Complete list of press releases

“Today’s executive order reveals the extreme lengths to which President Trump is willing to go to pander to those who still deny the reality of climate change.  To roll back a key flood-risk reduction rule not only ignores the growing frequency of climate-exacerbated flooding, it is also another rejection of the international scientific consensus that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to build infrastructure resiliency is needed urgently.  The result will be billions of taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects at risk of increased flooding and billions more spent to repair and re-build after storms. 

“The Trump Administration should recognize that worsening climate impacts, including more frequent and more powerful storms, require a new national commitment to safer buildings, smarter siting, and more investment in natural  as well as other “green infrastructure” to reduce emissions and increase resiliency.   

“From Louisiana to New Jersey, from Miami to Missouri, destructive flooding that was once considered rare is becoming more likely and increasingly routine, and it is foolhardy to steer federally-funded construction projects to ignore these trends.

“This decision puts ideology ahead of common sense, and will lead to a bigger burden for taxpayers. It’s time for smart planning based on reality, which is that our climate is changing. Ignoring the scientific conclusion of NASA and every major American scientific organization is a dangerous political game.”

- Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic planning, Environmental Defense Fund

“The hatred and violence on display in Charlottesville was deeply disturbing to all of us. White Supremacy is a sickening and destructive ideology, and we all must stand united against it. The organizations on the front lines of this fight have shown enormous courage and they have the full support of the EDF community.

“While EDF’s focus is on ensuring clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment, America cannot achieve a better future in an atmosphere of hate. Our thoughts are with those who were injured and with the families of Heather Heyer, Lieutenant Cullen, and Trooper Bates.”

— Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense Fund

(New York, NY – August 14, 2017) On Friday, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed two lawsuits to defend the nation’s recently updated federal chemical safety law and ensure it protects public health. The lawsuits challenge two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) framework rules, published July 20, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rules govern how EPA will prioritize and conduct evaluations of chemicals in commerce, and hence will affect hundreds of future decisions made by the TSCA program.

“Just last year, Congress voted overwhelmingly to overhaul America’s chemical safety law to better protect the public from toxic chemicals,” said Dr. Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at EDF. “Unfortunately, in straying from the letter and intent of that law, the EPA’s framework rules leave the public at risk from chemicals commonly found in our homes, schools and workplaces. Our legal challenges seek to hold EPA to the law and ensure that the public is protected as Congress intended.”

The legislation Congress passed last year, called the Lautenberg Act, updated TSCA with the intent of ensuring the safety of chemicals that are used in everything from wall paint to stain-resistant coatings on couches.

Until the update, the original law had been a notorious failure—with EPA unable to ban even known carcinogens like asbestos. Science has demonstrated that widely used chemicals pose a significant health risk, especially to children, pregnant women and other vulnerable populations. The reform fixed the flaws in the old law and gave EPA the tools and authority it needs to protect the public from toxic chemicals.

The Lautenberg Act required that EPA issue several framework rules within a year of the law’s enactment. Two of these rules set out the processes EPA is to follow in reviewing the safety of chemicals in commerce, and will have direct impact on how well the law works going forward, in both the current and future administrations.

The rules were proposed in January, before the administration changed hands, and the final rules were published on July 20, 2017. Notably, the changes from January’s proposed rules were directed at EPA by Dr. Nancy Beck, freshly arrived from the chemical industry’s main trade association, where she had authored industry comments on the proposed rules. She now serves as the top political official in EPA’s TSCA office.

Among other arguments, the lawsuits challenge a major flaw in EPA’s statutory interpretation that has the potential to undermine many future decisions made by the TSCA program. In EPA’s proposed rules in January, EPA adopted the position that it had to analyze, to some extent, all of the conditions of use for a given chemical substance. Yet, in the preambles to the final rules, the Trump EPA reversed position and stated that, as a matter of law, it may “exclude certain activities that EPA has determined to be conditions of use” from its analysis at the outset.

Under the rules, EPA asserts that it has authority to ignore numerous potential and actual exposures to risky chemicals.  For example, under its new interpretation, EPA can ignore many ongoing exposures to a group of toxic chemicals that were added to furniture foam cushions as “flame retardant” chemicals for decades, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). PBDEs can likely be found in almost every home in America, are highly persistent and are linked to a number of health concerns, including interfering with hormone function, learning and behavior issues in children, and thyroid cancer.

