North Carolina’s Clean Air Contradictions

The federal government last week announced that it would consider North Carolina’s plea to reduce power-plant pollution migrating into the state from elsewhere – but the action comes as the state is moving to weaken its own rules on power-plant emissions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking action on the petition North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper filed last March under the federal Clean Air Act. In it, Cooper charged that coal-burning power plants in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia are contributing significantly to air-quality problems in North Carolina.

Indeed, those dirty facilities are a part of the reason why a report from the American Lung Association last year ranked the Raleigh-Durham region as one of the most polluted urban areas in the United States in terms of particle and ozone pollution.

The EPA’s decision, filed as a consent decree in federal court, must undergo a 30-day public comment period before final approval. Presuming it does, EPA will propose clean-up standards for the offending facilities by Aug. 1 and take final action by March 15, 2006.

“This is a win for all of us who want to stop these out-of-state polluters from damaging the air we breathe,” N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper said in a statement.

Environmental advocates also welcomed the EPA’s decision. The leadership of Cooper and Gov. Mike Easley “deserves applause,” said air specialist Michael Shore of the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense. That group, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), also filed a petition with the EPA on out-of-state pollution.

“Right now, the air in nearly one-third of North Carolina's counties fails to meet the basic standards for human health,” said SELC attorney Marily Nixon. “This settlement will allow us to protect the health of North Carolina’s 8 million citizens by cleaning up pollution coming from power plants in 13 neighboring states.”

At the same time it’s working to clean up pollution wafting in from other states, however, North Carolina plans to ease regulations on in-state polluters.

Earlier this month, the N.C. Environmental Management Commission – acting on a recommendation from the N.C. Division of Air Quality – voted to weaken state regulations imposing controls at polluting facilities. The proposal is now headed to the state Rules Review Commission for final approval.

“Unconscionable” is how Avram Friedman, executive director of North Carolina’s Canary Coalition, described the DAQ’s recommendation. Friedman has long been a critic of the agency, which he thinks is too chummy with the industry it regulates. In fact, his group last year launched a campaign calling for DAQ reform.

“The DAQ is supposed to be the state agency responsible for protecting the public health from poor air quality,” he said. “This is yet another page in the long history of the DAQ not doing its job.”

Specifically, DAQ wants to ease the state’s New Source Review (NSR) regulations to fit lowered federal standards. Established by the Clean Air Act of 1977, the NSR regulations govern the upgrade of emission control systems in older polluting power plants, factories and refineries when they renovate, modernize or expand production.

Over the protests of environmental advocates, the Bush administration in 2002 revised NSR rules, relaxing upgrade requirements for older facilities. In response, 15 states (not North Carolina) and a coalition of environmental organizations sued the agency, charging that the change jeopardizes human health and unconstitutionally reverses the intent of Congress. The lawsuits are still pending, but a federal appeals court has issued a stay to stop EPA from implementing some changes.

North Carolina’s proposed rule change is not yet a done deal: Scheduled to take effect in April, it must first win approval from the state Rules Review Commission (RRC). That’s why the Canary Coalition is asking citizens who oppose the change to send letters of objection to the RRC.

If the RRC receives at least 10 letters of objection by March 18, it must delay consideration of the rule until the start of the legislature’s short session in 2006. (Friedman is hoping they’ll get hundreds of letters, as that would send a strong message to state regulators.) The delay would give environmental advocates time to work with lawmakers to develop legislation reversing the change. For a sample letter to the RRC, click here and download the Microsoft Word document to your computer.

“We’re taking this to the state legislature because someone has to step in to protect the people of North Carolina,” Friedman said. “The DAQ has become no more than a spokesman for misguided industrial interests. The fox is guarding the henhouse.”