Complete list of press releases

(Washington, D.C. – September 6, 2017) A public hearing today on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s effort to reverse America’s Clean Car Standards drew widespread support for keeping the protections in place.

More than a hundred people testified at the Washington, D.C. hearing, including EDF representatives. They overwhelmingly spoke in favor of the Clean Car Standards and praised the benefits they provide for climate security and economic prosperity for our communities and families. 

“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attempt to weaken America’s Clean Car Standards recklessly ignores their impressive record of success. The standards cut the pollution that causes climate change, drive the development of innovative new technologies, save families money at the gas pump, and improve our nation’s energy security,” said EDF Senior Attorney Martha Roberts, who testified today. “Automakers are already achieving pollution reductions faster and at lower cost than expected. America wants to move forward, but weakening the Clean Car Standards would throw us into reverse.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) moved forward on this second phase of Clean Car Standards in 2012. Under the standards, new cars and passenger trucks in model years 2017 to 2025 will have better fuel efficiency and emit less pollution. The standards were adopted with broad support from automakers, labor, states, consumers, and environmental advocates. 

Earlier this year, EPA did a “midterm evaluation” of the standards for the later model cars — years 2022 to 2025. That evaluation, which was based on an extensive technical record and public input, led to a final determination that the Clean Car Standards should remain in place. (The state of California also conducted its own extensive review and came to the same conclusion.)

However, EPA announced last month that it would formally reopen that final determination – a step that could ultimately lead to radically weakening or revoking the Clean Cars Standards for model years 2022 to 2025. Further damaging U.S. climate security, EPA and DOT are calling into question whether the standards for model year 2021 remain appropriate. 

Today’s hearing is the only one EPA will hold on its consideration of rollbacks to these common sense, eminently achievable protections.

The American public will lose vital benefits if the Clean Car Standards are reversed:

• Under the standards already in place, people who bought a new car or truck in 2025 would save thousands of dollars on fuel over the lifetime of those vehicles. In total, EPA projects that consumers would save more than $1 trillion because of the standards.

• The Clean Cars standards would reduce America’s oil consumption by two million barrels per day by 2025 – more than we import from any single country other than Canada.

• The Clean Cars program would eliminate an estimated six billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the life of the vehicles subject to the standards, which is more than a year’s worth of U.S. carbon emissions.

The threat to undermine the Clean Car Standards comes at a time when both the U.S. and world automotive markets are moving in the opposite direction:

• Britain just announced it will ban the sale of all gas and diesel-powered cars after 2040

• France declared it would end the sale of gas and diesel vehicles by 2040

• India challenged itself to be gas free by 2030

• China has taken the global lead in terms of number of electric vehicles on the road

In the U.S., electric vehicles are on pace to comprise 10 percent of new vehicle sales by 2025, and there are already more than 100 car and truck models on the market that meet the 2020 or later Clean Cars Standards. Auto manufacturers and suppliers are developing and deploying fuel efficient technologies at a much faster rate – and at a much lower cost – than was forecast in 2012, which has resulted in the auto industry as a whole exceeding the Clean Cars Standards in each of the last four years.

“We cannot make progress toward a healthier world in a climate of fear and resentment. The President’s decision today to end the DACA program by next spring, subject to Congressional action, will only serve to further divide our nation. The 800,000 people whose lives are now in turmoil did nothing wrong beyond being brought to this country as children, and have sought only to live out the American dream.

“Environmental Defense Fund has no expertise in immigration policy. But we know that progress toward cleaner air and water is put at risk when the public debate is consumed by fear. We depend on the talents of our diverse workforce, including many people from immigrant families, and we understand that progress on our issues depends on a civil society free from these destructive divisions. We will not ignore attacks on those who live around us. Their progress is ours.” 

            - Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense Fund

(Washington, DC - September 5, 2017) On Friday, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a new lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit to preserve the public’s right to know about chemicals covered under the toxics law Congress overhauled just last year. The lawsuit seeks to hold the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to a key goal of the reforms to maximize transparency and knowledge about which chemicals are in use today.

“Among the critical goals of the new law is to shed more light on the chemicals found in our homes, schools and workplaces,” said Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “Unfortunately, EPA’s rule skirts that responsibility and will conceal information that the public has a right to know. Our lawsuit seeks to force EPA to follow the law and enhance public access to that important information.”

A glaring failure with the implementation of the original 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was how little the public could access information about the chemicals around us. That law required EPA to set up and maintain an inventory of chemicals in use. But in implementing the law, EPA provided no mechanism for removing chemicals no longer in use. That inventory has grown to some 85,000 chemicals, many of which are no longer manufactured, imported, or processed in the United States.

Moreover, EPA allowed companies to readily claim the identities of chemicals to be “Confidential Business Information” (CBI) with little scrutiny, thereby masking indefinitely the identities of more than 17,000 of these chemicals.

To address these problems, last year’s Lautenberg Act amending TSCA required EPA to “reset” the inventory. The law requires EPA both to identify which chemicals are in current use and to review chemical identity CBI claims to ensure that only claims that are still warranted are maintained. The law also establishes a significantly higher threshold for claiming CBI and sets a 10-year expiration for claims unless they are re-established.

EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule, published on August 11, 2017, deviated from the law’s requirements and falls short of the desired goal to improve transparency about chemicals in use, by failing to ensure that CBI claims are appropriately asserted and reviewed. The rule would allow companies to assert and maintain claims that do not meet the law’s requirements. As a result, EPA will be concealing information about chemicals in violation of the public’s right to know.

Congress required EPA to reset the Inventory for several important reasons, not the least of which is to better understand the landscape of chemicals in use as EPA begins its work under the new TSCA, including with respect to prioritization, risk evaluation and risk management. The Lautenberg Act expressly required that companies substantiate and EPA review all CBI claims for chemical identity, and it subjects those claims to an expiration date. These new requirements undo decades of prior practice at EPA of readily accepting and maintaining indefinitely CBI claims, often without evidence that the information warranted concealment from the public. Access to such information is crucial for researchers, journalists and public health advocates, as well as businesses who wish to better understand their own supply chains and consumers who wish to better understand the consequences of and exercise some control over their chemical exposures. 

