Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies WEBINAR SERIES EPA S REGULATORY AGENDA Discussion Topic: Utility Air Toxics Rule July 13, 2011 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m.
Welcome and Overview of Webinar Series Moderator: Gina E. Wood, Director of Policy and Planning Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and the environment. Critical to this mission, is engaging with others to help reach those most impacted by environmental hazards. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is a leading research and public policy organization that identifies critical issues and elevates new voices to the policy discussions. Today we are launching a webinar series to inform and engage a broader audience in the EPA's regulatory activities. Important takeaways from today s webinar: Understand EPA s Regulatory Agenda, both climate rules and air rules Solid understanding of the health benefits associated with the standards and potential for job creation Lessons learned about the availability and cost-effectiveness of the technologies to comply with the proposed rule to reduce emissions 2
Our Experts Dina Kruger is the founder and principal of Kruger Environmental Strategies, a firm focused on climate, clean energy, and environmental issues. Previously, she was the Director of the Climate Change Division at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has spent many years on legislative efforts surrounding environmental issues. Leslie G. Fields is the National Environmental Justice and Community Partnerships Director of the Sierra Club in Washington, DC and an adjunct law professor at Howard University School of Law. She currently serves on the Commission to Engage African Americans on Climate Change, and has worked with community groups, nonprofit organizations, the private sector and all levels of government. Jerome Ringo is the CEO of Syngery Global Development Group, an environmental justice group. He is a dedicated champion of environmental justice and a vocal advocate of clean energy. His firsthand knowledge of the challenges faced by low-income and minority communities stems from having worked for more than 20 years in Louisiana's petrochemical industry. Currently, Mr. Ringo testifies on environmental justice issues before the United States Congress. 3
Dina Kruger Kruger Environmental Strategies July 13, 2011
EPA s Regulatory Agenda Update on the Utility Air Toxics Rule How can you get involved? Kruger Environmental Strategies
July 29: Expected Release of Final Determination in Reconsideration of 2008 Ozone NAAQS August 4: Last day to submit written comments on the Utility Air Toxics Rule Late August: Expected Release of Final Rule on GHG Emissions from Medium and Heavy-duty Vehicles Kruger Environmental Strategies
September 30: Release of Proposal to Establish Standards for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities (court-ordered deadline) October 31: Release of Proposal on the Reconsideration of the Boiler Air Toxics (MACT) Rule November 16: Release of Final Rule on Utility Air Toxics (court-ordered deadline) December 15: Release of Proposal to Establish Standards for GHG Emissions from Refineries (courtordered deadline) Kruger Environmental Strategies
Reduces emissions of toxic air pollutants from power plants Regulates new and existing coal and oil-fired facilities Responsible for the majority of toxic air emissions from this sector Will control mercury, hazardous air pollutants and air toxics Metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel) Acid gases (e.g., hydrogen chloride) Organic air toxics (dioxins and furans) Kruger Environmental Strategies
1990 Clean Air Act required EPA to study power plant toxics and determine if regulation would be appropriate and necessary In 2000, after completing several studies, EPA determined Yes, regulation is appropriate and necessary and listed Mercury as a hazardous air pollutant In 2005, EPA delisted power plants from the CAA toxic provisions. Instead, EPA finalized a rule regulating mercury from power plants under a different part of the Clean Air Act EPA was sued, and in 2008, the Court found EPA s action illegal. The rule was vacated and remanded back to EPA to do over The March 2011 proposed rule re-lists power plants as a sector under the toxic air program, and addresses mercury emissions as well as other air toxics emitted by power plants Kruger Environmental Strategies
Strict Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT ) emission limits for coal and oil plants Mercury, particulate matter (proxy for heavy metals) and Hydrogen Chloride (proxy for acid gases) Work Practice standards (good combustion requirements) Dioxins and furans Kruger Environmental Strategies
Some power plants have already installed at least some of the required these controls A wide range of widely available, technical and economically feasible practices, technologies and compliance strategies are available Other power plants will have to install new controls EPA finds that about 44% of coal-fired power plants do not have advanced pollution control equipment Some power plants may retire rather than invest in controls EPA is not projecting significant retirements Kruger Environmental Strategies
