believe investing in clean energy is important to revitalizing America’s economy.

Ultimately, the battle for this key chairmanship will be decided by the Democratic members of the House of Representatives. Waxman has been one of the most consistently effective members of Congress on the issues I monitor. You just have to hope that polluter lobbyists don’t cloud the issue with a toxic smog of misinformation.

The Washington Post flagged some of the most egregious examples in a front-page story, Friday.

The latest to pop up is what the Bush EPA opaquely describes as the “increment modeling” rule. It is now under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Despite its inpenetrable name, this rule is highly controversial: It would make it easier for electric power plants and other big smokestack sources of air pollution to site near national parks and wilderness areas. It would do this by changing the way companies estimate the impact of their pollution on the parks and wilderness areas — essentially pretending there would be less damage than would really occur.

This is an extremely duplicitous rule change. (How many people know what “increment modeling” means?)

It really ought to be called the “dirty air in the parks” rule.