The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted several new rules designed to reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants and improve public health, but some of the standards still await final approval. Environmental and public health advocates have applauded the tougher standards, and a number of industry groups have said they are well positioned to comply with the new rules. The rules will provide businesses with the regulatory certainty that firms say they need to invest in modern pollution-control technologies. Moreover, major power and energy companies say that these new standards will yield important economic benefits.

On July 6, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) requiring states to reduce power plant emissions of air pollutants that contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution in other states. The agency is also under a court-ordered deadline to finalize proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants (MATS) by Nov. 16. The MATS rule, also known as the "Air Toxics Rule," would set national emissions standards for mercury, arsenic, and other toxic air pollution from power plants. The tougher standards would save between 6,800 and 17,000 lives and prevent 11,000 heart attacks per year.

In comments submitted to EPA on the proposed MATS rule, the Clean Energy Group, a coalition of electric utilities and power companies, including PG&E, Calpine, Exelon, and Consolidated Edison, Inc., wrote that overall, "the proposal is reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act." The comment stated "that the electric sector is well-positioned to comply" with the new standards and encouraged EPA to complete the rule as scheduled. Exelon Corp., in separate comments, urged the agency to implement the rule as quickly as possible, arguing that "delaying or weakening [the rule] will harm our health and economic well-being." According to Exelon, the rule "will provide the certainty that industry desperately needs to modernize and improve" and will encourage "investment in a clean, modern, efficient generation fleet, thus promoting long-term economic health for both the electric industry and the nation as a whole." These national emissions standards will also help level the playing field between companies striving to meet modern emissions standards and competitors that have failed to adapt to technological advances.

In fact, a Congressional Research Service review of evidence illustrates that the primary impacts of EPA rules will be on inefficient units "more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls." These are units that can and should be modernized or replaced. For those plants that are retired, a study released Aug. 10 by the American Clean Skies Foundation finds that communities can repurpose retired coal-fired power plant sites and capitalize on opportunities to create healthier environments, foster new business activity, and encourage job development.

"By spurring entrepreneurs who have good ideas and the drive to work hard, the EPA has helped give rise to countless small businesses in clean energy, advanced lighting, pollution control and more, which in turn are creating jobs," wrote David McKinney, CEO of Clean Light Green Light, a manufacturer of high-power LED lighting solutions.

Nonetheless, the American Chemistry Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable are attacking the new EPA rules and predicting devastating impacts on the power sector. However, the CRS review showed that recent reports by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) overstated the costs of environmental and health standards and ignored the benefits.

Anti-environmental industry groups are also stepping up their pressure to delay implementation of a new ozone rule until 2013. In the meantime, several of these groups are scheduled to meet with President Obama’s pro-business chief of staff, William Daley, in what looks like an attempt to bypass established practices and the president's executive orders on regulatory compliance and open government, as well as a Clinton-era executive order that attempts to shield the regulatory review process from undue industry and political influence.

On the other side, nine senators have written to Obama expressing "disappointment at the Administration’s continued delay in setting a health-protective ozone air quality standard." The new ozone rule has been delayed four times, despite the fact that the current standard allows emissions that exceed scientific recommendations. The Aug. 11 letter faulted the opponents for "ignoring 40 years of data demonstrating that clean air investments are good for public health and the economy."