The power sector is currently responsible for: 50% of the mercury emissions in the U.S. 50% of the acid gas emissions in the U.S. About 25% of the toxic metal emissions in the U.S. Rule will reduce power sector emissions: Mercury: 91% reduction from coal plants Acid gases: 91% reduction from all power plants SO2: 55% reduction from all power plants Kruger Environmental Strategies
EPA anticipates that this rule will cost $10.9 billion/year to implement EPA estimates average energy price increase of $3-4/month Benefits are much larger: $59-140 billion/year Avoided premature deaths Lost days at work and school due to sickness Neurological damage Cancer, heart, and lung diseases $5 13 in health benefits for every $1 in costs Kruger Environmental Strategies
You can provide input ( comments ) to EPA on its regulations: The public has the opportunity to comment on all proposed regulations EPA will announce the length of the public comment period (usually 60-90 days) when it issues a proposed rule Written comments can be submitted on all rules For many rules, public hearings are also held (usually 1 to 3 hearings at different locations around the U.S.) EPA must evaluate and respond to all public comments in a public written record that is available after the rule becomes final Utility Air Toxic Rule Comment Period ends August 4 th! Kruger Environmental Strategies
Contact Information: Dina Kruger, Principal Kruger Environmental Strategies dina@krugerstrategies.com 301.801.9676
Just About Everything You Wanted to Know About the Air Toxics Rule* Leslie G. Fields, Esq. Director Environmental Justice Community Partnership Program Sierra Club *But were Afraid to Ask
Overview of Action On March 16, EPA proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the first national standards to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal-and oil-fired power plants often the biggest contributors to air pollution Standards would reduce emissions of: Metals, including mercury (Hg), arsenic, chromium, and nickel Acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) Particulate matter These pollutants are linked to cancer, IQ loss, heart disease, lung disease and premature death Standards create uniform emissions-control requirements based on proven, currently in-use technologies and processes Compliance time line set by Clean Air Act: up to 4 years (3 years plus an additional year if granted by the permitting authority) EPA is also proposing a new source performance standard (NSPS) for particulate, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from new sources 17
Toxic Emissions from Power Plants Are a Serious Public Health Concern Power plants release mercury, arsenic, other metals, acid gases, and particles that all harm people s health. Uncontrolled releases of mercury from power plants damage children s developing brains, reducing their IQ and their ability to learn Mercury and many of the other toxic pollutants also pollute our nation s lakes, streams, and fish Other metals such as arsenic, chromium, and nickel can cause cancer Acid gases cause lung damage and contribute to asthma, bronchitis and other chronic respiratory disease, especially in children and the elderly Particles cause premature death and a wide range of lung and heart diseases 18
Toxic Emissions from Power Plants Are a Serious Public Health Concern Due to the legacy of discriminatory sitting, racism and economic disempowerment, a large number of African Americans and other people of color live in neighborhoods with much higher average exposure to air pollution of every type.[1] Air pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants harms communities of color. Nationwide, 80% of Hispanic-Americans and 71% of African-Americans live in areas that fail to meet one or more EPA air quality standards (as compared to 57% of Caucasians).[2] More than 68 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coalfired power plant, the distance within which the maximum effects of the smokestack plume are expected to occur. In comparison, 56 percent of whites live in such proximity to a coal-fired power plant.[3] [1] Horner and Robinson, A Climate of Change: African American, Global Warming and A Just Climate Policy for the U.S., July, 2008 at 12. [2] Earth Day Network, National Civic Education Project, http://www.earthday.org/campaign/national-civic-education-project [3] Clean Air Task Force, The Black Leadership Forum, The Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice, Georgia Coalition for the Peoples Agenda, and Clear the Air, Air of Injustice report, 2002, http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/air_of_injustice.pdf 19
Toxic Emissions from Power Plants Are a Serious Public Health Concern Air pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants harms the health of people of color, disproportionately. Low-income communities of color have higher rates of asthma than other communities.[1] African-American children have the highest number of asthma attacks among all ethnic groups, and Latino children are 60 percent more likely to suffer from asthma attacks than white children. [2] In Central Harlem, a predominately African American and immigrant neighborhood in New York City, as many as one in four children have asthma.[3] In Maryland, census tracts with the highest proportion of African Americans were three times more likely to have a high risk of air-pollution related cancer than tracts with the lowest proportion.