(WASHINGTON – August 12, 2017) The National Marine Fisheries Service has announced that it will issue an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to Dr. David Kerstetter of Nova Southeastern University. Dr. Kerstetter will be working with Atlantic swordfish fishermen to conduct research in the East Florida Coast Pelagic Longline Closed Area. Katie Westfall, Senior Manager of Highly Migratory Species Advocacy for EDF’s Oceans Program, issued the following statement.

“We applaud approval of this project, which will collect crucial data, pilot new technologies, and lead to improvements in the way we manage our fisheries.

“The once depleted Atlantic swordfish population has rebounded strongly thanks in no small part to the sacrifices of fishermen, and was declared rebuilt in 2009. American pelagic longline fishermen in the Atlantic and Gulf have made significant strides in reducing bycatch of imperiled species. We need to continue to improve our understanding of encounter rates of juvenile swordfish and species like sharks, billfishes and sea turtles in order to find the best ways to reduce their mortality.

“This project will do that by accelerating science-based and data-driven innovations in the fishery. Specifically, it will test electronic monitoring and reporting for all species, both target and bycatch. Carefully tabulating catch across all fisheries that interact with imperiled highly migratory species is critical to putting them on the path to recovery. Having healthy populations of target and bycatch species will also ultimately improve fishing opportunities for both commercial fishermen and recreational anglers.   

“The project will also pioneer an approach to link catch data with oceanographic data, allowing researchers to learn over time where and when species will occur in order to help fishermen avoid bycatch of sharks, billfishes, and sea turtles. This has the potential to be transformative by dramatically minimizing unnecessary deaths of protected species while improving the catch of healthy target species like swordfish.

“Moreover, as the administration pursues its stated goal of closing the U.S. seafood trade deficit, innovations like these can pave the way to responsibly increasing yield in domestic fisheries and strengthening revenues for American seafood businesses. The United States is currently leaving two-thirds of our science-based quota for Atlantic swordfish in the water, and projects such as this can help safely unlock that value for fishermen and fishing communities.”

For more background and related content:

How science and technology can help save sharks

(Washington, D.C. – August 11, 2017) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released information on more than 1,900 climate-related web pages and files that were removed from or modified on its website under Administrator Scott Pruitt – including vital information on the impacts of climate change on children’s health.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) received this information from EPA in response to an EDF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents about changes to EPA’s website pertaining to climate and air quality.

The FOIA request, which sought all changes made to EPA’s climate-related web pages since Inauguration Day, reflects EDF’s deep commitment to promoting transparency and accountability at federal agencies at a time when many public health and environmental protections are under attack.

“Many of these now-removed and -modified web pages were created to help American communities understand the science of climate change and protect themselves from its harmful impacts,” said Ben Levitan, an attorney at EDF. “EPA is legally obligated to address climate change, which is an urgent threat to our public health and environment. The newly-released documents are yet another troubling sign of Administrator Pruitt’s disregard for science and public transparency, and a reminder that we must be vigilant in holding him accountable.”

The documents released in response to EDF’s FOIA request list web pages related to climate change that EPA removed from or modified on its website in late April of this year. They cover vital topics including climate and energy resources for state, local, and tribal governments; the impacts of climate change on children, older adults, and pregnant women; and the Clean Power Plan — our only national limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants. In total, the documents reveal that EPA removed more than 700 web pages and more than 1,200 files, such as PDF’s.

EDF is currently preparing a more detailed analysis of the records, but is making them immediately available to the public at the following sites:

• EPA Clean Power Plan Sites
• EPA Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments Sites
• EPA Files – Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments
• EPA Climate Sites: Overview, Science, Impacts

EDF is still reviewing the extensive documentation to better understand the fate of the removed files and web pages. Initial analysis indicates that:

• The documents list many web page URL’s that now lead to error pages stating “This page is being updated” or “Page not found.”
• Some URL’s now redirect to new web pages promoting Administrator Pruitt’s agenda.
• Other URL’s for specific files remain active, even though those files may no longer be accessible through any surviving EPA web page.
• Some of the content remains available on existing EPA websites but has been moved to new locations, rendering the old URL’s obsolete.
• Many of the removed items may be viewable through an archive of EPA’s former website.

