Environmental advocates fear EPA air quality rollbacks could particularly harm Mainers' health
Environmental advocates fear that cutting federal regulations meant to curb pollution and lower carbon emissions could be acutely felt in Maine.
'Bottom line, if the EPA is successful in weakening these critical environmental safeguards at the national level, then Maine would suffer harm from the air pollution and toxic pollution from upwind fossil fuel plants,' said Pete Didisheim, advocacy director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, in a news release Thursday.
Didisheim is referring to the more than 30 proposals from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin to roll back environmental regulations on coal-fired power plants, water pollution, vehicle emissions and more. Specifically, it includes changes to the 'Good Neighbor' policy meant to address air pollution traveling downwind to other communities that could be particularly helpful to Maine.
The changes unveiled Wednesday were framed as part of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to encourage energy production and cut regulations focused on slowing climate change.
Despite the EPA's mission to 'protect human health and the environment,' these policy changes would instead prioritize the interests of fossil fuel companies, said Maine Conservation Voters Deputy Director Rani Sheaffer.
'Maine families deserve clean air and water, and corporate profits of the already wealthy shouldn't be prioritized over the health of our communities,' she said.
The proposed changes won't go into effect immediately. Most of them will need to undergo a long rulemaking process that includes the opportunity for public input.
Because of that, Didisheim said 'now is the time for Maine people to speak up in defense of EPA's mission.'
The council fears the changes could not only harm the air, water and other natural resources that are vital to Maine's economy, but also be detrimental to public health in a state already grappling with high respiratory problems.
About one in nine Mainers has asthma, which is higher than the national average, according to state data. Prevailing winds carry pollution from upwind power plants in other states into Maine, so the council is concerned that removing pollution-reducing requirements could exacerbate problems for elderly Mainers, children and those with respiratory issues.
Given that geographic positioning, Didisheim said Maine could have 'the most to lose if the 'Good Neighbor Rule' is abandoned.'
Before the Good Neighbor rule was adopted in 2023, the EPA estimated it could prevent 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits, as well as cut asthma symptoms by 1.3 million cases in 2026 alone by reducing air pollution.
The council is also worried about backsliding on pollution standards for power plants, particularly the proposal to overturn the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants.
'These common-sense rules are on track to deliver overwhelmingly positive outcomes for the nation, including preventing premature deaths, reducing hospital visits, and eliminating toxic mercury pollution that threatens public health and pollutes our waters and wildlife,' Didisheim said.
The EPA projected the updated standards could have eliminated 1,000 pounds of mercury and 65,000 tons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of a gas-powered car driving more than 150 million miles — in 2028.
Mercury pollution from upwind power plants has been a concern for Maine over the past few decades, the council said. Maine fish, loons and eagles have some of the highest mercury levels in North America, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The state has recommended pregnant women, women of childbearing age and young children limit their fish consumption since 1994 because of persistently high mercury levels.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump plans sitdown with Putin, Zelensky in first meeting between leaders since Ukraine war began: source
WASHINGTON — President Trump intends to meet with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, orchestrating what would be the first sitdown between the warring leaders since Moscow launched its invasion of Kyiv in February 2022. Trump, 79, informed European leaders of his plan in a call following special presidential envoy Steve Witkoff's meeting with Putin at the Kremlin early Wednesday. Neither belligerent has confirmed plans for any meeting, but Ukraine has been seeking a face-to-face with Putin for months. 3 Vladimir Putin at a meeting in the Kremlin. POOL/AFP via Getty Images 3 Trump is planning a one-on-one with Putin. SAMUEL CORUM/POOL/EPA/Shutterstock 3 New York Post's front page: Breaking Vlad. Trump is likely to meet one-on-one with Putin before trying to arrange a trilateral summit. Should Putin and Zelensky agree to meet, it would be a major breakthrough for Trump in his months-long quest to bring the European war to an end.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Congressional appropriators move to maintain Energy Star funding
This story was originally published on Facilities Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Facilities Dive newsletter. When the Senate Appropriations Committee July 24 passed its fiscal 2026 funding bill for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it included language to fund the Energy Star program at $36 million, the same as in fiscal 2024. 'The Committee recognizes the value of and continues to support the Energy Star program,' it states in the report that accompanies the bill. House appropriators passed their version of the bill July 22, and it also included language funding the program, at a lower amount. 'Within the [clean air] funds provided, at least $32,000,000 is for the Energy Star program,' says a committee-passed amendment to the House bill report. The two bills still face floor votes and reconciliation into a single bill before the legislation goes to President Donald Trump for signature into law, but by shining a spotlight on Energy Star as a priority, lawmakers are sending a message they want to see the Trump administration maintain a program that's been popular in both political parties since it was enacted in 1992, program backers say. The 'strong bipartisan support' for the Energy Star program is 'one bright spot in the spending bills,' Sabine Rogers, federal policy manager at the U.S. Green Building Council, said on the organization's website Aug. 6. The Trump administration hasn't said it wants to eliminate the program, but in its fiscal year 2026 budget request for the EPA, which it released in early May, it eliminated all funding for the Atmospheric Protection Program, which administers Energy Star. 'The Atmospheric Protection Program is an overreach of Government authority that imposes unnecessary and radical climate change regulations on businesses and stifles economic growth,' the administration said in the budget request. 'This program is eliminated in the 2026 Budget.' The proposal sparked a backlash as a wide range of organizations joined efforts to maintain the program. Some 1,000 companies, nonprofits and public agencies signed their name to a letter urging the EPA director to maintain Energy Star. Among the groups advocating for Energy Star were the Sierra Club, the American Bakers Association, the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance and the International Facility Management Association. It's an 'interesting bedfellows' situation, Justin Koscher, president of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, said in a Grist story. Polyisocyanurate insulation is a commercial roofing product. 'It's not too often you get all of those groups saying the exact same thing on one particular issue.' Critics of the program say energy efficiency standards are something that would be more appropriately managed by the private sector. 'Green purchasing programs assume the federal government needs to meddle in the marketplace by providing its seal of approval on what it deems to be environmentally satisfactory products,' the Competitive Enterprise Institute says in a white paper published in March. 'If there is a need to create a labeling program to ensure credibility and consumer confidence, then private certification organizations should play such a role.' Supporters credit Energy Star's voluntary efficiency standards with saving businesses and consumers some $500 billion in energy spending since the program was created while costing EPA a fraction of that to administer. The program's 'annual budget of approximately $32 million represents less than 1% of EPA's spending,' supporters say in their letter to the EPA director. Despite Congress' support, the program could be at risk if lawmakers fail to pass this and other appropriations bills and rely instead on temporary continuing resolutions to fund programs, Rogers says in her U.S. Green Building Council update. A full-year continuing resolution, she said, 'will likely not include detailed congressional direction or specific funding levels for most programs, giving the administration more flexibility to determine how funds are spent within agencies. That could leave the ENERGY STAR program vulnerable to being defunded or privatized.' Recommended Reading IFMA adds its name to Energy Star fight Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