In August, EDF filed two other lawsuits over rules governing how EPA will prioritize and conduct evaluations of chemicals in commerce, rules that will affect hundreds of future decisions made by the TSCA program.

(HOUSTON, August 28, 2017) As Houston’s sweeping petrochemical industry shuts down because of tropical storm Harvey, it is releasing more than 1 million pounds of harmful pollution into the air, according to its initial reports to Texas regulators.

The shutdowns include the Houston-area refineries of Exxon Mobil, Petrobras and Shell, as well as Chevron Phillips’ Cedar Bayou petrochemical complex.

While these shutdowns may be necessary, they can produce significant amounts of air pollution. Chevron Phillips, for example, told the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that it expects to exceed permitted limits for several hazardous pollutants, such as 1,3-butadiene, benzene and ethylene, during shutdown procedures.

At the same time, TCEQ has shut down all of its air quality monitors in the Houston area to avoid water and wind damage related to the storm.

“Air pollution is one of the unseen dangers of the storm,” said Dr. Elena Craft, senior health scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “Poor air quality puts the most vulnerable among us, like children and seniors, at risk for asthma, heart attacks, strokes and other health problems.”  

The amount of projected Harvey-related air pollution is roughly one-fifth of the unauthorized emissions in the Houston area during industrial malfunctions or maintenance for all of 2016, according to a recent report by the Environmental Integrity Project and Environment Texas.

When a refinery or chemical plant stops in preparation for a storm, there can be an increase in emissions because pollution-control devices require stable, higher temperatures to operate properly. These emissions, often illegal, can be exacerbated by poor design and training, old equipment and waiting until the last minute to begin the shutdown.  

“Refineries and chemical plants need to be shut down during natural disasters, but they don’t have to pollute and break the law when doing so,” said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas. “Industry needs to modernize their facilities and take better care to not make a bad situation worse with their health threatening pollution.”

NEWS RELEASE

State of Risk: Nevada, a new report from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), catalogues far-reaching and grave threats to air, water and land and to the people and economy of Nevada if President Trump’s proposed 30 percent cut to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget is enacted this fall. Such cuts would move the agency funding radically backward to its lowest level since the mid-1970s. The report was released in Nevada and in Washington D.C. at a news conference.

It provides an extensive overview of the EPA’s footprint in Nevada and examines how the proposed cutback plans threaten public health as well as commerce and tourism in the Silver State. States and local governments would face a terrible choice: stick taxpayers with the bill, drop other projects or watch their communities slide backward and become more polluted and less healthy. 

The EPA has provided $83 million in grants alone to Nevada over five years, notes the report. 

“The President’s plan will eliminate or weaken efforts to cleanup dirty air and water, as well as hazardous waste sites,” said Elgie Holstein, EDF’s Senior Director of Strategic Planning.  

“The president seeks to roll back common-sense environmental safeguards that have protected the health and well-being of Nevadans for decades,” Holstein added, “This is not just an assault on an agency. It is an assault on public health and safety.” 

Documenting specific local and statewide consequences of the proposed EPA cuts, the report finds that hollowing out the EPA would be disastrous for Nevada. The Trump Administration and some in Congress are working to push the cuts through in the next 45 days, before the federal fiscal year ends.

“Washington is so broken right now that the Trump road map could be enacted in a blink of an eye in a backroom deal when Congress returns in September,” said Holstein.

The report provides a snapshot of the environmental needs and programs which a fully funded EPA can continue to remedy and support:

• Breathing is at risk in Nevada. Many of the worst areas in America for air pollution are in Nevada. 92 percent of Nevadans live in counties receiving an “F” on air quality, according to American Lung Association data. The State of the Air study placed Nevada’s two most populous regions on top-10 worst-in-the-nation lists: Las Vegas-Henderson (for ozone) and Reno-Carson City-Fernley (short-term particle pollution). EPA provided air pollution control grants ($8 million from 2012-2016) to help Clark and Washoe county efforts. The Trump administration’s budget would cut nearly one-third from programs that help state, local, and tribal communities monitor air quality.
• Drinking water is at risk in Nevada. Dozens of Nevada projects have relied on EPA grant money to combat nonpoint source pollution, the number one type of water pollution in the United States today. The Trump Administration would eliminate the nonpoint source grant program, which helps control pollutants carried by rainfall runoff into the state’s drinking water, rivers and lakes. Nevada has relied on $7.8 million in these grants over the last five years.
• Land is at risk in Nevada. Nevada is home to some 200 brownfield sites with potential to be restored into viable job-building commercial land. The Trump budget would cut brownfield and Superfund funding by 30 percent. Nevada also has a backlog of more than 150 underground storage tanks at risk of leaking harmful chemicals into both soil and water; the administration plan eliminates one of two EPA programs to prevent and detect leaks and clean ground and groundwater – and cuts in half the second program.

A U.S. House of Representatives committee’s alternate budget would, if passed, partly restore some EPA programs but still leave many major programs unfunded, provide for significant staff cuts and leave other parts of the president’s plan to demolish EPA unchanged.

Holstein, who formerly oversaw environment and science budgets for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, said Nevada’s Congressional delegation will find in the new report hundreds of ways in which EPA has been helping the state manage risk.

“Congress can and must stop the madness of these proposed cuts,” Holstein said. “Anything less than full EPA funding for 2018 would hobble the environmental protections on which Nevadans and others across the United States rely as the foundation for building a better life.”

Nevada medical experts and parents offered firsthand evidence on how cutting the EPA budget would put people in the state in jeopardy.

“I see people getting sick just because we happen to have a very windy day, which blows all the bad air around. At least if we can keep reliable monitoring, people can know when they should stay indoors,” said Dr. Jim Christensen, pulmonologist and former member of the Clark County Board of Health. “It would be a crime to roll back or remove EPA standards from the people of Nevada.”

Dr. Christensen noted that Nevadans are sometimes wary of government agencies, but that EPA has been a good friend to the state.

“Do people here love regulations? No, but the good ones allow us to grow and thrive.”

The mother of a young allergy sufferer said she’s outraged by the thought that someone in Washington would take away her son’s freedoms.