[4] Just south of Philadelphia, in Delaware County, Exelon s Eddystone Generating Station emitted 79 lbs. of toxic mercury into the air in 2009. Although the Eddystone power plant is slated for closure next year, for decades its deadly air pollution affected more than 230,000 people who live within a 5 mile radius. The population within 3 miles of the Eddystone plant is 27% minority. African-Americans from 5-34 years of age are five times more likely to die of asthma than Caucasians.[5] All this is coupled with the fact that Black and Hispanic people are less likely to have health insurance and access to treatment and preventive care, than Caucasians.[6] [1] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services., ACTION AGAINST ASTHMA: A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 1 (2000), supra note 1, at 26 27. [2] CDC (Center for Disease Control) Health, United States, 2010 report, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf#046 [3] Harlem Hospital, in conjunction with Harlem Children s Zone. Leslie Casimir & Michael Saul, Asthma Crisis in Harlem, DAILY NEWS (N.Y.), Apr. 20, 2003, at 10; Richard Perez-Pena, Study Finds Asthma in 25% of Children in Central Harlem, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 19, 2003, at A1. [4] Supra note 1. [5] Earth Day Network, National Civic Education Project, http://www.earthday.org/campaign/national-civic-education-project [6] U.S. Census, 2009, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/incpovhlth/2009/tab8.pdf 20
Toxic Emissions from Power Plants Are a Serious Public Health Concern People who eat large amounts of fish from mercury-contaminated freshwater lakes and rivers in the U.S. are at the greatest risk of exposure This includes Native American, Laotian, Vietnamese, African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian subsistence fishers and their families The standards would also result in additional reductions of SO2, preventing thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses each year 21
Toxic Emissions from Power Plants Are a Serious Public Health Concern Coal fired power plants, the main source of mercury emissions are responsible for about one-third of the mercury pollution in the US.[1] The airborne mercury from the power plants settles into bodies of water, where microbes convert it into bioavailable methyl mercury and it is consumed by fish.[2] Mercury levels then accumulate through the food chain with large carnivorous fish like bass and tuna having the highest concentrations.[3] [1] Supra note 1 at 14. [2] Supra note 1 at 14. [3] Supra note 1 at 14. 22
Toxic Emissions from Power Plants Are a Serious Public Health Concern Mercury pollution is widespread in U.S. waterways. Currently 48 states have issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury contamination, including 23 states that have issued statewide advisories for all of their lakes and rivers.[1] These advisories reflect a serious health threat to recreational anglers (including the 1.4 million African Americans who fish recreationally and are more likely to eat what they catch[2]) and communities who regularly fish as a mainstay of their diet. These fish advisories, although well-intentioned push the burden of action on the people who are least to blame for the mercury contamination. These advisories may not convey the information in the relevant language of the local fishing population, such as in Vietnamese in the Gulf coast or in Spanish. These advisories may be hard to understand, for that matter by people who are not literate in English. Such advisories may easily become dislodged or damaged by weather, vandals etc. [1] Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Fact Sheet: 2005/2006 National Listing of Fish Advisories. (July 2007)(http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/2006/tech.pdf) [2] Supra note 1 at 14. 23
Toxic Emissions from Power Plants Are a Serious Public Health Concern Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin and exposure can have serious health effects, particularly for children and developing fetuses. At very high levels, in utero mercury exposure can cause cerebral palsy, mental retardation, blindness and deafness.[1] More typically, chronic, lowlevel exposure caused by fish consumption can impair mental function later in life, including IQ, attention, fine motor function, language and memory. Because mercury accumulates in the body for long periods of time, all women of childbearing age are advised to avoid mercury exposure, in addition to pregnant and nursing women.[2] [1] Supra note 1 at 14. [2] Supra note 1 at 14. 24
Power Plants Are the Largest Remaining Source of Mercury Emissions in the U.S. In 1990 three source categories made up approximately two-thirds of total U.S. mercury emissions: municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and power plants Two of the three are now subject to federal emissions standards So are many other industries such as cement plants and steel manufacturers Today, 20 years after 1990 CAA Amendments passed, no federal limit for toxic emissions including mercury exists for coal- or oil-fired power plants Industrial Category 1990 Emissions tons per year (tpy) 2005 Emissions (tpy) % Reduction Power Plants 59 53 10% Municipal Waste Combustors Medical Waste Incinerators 57 2 96% 51 <1 >98% Source: EPA s 2005 NATA Inventory Modified for the Toxics Rule 2005 Base Year (2010) 25