Based on a first look, EDF was particularly concerned by the removal of web pages titled:

• “Causes of Climate Change”
• “Learn About Carbon Pollution from Power Plants”
• “What EPA Is Doing about Climate Change”
• “State Climate Action Framework”
• “Climate Impacts on Human Health”
• “Communicating Vulnerabilities to Climate Change: Pregnant Women”

EDF anticipates receiving more documents in relation to this FOIA request, as well as from other FOIA requests submitted to EPA and other federal agencies.

EDF is committed to making the information it receives available so that the public has the fullest possible understanding of the Trump Administration’s actions pertaining to public health and the environment.

(Washington, D.C. – August 4, 2017) The Trump Administration today announced a plan to throw America’s Clean Car Standards into reverse, 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 standards for cars and passenger trucks for model years 2022 to 2025.

“The Clean Cars Standards strengthen U.S. energy security, save families money at the gas pump, keep American car manufacturers and workers competitive, and reduce the pollution that causes climate change. Weakening them puts America on a road to nowhere,” said Jason Mathers, Director of On-Road Vehicles for Environmental Defense Fund. “We will strenuously oppose any effort to reverse our nation’s journey toward cleaner, more fuel efficient cars and trucks.” 

EPA and DOT finalized the second phase Clean Car Standards in 2012. Under the standards, new cars and passenger trucks in model years 2017 to 2025 would have better fuel efficiency and would emit less pollution. The standards were adopted with broad support from automakers, labor, states, consumers, and environmental advocates.

EPA also committed to undertake a midterm evaluation of the standards for the later model year cars. That evaluation, which was based on an extensive technical record and public input, found that technologies are developing more quickly and at even lower costs than EPA originally projected – making the standards for the later model years appropriate and even more feasible than was first thought. 

In January of 2017, EPA completed its review and issued a final determination confirming that the standards covering model years 2022 to 2025 should remain in place. The state of California also conducted its own extensive review and came to the same conclusion.

In spite of the rigorous technical analysis and public input that went into those reviews, EPA and DOT – in a reckless U-turn – announced today that that they will formally reopen the final determination. 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 is calling into question whether the standards for model year 2021 remain appropriate. 

The first step will be a comment period that will last 45 days, beginning when the notice is published in the Federal Register.

Reopening the final Clean Cars Standards will create uncertainty, slow innovation and hurt U.S. economic leadership. 

The American public also stands to lose vital benefits if the Clean Cars 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 Trump Administration’s threat to undermine the Clean Cars 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 be all electric 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 with standard internal combustion engines 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.

(Washington, D.C. – August 10, 2017) The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected the latest attempt to undermine pollution limits for sources in the oil and gas sector.

The court denied requests for an en banc rehearing of a three-judge panel’s decision that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt acted unlawfully in suspending those pollution limits. 

“In a victory for all Americans, the court has once again rejected a lawless attempt to put the lives and health of our families and communities at risk from oil and gas pollution,” said Vickie Patton, General Counsel for Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case. “EPA should do its job, as required by law and as critically necessary for public health, and enforce these commonsense clean air safeguards.”  

The full D.C. Circuit ruled 8 to 3 to reject the latest attack on these commonsense clean air protections. 

A broad coalition challenged EPA’s suspension of the standards, including: the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington; the state of Colorado; the city of Chicago; and public health, conservation, and community groups including EDF, Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club.

The critical clean air protections at stake will reduce harmful methane and smog-forming, toxic and carcinogenic air pollution from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry.   

Administrator Pruitt tried to impose a 90-day suspension of these vital clean air standards without public input and without analysis of the public health or environmental consequences. A three-judge panel blocked that attempt on July 3^rd, saying Administrator Pruitt’s actions were “unlawful,” “arbitrary,” and “capricious.”

Administrator Pruitt then requested that the three-judge panel delay issuing its mandate in the case, asking for a 52-day or longer extension to comply with the court’s ruling. The panel rejected the request and provided a limited 14-day period. The full D.C. Circuit issued the mandate on July 31^st. 

Although EPA itself did not seek rehearing, industry and state opponents asked the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the July 3^rd decision. Today the court denied that request for an en banc rehearing.

In a separate action, Administrator Pruitt is also proposing to suspend compliance with these same protections for more than two years – while expressly conceding that the suspension may adversely impact children’s health. More than 370,000 Americans sent comments to EPA in support of the protections, and voiced their objection to any delay, before the comment period closed yesterday. 