“One of my children, from birth, had difficulty breathing. He spent weeks in the NICU and we are very lucky to have him with us today,” said Caitlin Hippler. “Even now, five years later, he still struggles with allergy-induced asthma. And he’s not alone. Over 38,000 children in Nevada have asthma and on ‘code red’ days these kids don’t have the freedom to go outside. Many parents have sleepless nights after bad air days, worrying they’re going to have to make a trip to the emergency room. For military spouses like myself, that could mean a 40-minute drive to the base hospital.”

“With our natural geography putting a strain on air quality around here, our leaders should be doing more – not less – to defend everyone’s right to breathe decent air. We need to keep EPA strong to keep our kids safe and healthy,” said Hippler. “We can’t and shouldn’t have to do it on our own.”

Hippler, a supporter of the Mom’s Clean Air Force, said she would present the State of Risk report to Sen. Dean Heller “in hopes that he will do his part for my son to ensure the EPA is fully funded.”

State of Risk: Nevada is one in a series of Environmental Defense Fund reports cataloguing the impact of president Trump’s proposed cuts to EPA funding. The reports are available at www.EDF.org/EPAcuts.

Nevada and EDF experts are available to provide further context and comment about the EPA budget; please contact Ben Schneider, bschneider@edf.org, (202) 841-3763.

NEWS RELEASE

State of Risk: Tennessee, a new report from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), catalogues far-reaching and grave threats to air, water and land, and to the people and economy of Tennessee if President Trump’s proposed 30 percent cut to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget is enacted this fall. Such cuts would move the agency funding radically backward to its lowest level since the mid-1970s. The report was released in Tennessee and in Washington D.C. at a news conference.

It provides an extensive overview of the EPA’s footprint in Tennessee and examines how the proposed cutback plans threaten public health as well as commerce and tourism in the Volunteer State. The state and local governments would face a terrible choice: stick taxpayers with the bill, drop other projects or watch their communities slide backward and become more polluted and less healthy.

The EPA has provided $225 million in grants alone to Tennessee over five years, notes the report.

“The President’s plan will eliminate or weaken efforts to cleanup dirty air and water, as well as hazardous waste sites,” said Elgie Holstein, EDF’s Senior Director of Strategic Planning.

“The president seeks to roll back common-sense environmental safeguards that have protected the health and well-being of Tennessee for decades,” Holstein added, “This is not just an assault on an agency. It is an assault on public health and safety.  It impacts the water we need, the land where our children play, and the very air that we breathe.”

Documenting specific local and statewide consequences of the proposed EPA cuts, the report finds that hollowing out the EPA would be disastrous for Tennessee. The Trump Administration and some in Congress are working to push the cuts through in the next 45 days, before the federal fiscal year ends.  

“Washington is so broken right now that the Trump road map could be enacted in a blink of an eye in a backroom deal when Congress returns in September,” said Holstein.

The report provides a snapshot of the environmental needs and programs which a fully funded EPA can continue to remedy and support:

• Drinking water and swimming would be at risk in Tennessee. EPA has provided more than $3.8 million to help Tennessee monitor the public water systems over the last five years. The Trump budget cuts by 30 percent this program which has provided technical assistance and certified water-testing labs. Tennessee had 23 active projects backed by EPA funds to combat nonpoint source pollution problems in 2017. The Trump administration would eliminate that program as well, which helps control pollutants carried by rainfall runoff into the state’s drinking water, rivers and lakes. Tennessee benefited from more than $12 million in nonpoint pollution grants over the last five years. And EPA and the Tennessee Department of Conservation (TDEC) have been partnering to make more rivers and lakes in the state safe for recreational use. Some 40 percent of the state’s waters are not fit for human recreation, according to TDEC.
• Breathing would be at risk in Tennessee. With EPA support, all of Tennessee met federal air quality standards for smog and soot in 2016, for the first time in decades. EPA support was critical to reaching this milestone, including millions of dollars in grant funding to monitor air quality, develop air pollution control programs and enforce air quality regulations, including clean-air standards for cars and trucks. Memphis and surrounding Shelby County are still earning a “D” for air quality from the American Lung Association. More than 600,000 Tennessee children and adults are diagnosed with asthma. The Trump budget would cut nearly 30 percent from programs that help states and local communities monitor air quality.
• Land would be at risk in Tennessee. There are 18 toxic Superfund sites in the state, and 130 brownfield sites ready to be restored and turned into developable land. Tennessee is home to some of the nation’s most successful and significant Superfund cleanup projects – like the Copper Mining Basin District in the state’s southeastern corner, once a barren wasteland plagued by more than 50 square miles of contaminated soil and water. Because of the superfund program, multiple partners removed waste and cleaned up pollution, and planted hundreds of trees. The Trump budget would cut Superfund and brownfield funding by 30 percent.

A U.S. House of Representatives committee’s alternate budget would, if passed, partly restore some EPA programs but still leave many major programs unfunded, provide for significant staff cuts and leave intact other parts of the president’s plan to demolish EPA.

Holstein, who formerly oversaw environment and science budgets for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, said Tennessee’s Congressional delegation will find in the new report hundreds of ways in which EPA has been helping the state manage risk.

“Congress can and must stop the madness of these proposed cuts,” Holstein said.  “Anything less than full EPA funding for 2018 would hobble the environmental protections on which Tennesseans and others across the United States rely as the foundation for building a better life.”

Clean, safe land, air and water are not partisan issues, said Dodd Galbreath during a statewide release of the State of Risk report. Dodd served as environment policy managed for both a Republican and a Democratic governor in Tennessee.

“Having been the environmental policy manager for one Republican and one Democrat governor in the state, I know firsthand the challenges Tennessee would face if any of the proposed EPA cuts were to happen,” said Dodd Galbreath, founder and professor at Lipscomb University’s Institute for Sustainable Practices.  “If the White House or Congress suddenly shut off grants and expert help to the states, they could reverse the progress we’ve made in restoring the quality of our water, land, air – and protecting the health of our people.” 

As EPA southeast regional administrator, Heather McTeer Toney managed a thousand employees and a budget of more than half a billion dollars. Even that was not enough to meet demand then; EPA administrator Scott Pruitt now wants to lay off another 3,000 EPA scientists, grant administrators, enforcement experts and staff nationwide.