Fish Advisories for Mercury are Everywhere Source: EPA website http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories/upload/ 5 2009_09_22_fish_advisories_nlfaslides.pdf 26
In the U.S., Power Plants Emit:
Location of Coal and Oil Power Plants Source: National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS 4.10) (EPA, December 2010) 28
Many Existing Coal Units Lack Advanced Controls Percentage of existing units still without advanced SO2 and/or 44% NOX controls 47% Data sources: EPA Base Case v.4.10 PTR 29
What the Toxics Rule Proposes Coal and oil-fired power plants are covered by this rule All hazardous air pollutants must have standards EPA must set emission standards for existing sources in the category that are at least as stringent as the emission reductions achieved by the average of the top 12% best controlled sources for source categories with 30 or more sources. Requirements for Coal-Fired Units Mercury: numeric emission limit would prevent 91% of mercury in coal from being released to the air Acid gases: HCl numeric emission limit as a surrogate, with an alternate surrogate of SO2 Non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants such as arsenic and chromium: numeric emission limit for total PM as a surrogate, with alternate surrogate of total metal air toxics Organic air toxics (including dioxin): Work practice standards, instead of numeric standards, due to low-detected emission levels. Would ensure optimal combustion, preventing dioxin/furan emissions Source: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/presentation.pdf 30
What the Toxics Rule Proposes (cont.) Requirements for Oil-Fired Units Acid gases: Numerical HCl and HF emission limits Metal air toxics: Numerical emission limits for total metal air toxics (including Hg) with individual metal air toxics as alternate. Organic air toxics (including dioxin): Work practice standards, instead of numeric standards, due to low-detected emission levels. Would ensure optimal combustion, preventing dioxin/furan emissions. Source: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/presentation.pdf 31
Affected Facilities: 1,350 Coal and Oil- Fired Units at 525 Power Plants Approximately 1,200 coal-fired units 45% percent of nationwide electricity generation Bituminous coal ~ 50% of coal generation Subbituminous ~45% of coal generation Lignite ~ 5% of coal generation Includes units that burn coal, coal refuse, or a synthetic gas derived from coal or solid oil (e.g. petroleum coke) either exclusively, in any combination together, or in any combination with other supplemental fuels (e.g., tirederived fuels) Approximately 150 oil-fired units 1% of nationwide electricity generation Natural gas power plants are not affected by this rule EPA expects most facilities would install technologies to comply with this rule 32
Benefits of the Proposed Toxic Rule Are Significant This proposed rule would help reduce the risk of damage to children s developing brains, which results in IQ loss and diminished ability to learn Protects Americans from cancer and other health risks from exposure to metals such as arsenic, chromium, and nickel Saves thousands of lives each year by reducing the amount of dangerous particulates across the country This includes neighborhoods near power plants and neighborhoods hundreds of miles away from the nearest power plant Protects thousands of lakes and streams and the fish that live there and the mammals and birds that eat them from mercury and acid rain pollution Provides employment for tens of thousands of American workers building, installing, and operating the equipment to reduce emissions of mercury, acid gases, and other toxic air pollutants Source: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/presentation.pdf 33
Proposed Toxic Rule Health Benefits in Detail The value of the improvements to health alone total $59 billion to $140 billion each year This means that for every dollar spent to reduce this pollution, we would get $5- $13 in health benefits Each year, the proposed rule would prevent serious health effects including: 6,800-17,000 premature deaths 11,000 heart attacks 120,000 asthma attacks 850,000 missed work or sick days Avoiding sick days saves companies and families money. It is particularly important for the millions of Americans whose jobs do not provide paid sick leave and who risk losing their jobs if they miss work too often The proposed rule would also prevent 12,200 hospital admissions and emergency room visits; 4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis; and 5,100,000 days when people must restrict their activities each year Source: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/presentation.pdf 34
Sources Can Achieve These Standards Proven control technologies to reduce these emissions such as scrubbers, fabric filters, and activated carbon injection are widely available Many units already use one or more of these technologies As a result of this standard, some power plants will upgrade existing controls (especially particulate matter controls like electrostatic precipitators) Power plants may also install new controls (such as fabric filters, dry sorbent injection, or activated carbon injection) 35