You can find more information – including all legal documents – on EDF’s website.

(Washington D.C. – August 10, 2017) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit announced today that it will extend a pause in litigation over America’s first nationwide carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued the order keeping the litigation in abeyance indefinitely. 

“The carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants are already working to protect American families and communities from the dangerous pollution that causes climate change,” said Tomás Carbonell, Directory of Regulator Policy and Lead Attorney for Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case. “Today’s decision allows those standards to remain in full force and effect.”

The case in question, North Dakota v. EPA, challenges the first-ever nationwide limits on carbon pollution from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants. The standards are in effect now, protecting Americans from the pollution that causes climate change. They will remain in effect while the case works its way through the courts. 

A broad coalition is supporting the standards in court, including 18 states, the District of Columbia and the City of New York, seven power companies, and eight public health and environmental organizations (including EDF).

In today’s order, the court told EPA to file updates on its progress every 90 days beginning October 27^th. 

Today’s order comes less than two days after the en banc D.C. Circuit granted a temporary extension of abeyance in litigation on the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan applies to existing power plants, and was stayed by the Supreme Court in February, 2016. In contrast to the indefinite abeyance ordered by the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit today, the full D.C. Circuit extended abeyance in the Clean Power Plan case for only 60 days.

Tuesday’s order in the Clean Power Plan case was accompanied by a statement by two judges reiterating that EPA has an “affirmative statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases” under the landmark Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

(Washington D.C.)— Today, over 375,000 Americans voiced their clear support for existing federal limits on dangerous methane pollution and their opposition to any delay of those limits.

The hundreds of thousands of comments were submitted over several weeks after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Trump Administration began taking steps to develop rules requiring a two year delay of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) New Source Pollution Standards for detecting and repairing methane leaks from new and modified oil and gas operations.  The EPA leak detection and repair requirements apply to all new wells since September of 2015, which now number at least 20,000 … and growing. 

“Scott Pruitt has been trying every trick in the book to delay common-sense methane pollution protections that require oil and gas companies to detect and plug methane leaks from their operations,” said Felice Stadler, senior campaigns director at the Environmental Defense Fund.  “Pruitt’s actions reveal that he’s continuing his legacy of siding with the worst actors in the oil and gas industry at the expense of public health. His actions are reckless, and ignore the well-documented threat these leaks pose to American communities.”    

The groups point out that the health threat from methane pollution leaks is growing significantly with an average of more than 1,000 new wells a month having been built or updated.  Federal courts are recognizing the imminent threat.   On July 31 of this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ full 11 judge panel, by a 9-2 vote, issued a final decision overturning EPA’s first attempt to stay the standards.  EPA now must fully implement the Obama era methane pollution protections until replacement rules have been proposed and finalized. 

Attorneys General from 13 states, the state of Colorado, the District of Columbia and the City of Chicago also submitted comments echoing the strong legal foundation for methane limits and the lack of EPA authority for delaying the current Methane NSPS.

“These common sense protections were developed through rigorous public involvement, including solicitation of public input, and incorporation of industry comments and concerns,” said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force which represented groups in the case.   “The 2016 Rule is informed by successful state policy efforts in Colorado and other western states.”  

There is broad support for these methane limits with several polls showing strong majorities of Americans who want to continue EPA’s NSPS methane limits.  In addition to polling and the 375,000 comments submitted by Americans from around the country, 150+ national, state and local public interest organizations yesterday signed and released a letter opposing EPA’s proposed two-year stay.   In the letter, the groups said the proposed EPA delay is  “unauthorized, unwarranted, and would be particularly harmful to people, especially children, who live near oil and gas development across the country.” 

(Washington, D.C. – August 8, 2017) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today announced that long-pending litigation over the Clean Power Plan, our only national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, would remain in abeyance for 60 days. Two concurring judges reiterated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a legal duty to regulate climate pollution under the Supreme Court’s landmark precedent in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The court issued an order, joined by the ten-judge en banc panel that heard the case last September, that pauses the litigation (or “holds it in abeyance”) for sixty more days, and requires EPA to file status reports with the court every thirty days.

The order includes a concurring statement by Judges Tatel and Millett pointing out that the EPA has an “affirmative statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases” and expressing concern that an indefinite delay in the litigation could impede EPA from complying with that obligation.