“EPA is already under siege - running on sharply reduced budgets, with greatly reduced staff,” Toney said. “Any further cuts now would leave Tennessee’s EPA-supported environmental programs gasping for air.”

EPA grants and programs help urban and rural areas alike.

“Our area would be just an unnoticed dot on the map without the support we received from EPA’s Superfund program to clean up the Copper Basin Mining District,” said Ducktown Mayor James Talley. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, EPA and other agencies reached cleanup agreements with the site’s owner valued at approximately $50 million. EPA said the settlement will ensure continued treatment of water from the Davis Mill Creek and maintain the water quality of the Ocoee River.

“Where once there was just dangerous red dust, now there’s an entire outdoor recreation industry popping up around here from the national forest and river rafting,” Mayor Talley said. “Tourism has become the county’s lifeblood, which would not have been possible without clean water and soil.”

Memphis officials also noted the benefits of government collaboration.

“EPA support for Tennessee really hits home,” said Paul Young, director of housing and community development for the city of Memphis and former sustainability director there. “Public health is directly affected by the environment. As we seek to improve health outcomes in this community, our strategy is anchored by improving indoor air quality in housing and mitigating pollution.  The EPA has been a strong partner in these efforts; we need this type of collaboration to continue in order to help our residents.” 

State of Risk: Tennessee is one in a series of Environmental Defense Fund reports cataloguing the impact of president Trump’s proposed cuts to EPA funding. The reports are available at www.EDF.org/EPAcuts.

Tennessee and EDF experts are available to provide further context and comment about the EPA budget; please contact Ben Schneider, bschneider@edf.org, (202) 841-3763.

NEWS RELEASE

State of Risk: Ohio, a new report from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), catalogues far-reaching and grave threats to air, water and land, and to the people and economy of Ohio if President Trump’s proposed 30 percent cut to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget is enacted this fall. Such cuts would move the agency funding radically backward to its lowest level since the mid-1970s. The report was released in Ohio and in Washington D.C. at a news conference.

It provides an extensive overview of the EPA’s footprint in Ohio and examines how the proposed cutback plans threaten public health as well as commerce and tourism in the Buckeye State.   States and local governments would face a terrible choice: stick taxpayers with the bill, drop other projects or watch their communities slide backward and become more polluted and less healthy.

The EPA has provided $225 million in grants alone to Ohio over five years, notes the report.

“The President’s plan will eliminate or weaken efforts to cleanup dirty air and water, as well as hazardous waste sites,” said Elgie Holstein, EDF’s Senior Director of Strategic Planning. 

“The president seeks to roll back common-sense environmental safeguards that have protected the health and well-being of Ohio for decades,” Holstein added, “This is not just an assault on an agency. It is an assault on public health and safety.  It impacts the water we need, the land where our children play, and the very air that we breathe.”

Documenting specific local and statewide consequences of the proposed EPA cuts, the report finds that hollowing out the EPA would be disastrous for Ohio. The Trump Administration and some in Congress are working to push the cuts through in the next 45 days, before the federal fiscal year ends.  

“Washington is so broken right now that the Trump road map could be enacted in a blink of an eye in a backroom deal when Congress returns in September,” said Holstein.

The report provides a snapshot of the environmental needs and programs which a fully funded EPA can continue to remedy and support:

• Drinking water is at risk in Ohio. More than 2.3 million people – third highest in the nation – get their drinking water from systems with Safe Drinking Water Act violations. Additionally, the Ohio River, which supplies drinking water to 5 million people, has for years topped the list of American waterways contaminated by industrial pollution. The Trump administration would eliminate the Nonpoint Source Pollution grant program which poured $23 million into Ohio to address run off pollution. Ohio EPA estimates that projects funded in 2015 will prevent 46,000 pounds of nitrogen, 15,000 pounds of phosphorus and 15,000 pounds of sediment each year from flowing into Ohio waters.
• Breathing is at risk in Ohio. Ohio has several communities that are among the top 20 most polluted for year-round particle pollution and short-term air pollution, according to the American Lung Association (ALA). Eight counties in Ohio scored an “F” for high ozone levels and three others scored “D’s.” Akron/Canton and Cincinnati/Wilmington/Maysville are among the top 20 most polluted areas in America for year-round particle pollution. EPA grants which help states and communities monitor and clean up dirty air would be sharply curtailed.
• Land is at risk in Ohio. There are 38 toxic Superfund sites in the state, and 921 brownfield sites ready to be restored and turned into developable land. The Trump budget would cut Superfund and brownfield funding by 30 percent. This includes a 37 percent cut to Superfund enforcement efforts which make polluters pay for cleanups instead of taxpayers and an 18 percent cut to emergency response funds, which help clean up the most urgent threats.
• Research is at risk in Ohio. The Trump budget would end the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grant program, which provided targeted research grants across several scientific disciplines to Ohio State University’s College of Public Health and the University of Cincinnati.
• EPA itself is at risk in Ohio. President Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt are looking to lay off 3,000 EPA scientists, pollution enforcement specialists, grant administrators and other staffers nationwide, including from the agency’s Cleveland office and its major Office of Research and Development lab in Cincinnati. The president and EPA chief would toss away science and public health experts with critical know-how, legal and compliance staff who ensure that polluters are held accountable to pay for cleanups rather than taxpayers, and grant administration staff who work to see that taxpayer dollars are spent properly.

A U.S. House of Representatives committee’s alternate budget would, if passed, partly restore some EPA programs but still leave many major programs unfunded, provide for significant staff cuts and leave other parts of the president’s plan to demolish EPA unchanged.

Holstein, who formerly oversaw environment and science budgets for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, said Ohio’s Congressional delegation will find in the new report critical ways in which EPA has been helping the state manage risk.

“Congress can and must stop the madness of these proposed cuts,” Holstein said.  “Anything less than full EPA funding for 2018 would hobble the environmental protections on which Ohioans and others across the United States rely as the foundation for building a better life.”

Mary Gade, former EPA Midwest regional administrator, urged the Ohio Congressional delegation to keep EPA strong.

