Number of lives saved by U.S. Clean Air Act continues to grow: Opponents trying to repeal protections
=====================================================================================================

* Charlotte Tucker

The Clean Air Act saved 160,000 lives last year, and the number of lives saved annually is expected to top 230,000 by 2020, according to a report released by the Environmental Protection Agency in March.

The report, which looked at results of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, found that in 2010, reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution because of the act led to 130,000 fewer heart attacks and 1.7 million fewer asthma attacks. By 2020, “direct benefits” from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments — mainly in the form of reductions in premature deaths — are estimated to reach almost $2 trillion.

Clean air advocates say it is important that EPA has taken the time to compile the data that show the full impact of the Clean Air Act. Signed in 1970, the act covers issues such as air quality, emissions limits, ozone protection and fuel standards. The act is estimated to have saved millions of lives in its 40 years of existence.

“It's always good to have somebody add it all up,” said Janice Nolen, assistant vice president for policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association. “It's a wonderful story that shows that this is what cleaner air means to us as Americans.”

EPA is hoping to add even more air improvements, with a proposed rule released March 16 that would reduce the amount of toxins emitted from coal - and oil-burning power plants.

![Figure1](http://www.thenationshealth.org/https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/nathealth/41/4/1.3/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure1](http://www.thenationshealth.org/content/41/4/1.3/F1)

EPA has proposed new toxic emission rules for coal- and oil-burning power plants, which provide electricity for Americans.

Photo by Eva Serrabassa, courtesy iStockphoto

But there are potential roadblocks to continued progress in the form of the House of Representatives, some of whose members are seeking to strip EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Currently, there are no national limits on the amount of mercury and other toxic air pollution released from power plant smokestacks. The proposed power plant rule would create the first national standards for mercury, arsenic and other pollutants, including chromium, nickel and acid gases. EPA estimates the rule would prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks each year.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called the proposal “a significant milestone” in the Clean Air Act's record of protecting the public from air pollution.

“With the help of existing technologies, we will be able to take reasonable steps that will provide dramatic protections to our children and loved ones, preventing premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma attacks,” Jackson said.

APHA is part of a coalition of groups voicing its support for the regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants.

“Hazardous air emissions from coal- and oil-burning power plants cause a whole range of serious and immediate human health risks,” said Georges Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E), executive director of APHA. “These pollutants can worsen asthma and other respiratory diseases, cause heart attacks, cancers and stroke, and exact an enormous economic toll in terms of health-related costs and lost productivity.”

EPA expects the rule would provide particular health benefits for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis each year.

If the rule is finalized in its present state, it would require power plants to install pollution control technologies that would cut emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Those pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects, according to the American Lung Association.

According to EPA, coal-fired power plants are responsible for 99 percent of mercury emissions. More than half of all power plants already use the pollution control technologies that would be required by the new rule, EPA said.

Nolen said the American Lung Association is still studying the proposal but that it shows that EPA is being careful to make sure its requirements are flexible. The rule would not require coal-burning plants to use a specific control technology, because facilities vary greatly. Instead, the rule would set limits on what toxics can be emitted and would require plants to control those emissions using the technology they see fit.

Some plants might choose to switch from burning coal to burning natural gas as a way to meet the requirements, for example, Nolen said.

In the United States, coal-fired power plants generate about 49 percent of the country's electricity, according to the World Coal Institute.

## Attacks on Clean Air Act on the increase

Despite the positive progress report on the Clean Air Act and the power plant proposal, clean air advocates are concerned about increasing efforts in Congress to limit EPA's authority.

On March 15, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, that would exempt greenhouse gases from EPA's regulatory purview. The bill would also repeal numerous agency actions to implement emission restrictions. The Senate is considering a similar measure sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Fortunately, EPA and the Clean Air Act have many supporters. In March, APHA joined with key congressional legislators and health and environmental groups at a Capitol Hill press briefing in support of the law. During the briefing, supporters highlighted the benefits of the Clean Air Act and potential dangers if it is rolled back.

![Figure2](http://www.thenationshealth.org/https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/nathealth/41/4/1.3/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure2](http://www.thenationshealth.org/content/41/4/1.3/F2)

Supporters speak out in favor of health protections provided under the Clean Air Act at a Capitol Hill news briefing in March. From left are Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md.; Jerome Paulson, MD, incoming chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Council on Environmental Health; Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; and Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.

Photo courtesy David Fouse, APHA

“These negative effects can and would include increased medical complications, increased hospitalizations and even mortality,” said Jeffrey Levi, PhD, executive director of Trust for America's Health and an APHA member. “Simply put, the science says air pollution is bad for our health. Rolling back EPA's ability to protect the public from this threat literally has life and death stakes.”

Nolen said the American Lung Association is reaching out to members of Congress to try to help them understand the importance of the act.

“We're trying to explain the idea that we really are looking at a law that has been in the books for 40 years that has worked extraordinarily well,” she said. “We don't want to see EPA's ability to enforce that law weakened in any way.”

She said comments that regulation of greenhouse gases should be taken up by Congress, rather than EPA, ignore the fact that Congress has not yet acted and action is necessary.

She said EPA already has the evaluation and enforcement infrastructure in place to address questions about whether air pollution requirements are being met and is the best agency to do so.

For more information on the proposed rule to limit toxic emissions from U.S. power plants, visit [www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics](http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics).

For the March report, “Second Prospective Study: 1990 to 2020,” visit [www.epa.gov/air/sect812](http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812).

To take action in support of the Clean Air Act through APHA, visit [www.apha.org/advocacy](http://www.apha.org/advocacy).

*   Copyright The Nation’s Health, American Public Health Association