“We are in a race against time to protect our communities and families from the clear and present danger of climate pollution. Just today, we were reminded of compelling evidence of the dangers to all Americans in a draft report for the National Climate Assessment. And the Supreme Court has ruled three times that the Environmental Protection Agency has a responsibility under our nation’s clean air laws to protect Americans from the pollution that causes climate change,” said Tomás Carbonell, Directory of Regulator Policy and Senior Attorney for Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case. “EDF, along with millions of concerned Americans, will keep working to ensure EPA complies with its legal obligations and acts to protect our nation from climate pollution.”

The Clean Power Plan is the single largest step the U.S. has ever taken to address the threat of climate change. When fully implemented, it will reduce greenhouse gases from the power sector to 32 percent below 2005 levels – and will save up to 3,600 lives, prevent up to 90,000 childhood asthma attacks, and avoid more than 300,000 missed school and work days each year.

Opponents of the Clean Power Plan challenged it in court. In a highly unusual move, the Supreme Court issued a stay for the plan in February 2016, before the case was briefed and argued on the merits.

The full D.C. Circuit heard oral argument en banc in litigation over the Clean Power Plan in September of 2016.

Before the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in the case, the Trump Administration filed requests for indefinite abeyance while it considered whether to roll back the Clean Power Plan. The court placed the case temporarily in abeyance in April.

In May, Environmental Defense Fund and a coalition of 14 other public health and environmental organizations urged the court to rule on the merits in the litigation. Today the court announced it would temporarily hold the case in abeyance for sixty more days.

(TEXAS – August 8, 2017) Oncor recently reached a nearly unanimous settlement on its rate case pending before the Public Utility Commission of Texas. The electric utility agreed to eliminate its proposed minimum fee for customers who install solar panels at their homes. The proposed “solar tax” would have penalized these solar customers, forcing them to continue paying higher bills regardless of how much they reduce their energy use.

“With endless sunshine and a rapidly growing population, Texas has incredible potential for solar energy and the jobs that come with it, but customers need their utility’s cooperation. Fortunately, the state’s largest utility, Oncor, has agreed to eliminate its proposed solar tax and let Texas solar grow. The Public Utility Commission should accept Oncor’s settlement, so millions of Texans can invest in clean solar power without being hit with unnecessary fees on their electric bills.”

• John Hall, Associate Vice President, Clean Energy

(Washington, DC – August 7, 2017) The Department of the Interior today released the results of a 60-day departmental review of the federal plans for greater sage-grouse – a review initiated by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s secretarial order on June 7, 2017.

“Two years ago, Republican and Democratic governors, ranchers and conservationists, industry groups and state wildlife agencies all came together outside Denver to celebrate a truly bipartisan, collaborative conservation effort for the greater sage-grouse. The decision not to list the bird under the Endangered Species Act was based on a plan that incorporated strong science on the species and its habitat requirements.

“Today, the administration’s review opens the door to significant changes to the sage-grouse plans, which could undercut the sound science used to develop those plans and jeopardize what we know the bird needs to live and thrive. Putting politics over science would only increase the likelihood of a listing in the future.

“By reopening the federal plans, we risk undermining and undoing one of the greatest collaborative conservation efforts in our nation’s history.”

-        Eric Holst, Associate Vice President of Working Lands, Environmental Defense Fund.

Many communities have found creative and innovative solutions to deal with the significant challenges of LSL replacement and others are working to develop solutions.By recognizing and describing the efforts of these communities, EDF hopes both to highlight progress made at the local level on LSL replacement and provide a resource for other communities hoping to take important steps to get the lead out of their water systems.

Learn more about each community’s progress on LSL replacement here: https://www.edf.org/health/recognizing-community-efforts-replace-lsl. 

(Washington, D.C. – August 4, 2017) Environmental Defense Fund and a broad coalition of public health, environmental and community groups notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today of their intent to sue Administrator Scott Pruitt over his failure to take protective action in response to Maryland’s “good neighbor” petition to limit coal plant smokestack pollution in upwind states.

Maryland’s petition urges EPA to limit the pollution from upwind smokestacks that contributes to unhealthy ground-level ozone, commonly called smog, in Maryland. The smokestack pollution also imperils the health of communities and families living in the immediate vicinity of these coal plants.  

Administrator Pruitt did not respond to Maryland’s petition, although he is legally required to do so. Maryland filed its notice of intent to sue Administrator Pruitt on July 20^th. Environmental Defense Fund and its partners filed their notice of intent to sue today.