“As the State of Risk report documents, EPA grants and EPA people have helped Ohioans breathe better, swim and fish better, and live better for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike,” said Gade, who was appointed EPA Region 5 administrator by President George W. Bush and also served as EPA Director for the state of Illinois. “Ohio EPA and the U.S. EPA are a team that should not be broken up. The people of Ohio need and deserve better than a Trump EPA budget that says ‘it’s all your problem now.”

A former director of Ohio’s state environmental agency concurred.

“We’ve made a lot of progress over the decades in Ohio, but there is more to be done, as State of Risk documents. Protecting the environment is a never-ending job. You can’t just stop and say, ‘we’re done.’” said Rich Shank, former director of the Ohio EPA and chief environmental officer for the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company in Marysville.

Corporations generally need and often prefer dealing with stable regulatory agencies with predictable, uniform enforcement of environmental laws, Shank said. Cuts in funding, programs or staffing of environmental agencies erode the confidence of corporate planners and may make executives reluctant to build or expand plants.

“Companies can’t make commitments for multimillion dollar investments for capital expenditures in new or expanded facilities and infrastructure improvements in an uncertain and unstable regulatory climate,” said Shank. “That reluctance translates to lost jobs and missed opportunities for communities to build a bigger tax base.”

After a toxic bloom in Lake Erie in 2014 forced a three-day shutdown of the water system that serves 400,000 residents of Toledo and Lucas County, the county used funds from EPA’s Great Lakes Initiative to slow farm runoff and upgrade its water treatment plant. The Trump budget would eliminate the Great Lakes program.

“Our biggest threat used to be algae and invasive species in the lake,” said Lucas County Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak. “Now my biggest threat are the budget-makers in Washington.”

Her County Commissioner recently passed a resolution that says, in no uncertain terms, “We demand that the Trump Administration and the federal EPA preserve, protect, and restore the waterways of the United States.”

Others commenting during the release of State of Risk said they also worry about changes which administrator Pruitt is ordering even before any 2018 budget would takeseffect.

“As a physician, I’m particularly troubled by moves to stifle science and lay off scientists at the EPA, including experts from the agency’s Office of Research and Development in Cincinnati,” said Dr. Beth Liston, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the Ohio State University. “The EPA itself says science provides the foundation ‘to safeguard human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants.’ The president’s plan to dial back and control EPA science teams in Ohio and around the country is dialing back on safeguarding human health.”

Michele Timmons’ youngest son was diagnosed with asthma when he was six months old.

“My greatest wish now is that my grandchildren never experience the air quality alerts which forced my youngest son, a severe asthmatic, to play inside so many times during his childhood”” said Timmons, a former high school teacher turned small-business owner who grew up in Steubenville in the 70s when it was one of the most polluted cities in America. She even took part there in Harvard’s famed “Six Cities Study,” in which her lung capacity was tested every three years from first grade through college to determine long-term impacts of air pollution on children. Today, she’s become active in the “Mom’s Clean Air Force,” worried that budget cuts will derail clean-air progress in Ohio.

State of Risk: Ohio is one in a series of Environmental Defense Fund reports cataloging the impact of president Trump’s proposed cuts to EPA funding. Reports are available at www.edf.org/EPAcuts.

Ohio and EDF experts are available to provide further context and comment about the EPA budget; please contact Ben Schneider, bschneider@edf.org, (202) 841-3763.   

(TRENTON – August 24, 2017) The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities yesterday approved the state’s first territory-wide advanced metering program, proposed by Rockland Electric Company. The deployment of advanced metering infrastructure – including nearly 74,000 smart meters – throughout Bergen, Passaic and Sussex counties will drive down energy costs for customers and utilities by improving the grid’s reliability and resiliency, identifying and restoring outages, reducing high electricity demand, and integrating more renewables like solar and wind.

 “With new, smart meters, Rockland Electric’s customers can cut energy waste, boost renewables and take control of their energy use and costs. This investment in smart infrastructure will improve the grid’s resiliency and reliability, deliver cleaner air and better health, and accelerate New Jersey’s clean energy economy.”

• Mary Barber, Director, New Jersey Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund

(WASHINGTON, DC – August 23, 2017) Energy Secretary Rick Perry released today the so-called grid study he commissioned in April to determine whether retiring ‘baseload’ resources could undermine grid reliability. In July, an initial draft of the study came to the same overwhelming conclusion as existing, extensive research: the transition to cleaner energy, away from dirty coal, supports a reliable and affordable electric grid. As anticipated, the final version’s politically-driven recommendations ignore its own evidence, twisting facts to reach a predetermined conclusion in favor of coal.

“Perry’s backward-looking grid study is no surprise from an administration determined to prop up the coal industry at taxpayers’ expense. We already know a flexible, modern system with less coal and more renewables is the most reliable, resilient, and cost-effective path forward. Just this week, officials across California – home to six times more solar electric capacity than any other state – reported no major reliability issues when the solar eclipse blocked the sun for hours. Yet, Perry’s study ignores innovation and new technologies, instead suggesting America go back to the future by interfering with a well-functioning electricity sector that no longer needs inefficient, dirty, and uneconomic coal plants.”

• Jim Marston, Vice President, Clean Energy

NEWS RELEASE

State of Risk: Pennsylvania, a new report from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), catalogues far-reaching and grave threats to air, water and land, and to the people and economy of Pennsylvania if President Trump’s proposed 30 percent cut to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget is enacted this fall. Such cuts would move the agency funding radically backward to its lowest level since the mid-1970s. The report was released in Pennsylvania and in Washington D.C. at a news conference.

It provides an extensive overview of the EPA’s footprint in Pennsylvania and examines how the proposed cutback plans threaten public health as well as commerce and tourism in the Keystone State. States and local governments would face a terrible choice: stick taxpayers with the bill, drop other projects or watch their communities slide backward and become more polluted and less healthy.

The EPA has provided $225 million in grants alone to Pennsylvania over five years, notes the report.

“President Trump’s plan will kill safe-water projects, undermine clean air monitoring and leave tracts of land in Pennsylvania polluted and undevelopable,” said Elgie Holstein, EDF’s Senior Director of Strategic Planning.

“The President’s plan will eliminate or weaken efforts to cleanup dirty air and water, as well as hazardous waste sites,” Holstein added, “This is not just an assault on an agency. It is an assault on people’s health and safety.”

Documenting specific local and statewide consequences of the proposed EPA cuts, the report finds that hollowing out the EPA would be disastrous for Pennsylvania. The Trump Administration and some in Congress are working to push the cuts through in the next 45 days, before the federal fiscal year ends.

“Washington is so broken right now that the Trump road map could be enacted in a blink of an eye in a backroom deal when Congress returns in September,” said Holstein.

The report provides a snapshot of the environmental needs and programs which a fully funded EPA can continue to remedy and support:

• Drinking water is at risk in Pennsylvania. More than 8 million Pennsylvanians get their drinking water from surface water sources like rivers, lakes and streams. The Trump administration would eliminate the Nonpoint Source Pollution grant program which poured $23 million into Pennsylvania for protecting such waters over the last five years. The Trump budget also would zero out EPA’s Chesapeake Bay regional program, which brought another $34.3 million to the state in 2012-2016. One-third of the Bay’s waters drain into the Susquehanna River – a source of drinking water for millions.
• Swimming is at risk in Pennsylvania. The president’s budget would end EPA’s “BEACH Act” grants for protecting and monitoring water quality and fecal pollution in Lake Erie. The economies of four Pennsylvania counties are tied to the viability of Lake Erie.
• Breathing is at risk in Pennsylvania. Many of the worst areas in America for air pollution are in Pennsylvania. Six areas of the state rank among the top 25 most polluted areas in the country for year-round particles, according to the American Lung Association 2017 State of the Air report, while four make the “worst 25” list for short-term pollution. Philadelphia/Reading falls on both lists and also on the list for top ozone pollution. EPA grants which help states and communities monitor and clean up dirty air would be sharply curtailed.
• Land is at risk in Pennsylvania. There are 95 toxic Superfund sites in the state, (the third highest in the nation) and some 800 brownfield sites ready to be restored and turned into developable land. The Trump budget would cut Superfund and brownfield funding by 30 percent. And Pennsylvania has a backlog of 1,800 underground storage tanks at risk of leaking harmful chemicals into both soil and water; the administration plan eliminates one of two EPA programs to prevent and detect leaks and clean ground and groundwater – and cuts in half the second program.
• Research is at risk in Pennsylvania. The Trump budget would end the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grant program, which provided $15.7 million in grants to Pennsylvania universities, colleges and researchers – including Penn State, Carnegie-Mellon, Swarthmore, Temple, U-Penn and Villanova.
• EPA itself is at risk in Pennsylvania. President Trump and Administrator Pruitt are looking to lay off 3,000 EPA scientists, pollution enforcement specialists, grant administrators and other staffers nationwide, including in the agency’s mid-Atlantic regional headquarters in Philadelphia. The president and EPA chief would toss away science and public health experts with critical know-how, legal and compliance staff who ensure that polluters are held accountable to pay for cleanups rather than taxpayers, and grant administration staff who keep make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent properly.

A U.S. House of Representatives committee’s alternate budget would, if passed, partly restore some EPA programs but still leave many major programs unfunded, provide for significant staff cuts and leave other parts of the president’s plan to demolish EPA unchanged.

Holstein, who formerly oversaw environment and science budgets for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, said Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation will find in the new report the critical ways in which EPA has been helping the state manage risk.

“Congress can and must stop the madness of these proposed cuts,” Holstein said. “Anything less than full EPA funding for 2018 would hobble the environmental protections on which Pennsylvanians and others across the United States rely as the foundation for building a better life.”

Elected officials and environmental, evangelical and medical experts agreed that cutting the EPA budget would put the state at risk.

Environmental law Professor John Dernbach is with Widener University Commonwealth Law School

“The federal and state programs are inextricably linked,” Professor Dernbach said. “If we cut money to the states, we pull the pins out – removing the pillars that support protecting our environmental infrastructure.

“We undermine the whole effort to protect people from dangerous toxins in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and in the ground we live and walk on.”

Kathy Dahlkemper is Erie County Executive and a former member of Congress.

“Air, water and land are not partisan,” Dahlkemper said. “Congress can and must pull together to restore full funding – at the very least – for EPA, to ensure we in northwestern Pennsylvania have federal protections for Lake Erie, which touches four states and Canada, as well as the help we need to ensure fresh air for our kids and seniors and for turning abandoned Superfund and brownfield sites into jobsites. We can’t do it alone.”

Eastern Pennsylvania officials also praised EPA successes and noted concern for the agency’s future.

“The EPA has helped make critical improvements to Philadelphia’s air and water quality,” said Christine Knapp, director of the city’s office of sustainability. “In the past 25 years, unhealthy air days in Philadelphia have declined even as standards for healthy air days have become stricter.”

“The Trump administration’s proposed budget would have immediate and drastic effects on many environmental programs that Philadelphians rely on, including air pollution control and protecting the safety of our drinking water system.”

One observer of the State of Risk report said everyone has a responsibility to protect the Earth.

“For evangelicals, caring for God’s creation is a matter of life. We will not turn our backs on the biblical and moral imperative to preserve the land, water and air which sustains us,” said the Rev. Mitchell Hescox of New Freedom, PA, president and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network. “We hope Congress and the president will stand with the people of our commonwealth and of all the United States to let EPA to fulfill its mission: ‘The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment’.”

Dr. Marsha Haley is an oncologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

“It boggles the mind to even think about eliminating EPA help here in Pennsylvania when we need all the help we can get. We need help to fix our air and water. We want people to be able to live free of cancer, asthma, and birth defects,” Dr. Haley said.

State of Risk: Pennsylvania is one in a series of Environmental Defense Fund reports cataloguing the impact of president Trump’s proposed cuts to EPA funding. State of Risk reports are available at www.EDF.org/EPAcuts.

Pennsylvania and EDF experts are available to provide further context and comment about the EPA budget; please contact Ben Schneider, bschneider@edf.org, (202) 841-3763.

NEWS RELEASE

(Aug. 22, 2017) State of Risk: Florida, a new report from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), catalogues far-reaching and grave threats to air, water and land, and to the people and economy of Florida if President Trump’s proposed 30 percent cut to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget is enacted this fall. Such cuts would move the agency funding radically backward to its lowest level since the mid-1970s. The report was released in Florida and in Washington D.C. at a news conference.