“The Clean Air Act’s ‘good neighbor’ protections have been in place for decades to protect Marylanders and other Americans in downwind states from the dangerous smokestack pollution that blows across their borders,” said Graham McCahan, Senior Attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. “EPA Administrator Pruitt’s failure to take protective action is needlessly putting the health and safety of families in Maryland and throughout the region at risk. He must carry out his duties under our clean air laws to address the pollution from these coal plant smokestacks.” 

Maryland petitioned EPA, under the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” safeguards, for help reducing air pollution that is blowing across its borders from neighboring states. That pollution is coming from coal-fired power units that have already installed modern pollution controls – but are not fully running them.

Thirty-six coal-fired units in five upwind states – Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – are failing to fully operate their modern pollution controls. That contributes to unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone, commonly called smog, in Maryland. About 70 percent of Maryland’s smog problem originates from emissions in upwind states.  

Today, eight public health, environmental and community organizations sent formal legal notice of their intent to sue in support of Maryland and the millions in communities that are afflicted by this dangerous pollution. That group includes the Environmental Integrity Project, the Maryland Environmental Health Network, the Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Sierra Club, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and the Adirondack Council, as well as Environmental Defense Fund. 

Environmental Defense Fund has also published two interactive maps that show the pollution from each electric generating unit identified in Maryland’s original “good neighbor” petition. The maps show how much excess pollution is being emitted from these units, and illustrates the air quality challenges facing communities and ecosystems in Maryland and throughout the region. 

Smog is associated with premature deaths, hospitalizations, asthma attacks and long-term lung damage. Smog-forming pollution that blows across state lines imperils the health of millions of people who live downwind – especially children, the elderly, people with respiratory disease, and those working and active outside, who are especially vulnerable.

(Washington, D.C. – August 2, 2017) In response to legal action taken by states, public health associations, community organizations, and environmental organizations including Environmental Defense Fund, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt tonight withdrew his unlawful delay that postponed the implementation of our nation’s health-based smog standard. 

“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unlawfully delayed carrying out basic clean air protections against smog – protections that will ensure healthier lives for all Americans, especially children,” said EDF Lead Attorney Peter Zalzal. “As he has before, Administrator Pruitt took an action that presented a clear and present danger to public health, and he did it without public input and without consideration of the consequences. While we welcome this corrective action, we are deeply concerned about the threat that Administrator Pruitt’s actions present to the fundamental right to clean, healthy air guaranteed by our nation’s bipartisan and time-tested clean air laws. ”

On June 28, Administrator Pruitt published an action delaying by one year the identification of areas out of compliance with the national health-based standard for ground-level ozone – commonly called smog. Tonight that action has officially been withdrawn.

The identification of areas that are out of compliance with the smog standard is essential for securing Americans’ right to know whether their air is safe to breathe. This formal identification of areas is also crucial for triggering state action to put solutions in place to restore healthy air.

Smog is associated with premature deaths, hospitalizations, asthma attacks and long-term lung damage. Children, the elderly, people with respiratory disease, and those working and active outside are especially vulnerable.

EPA estimates that when our nation’s health-based smog standard is implemented it will prevent:

• Up to 660 premature deaths each year
• 230,000 asthma attacks in children each year
• 160,000 days when kids miss school each year
• 28,000 missed work days each year
• 630 asthma-related emergency room visits each year
• 340 cases of acute bronchitis among children each year

Common sense solutions are available to address this dangerous pollution. In fact, Administrator Pruitt has solutions that are pending before him right now. For instance, Maryland has submitted a “good neighbor” petition urging Administrator Pruitt to address the pollution that is blowing across the state’s borders from 36 coal-fired power units that are upwind of Maryland. The petition asks Administrator Pruitt to require that those units simply operate the modern pollution controls that they have already installed but that they are not fully using. Administrator Pruitt has failed to take action, and Maryland recently filed a notice of intent to sue. 

A broad coalition took legal action against Administrator Pruitt’s unlawful attempt to delay implementing the smog standard. The coalition includes: the states of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and Washington D.C; public health groups American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Physicians for Social Responsibility; and community and environmental advocates West Harlem Environmental Action, Appalachian Mountain Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Ohio Environmental Council, Clean Air Council, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, and Sierra Club – along with Environmental Defense Fund.