It provides an extensive overview of the EPA’s footprint in Florida and examines how the proposed cutback plans threaten public health as well as commerce and tourism in the Sunshine State. States and local governments would face a terrible choice: stick taxpayers with the bill, drop other projects or watch their communities slide backward and become more polluted and less healthy.

The EPA has provided $600 million in grants alone to Florida over five years notes the report, which is available here.

“The President’s plan will eliminate or weaken efforts to cleanup dirty air and water, as well as hazardous waste sites,” said Elgie Holstein, EDF’s Senior Director of Strategic Planning.

“The president seeks to roll back common-sense environmental safeguards that have protected the health and well-being of Floridians and the more than 100 million visitors who travel to the state every year.” Holstein added, “This is not just an assault on an agency. It is an assault on public health and safety. It impacts the water we need, the land where our children play, and the very air that we breathe.”

Documenting specific local and statewide consequences of the proposed EPA cuts, the report finds that hollowing out the EPA would be disastrous for Florida. The Trump Administration and some in Congress are working to push the cuts through in the next 45 days, before the federal fiscal year ends.  

“Washington is so broken right now that the Trump road map could be enacted in a blink of an eye in a backroom deal when Congress returns in September,” said Holstein.

The report provides a snapshot of the environmental needs and programs which a fully funded EPA can continue to remedy and support:

• Florida’s tourist economy is at risk. In the state with more coastline than any other, and extensive inland waterways, monitoring beaches and waters for fecal pollution is both critical and expensive. In one program threatened to be eliminated, EPA has provided a half-million dollars to the Florida Healthy Beaches Program over five years to help state and local governments monitor recreational waters for fecal pollution, and help local authorities warn the public when bacteria reach unsafe levels.

• Homeowners and businesses in Florida are at risk. Florida is home to 53 toxic Superfund sites and 1,272 brownfield properties; restoring any would open new land for business, retail, homes and parks and eliminate health risks associated with underground toxins like arsenic, lead, toluene and benzene.

• Breathing is at risk in Florida for the 1,110,252 adults and 319,778 children in the state diagnosed with asthma. In Florida in 2008, asthma attacks were the cause of 37,318 pediatric emergency room visits and over $2.6 billion in associated medical costs.

• Water is at risk in Florida: The Trump administration would eliminate regional programs including the South Florida Geographic Initiative, which for 25 years has helped local governments monitor, measure and set standards for phosphates and other pollutants from farms, ranches and development in the Keys, along the Indian River Lagoon and in the Everglades north to Central Florida headwaters. The president’s budget also would zero out funding for the National Estuary Program, which protects and restores vulnerable coastal watersheds including Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Indian River Lagoon and Charlotte Harbor. Also at risk: EPA grants and staff to help communities protect the 7.5 million Floridians who drink from systems that previously faced Safe Drinking Water Act violations.

• Even sunshine is at risk in parts of the Sunshine State; 6 counties and 1 city have received EPA air quality monitoring grants over the last five years, and Hillsborough County — home to more than 1.3 million — received a failing “F” rating in the American Lung Association State of the Air report for ozone – an invisible pollutant that is one of the most dangerous contaminants for anyone who spends time outdoors.

President Trump and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt also are seeking to lay off or force out some 3,000 EPA staff, tossing away science and public health experts with critical know-how, legal and compliance staff who ensure that polluters are held accountable to pay for cleanups rather than taxpayers, and grant administration staff who keep make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent properly.

A U.S. House of Representatives committee’s alternate budget would, if passed, partly restore some EPA programs but leave many major programs unfunded, make significant staff cuts and leave other parts of the president’s plan to demolish EPA unchanged.

“EPA’s already running on sharply reduced budgets, with greatly reduced staff,” Heather McTeer Toney, former southeast regional EPA administrator, said in a statewide call releasing the report. “Any cuts now would leave Florida’s air, land and water, and its businesses and people at risk.”

Holstein, who formerly oversaw environment and science budgets for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, said Florida’s Congressional delegation will find in the new report hundreds or even thousands of ways EPA has been helping the state manage risk.

“Congress can and must stop the madness of these proposed cuts,” Holstein said. “Anything less than full EPA funding for 2018 would hobble the environmental protections that Floridians and others across the United States rely as the foundation for building a better life.”

Elected officials and environment experts across Florida participating in the report launch agreed that EPA cuts would put the state in a heightened state of risk.

“No one appreciates more than we do in the Florida Keys the critical importance of a healthy marine environment,” said George Neugent, Monroe County mayor. “It’s not just a quality- of-life issue, though it certainly is that. A loss of EPA funding would be a devastating blow to our residents, our beach and maritime businesses and to the $2.7 billion which tourism adds to our economy every year.”

The view is the same North of the Keys.

“We’d be sunk without EPA support for keeping coral reefs alive and thriving, or for monitoring and enforcing wastewater treatment spills that have endangered our people and our marine life,” added Mayra Peña Lindsay, mayor of the Village of Key Biscayne. “We have neither the budget nor the expertise to do those kinds of things all on our own. And I can’t see how the state of Florida would have money to fill the critical gaps in health and safety which President’s budget cuts would cause.”

Across the state, Naples vice mayor Linda Penniman said protecting the environment is critical, adding, “We can’t do it without a strong EPA.”

“Clean water is our future in Southwest Florida,” Penniman said. “As an elected official, I see it is imperative that all of us in government service can assure our citizens that they are consuming safe drinking water and swimming in safe water free from fecal coliform. We need the EPA to partner with us in confirming to us and those we serve that clean water in both instances is assured.”

EPA cuts would even be felt in largely unpopulated areas of the state, then and reverberate back to population centers, said Dr. Stephen Davis, wetlands ecologist with the Everglades Foundation.

“In the Everglades, inches of sea level rise translate to miles of habitat change,” said Dr. Davis. “Cutting the EPA’s budget would set way back the progress we’re making for the more than 70 threatened or endangered species which call the Everglades home, not to mention for the 8 million Floridians who rely on the Everglades for their water supply.”

State of Risk: Florida is one in a series of Environmental Defense Fund reports cataloguing the impact of president Trump’s proposed cuts to EPA funding. It is available here, additional reports will be available at www.EDF.org/epacuts.

Reporters, Editors & Producers: Florida and EDF experts are available to provide further context and comment about the EPA budget; please contact Ben Schneider, bschneider@edf.org, 202-841-3763. 

In separate letters to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association today, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Acting Deputy Administrator Jack Danielson announced plans to weaken America’s Clean Freight Truck Standards, imperiling climate security and economic prosperity for our communities and families.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) announced formal steps to begin reconsidering the greenhouse gas pollution and fuel economy standards for our nation’s fleet of large trucks, focused on the standards for the freight trailers, which aimed to make heavy-duty tractor-trailers more efficient and less polluting. 

EPA and DOT’s plans to weaken the trailer standards are in capitulation to industry requests, ignoring the robust technical record confirming the cost effectiveness of pollution control technologies and efficiency standards for trailers, and the firm legal basis for these standards.

“Rolling back clean air and fuel efficiency standards for our nation’s freight haulers would cost consumers and truckers money and mean more harmful pollution for our communities and families. These common-sense standards reduce our country’s reliance on imported oil, save money and help keep Americans safe from the clear and present danger of climate change,” said EDF Attorney Alice Henderson.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation finalized the historic measures last October. The standards build on the success of the first ever heavy-duty fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions programs, which were finalized in 2011 with broad support from truck manufacturers, labor groups, consumers, security groups, and health and environmental organizations.

The standards apply to the freight trucks that transport the products we buy every day, as well as to buses and school buses, tractor-trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and garbage trucks. (They do not apply to passenger cars and light pickup trucks, which already have their own clean air and fuel efficiency standards.) These heavy-duty trucks use more than 125 million gallons of fuel every day and emit nearly 450 million metric tons of climate pollution annually. They are one of the fastest growing sources of climate-destabilizing pollution.

The Clean Trucks standards will dramatically reduce this pollution and provide cross-cutting benefits:

• Reduce climate pollution by 1.1 billion tons
• Reduce American fuel use by two billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the trucks
• Save truck owners $170 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicles
• Result in $230 billion in societal benefits over the life of the program

More than 300 companies called for strong truck standards during the rule making process, including PepsiCo and Walmart (two of the largest trucking fleets in the U.S.), mid-size trucking companies RFX Global and Dillon Transport, and large customers of trucking services General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, and IKEA. That’s largely becausefuel is the largest single cost for trucking fleets. The average semi truck today burns 20,000 gallons of diesel a year – the same volume of fuel used by 50 new passenger cars.

Strong standards, and the increased efficiency that the trailer standards provide, will also benefit American families, since some of the savings will be passed on to consumers. The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) found that rigorous fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards could save American households $250 annuallyin the near term, and $400 annuallyby 2035, on goods and services.

The Trump administration is also reviewing the Phase II Clean Cars standards for passenger cars and trucks.

NEWS RELEASE

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today rejected the latest attempt to undermine clean, low-cost, and reliable energy as it denied a petition for en banc rehearing in Allco Finance Ltd. v. Klee.

Allco petitioned for rehearing after a three Judge panel of the Second Circuit rejected its challenge to a Connecticut clean energy procurement policy and renewable portfolio standard designed to protect human health and the environment. The panel decision by the Second Circuit was issued earlier this summer and in turn upheld a lower court decision ruling in the state of Connecticut’s favor in the case.

“The federal appellate court has yet again affirmed Connecticut’s bedrock authority to provide for expansive clean energy that protects public health and environment for Connecticut’s families and communities,” said Environmental Defense Fund Senior Attorney Michael Panfil. 

Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental organizations filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in support of Connecticut and its clean energy policy in the initial appeal to the Second Circuit.

By declining to grant en banc review the Second Circuit affirmed that Connecticut is well within its legal right to implement clean energy measures that reduce dangerous climate and air pollution. With this action, the court again makes clear that states have the power to protect the health and well-being of their residents– who are afflicted by climate and air pollution and protected by clean energy.

(RALEIGH, NC – August 11, 2017) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today announced the hire of Dionne Delli-Gatti as Director, Southeast Clean Energy.

Dionne hails from the Environmental Protection Agency, where she served as a senior advisor to the Regional Administrator for the agency’s Southeast Region. As a Government Affairs Specialist and Congressional Liaison, she was part of the Region’s Clean Power Plan and “Making a Visible Difference in Communities” leadership teams. In these roles, she built collaborative relationships with key stakeholders, including members of the business community, elected officials, nonprofits and non-governmental organizations.

Throughout her career, Dionne’s work has focused on environmental issues, ranging from advocacy and sustainability to environmental management and compliance. She held key positions with the City of Dallas, where she helped outline strategy and messaging for Mayor Laura Miller’s clean energy efforts with the Texas Mayor’s Coalition. Here Dionne worked with EDF and other private and public sectors allies to halt the buildout of 11 coal-fired power plants across the state and carried out a citywide environmental management system that became nationally recognized in just over two years.

In her new role at EDF, Dionne will apply her many years of experience in the environmental sector to maintain North Carolina’s clean energy leadership position and promote advanced energy solutions that create jobs, attract investments, cut pollution and power the Southeast’s economy reliably and affordably. 

(COLUMBUS – August 16, 2017) The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) today gave final approval to its plan to provide FirstEnergy with more than $600 million in subsidies. Environmental Defense Fund and others will now challenge the bailout at the Ohio Supreme Court. FirstEnergy began collecting the non-refundable fees on January 1, 2017, even though the PUCO had yet to release a final decision until today. The PUCO suggests the money from the higher electricity rates will reduce the utility’s debts and improve its credit rating. State legislators recently rejected this justification when they eliminated a measure that would have let utilities bolster their credit ratings through higher electricity rates.

“Ohioans have already paid some $80 million this year in subsidies to FirstEnergy and, since the state’s rubber-stamp regulators continue to ignore their responsibility to protect customers, that number is set to go up. Last year, federal regulators came to the rescue and overturned Ohio bailouts that would have propped up FirstEnergy’s old coal and nuclear plants. We are confident the Ohio Supreme Court will do the same and reject the regulators’ latest giveaway to dirty energy.”

• Dick Munson, Director, Midwest Clean Energy