Key Power Plant Rules Overdue 1990: Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to issue standards to reduce toxic air emissions from many sources, and to study whether to do so for power plants Since then, EPA has issued air toxics standards for most major source categories except power plants 1998: EPA released the Utility Toxics Study Report to Congress 2000: EPA listed power plants for regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) air toxics provisions EPA determined it was appropriate and necessary to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from power plants Mercury cited as pollutant of greatest concern but other toxics of potential concern include arsenic, chromium, cadmium, nickel, hydrochloric acid, dioxin/furan 2005: EPA reversed power plant finding EPA determined it was neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate HAP emissions from power plants and removed those units from the CAA section 112(c) source category list EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which regulated mercury from power plants through a cap and trade program under CAA section 111 2008: DC Circuit Court vacated EPA's action removing power plants from the section 112(c) source category list and CAMR 2011: EPA is under consent decree to issue proposed toxics standards for power plants by March 16, 2011, and issue final standards by November 16, 2011 Source: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/presentation.pdf 36
The Proposed Toxics Rule Doesn t Only Save Lives, It Also Creates Jobs Money spent on pollution control at power plants creates high-quality American jobs Jobs manufacturing steel, cement and other materials needed to build pollution control equipment Jobs creating and assembling pollution control equipment Jobs installing the equipment at power plants Jobs operating and maintaining the equipment once it is installed This rule will provide employment for thousands, by supporting 31,000 shortterm construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs Source: EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis 37
Here are all the ways you can submit comments: 1) E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. **Note: To make sure all email comments are counted correctly, please put the docket number included in the email or (preferably, according to EPA) in the subject line.** 2) Regulations.gov website (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 3) EPA Air and Radiation Docket Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 4) Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. 5) Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 2050 38
SAMPLE LETTER Dear EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, As members of the environmental and public health communities, we write to applaud you for your proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, which significantly cuts toxic air pollution from power plants. As you work to finalize this rule, we urge you to keep the final rule just as strong as or stronger than the proposed version. Our families should be able to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and eat fish without worrying about mercury in their bloodstream, soot in their lungs, or lead in their water. Yet coal-fired power plants spew hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous air pollutants like these into our air and water every year. These pollutants are linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death. When coal-fired power plants emit mercury from their smokestacks, rain, snow, and dust particles wash it out of the air, onto land, into waterways, and ultimately into our food chain. Mercury pollution poses particular risks to children, affecting their ability to walk, talk, read, and write, and it is so widespread that as many as one in six women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her blood to put her baby at risk, should she become pregnant. Moreover, low-income and minority communities often bear a greater burden of the effects of toxic pollution from power plants, as they live closer to the polluting facilities than most Americans. Because mercury is the most common contaminant in fish in the U.S., every state has set some sort of fish advisory due to unsafe levels of the toxic pollutant. Wildlife that is exposed to mercury may die or, depending upon the level of exposure, have reduced fertility or complete reproductive failure, as well as slower growth and development, and other vulnerabilities. High levels of mercury have been found in species at every level in the food chain, threatening many different species, including the common loon in Maine and the endangered Florida panther. Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury pollution, arsenic and acid gases, and account for 25 percent of all toxic metal emissions in the United States. Furthermore, coal-fired power plants are responsible for 99 percent of all mercury emissions from the power sector in the United States. For decades, the coal industry and its powerful allies have successfully delayed implementation of strong standards to cut the emissions of toxic air pollutants from their facilities, going so far as to work with Bush administration officials to set a severely flawed and illegal standard that yielded few, if any, actual health benefits. Thank you for proposing a strong standard that will for the first time cut mercury emissions from power plants nationwide by 91 percent, reduce arsenic and acid gases by 91 percent, prevent 12,200 trips to the hospital, and save up to 17,000 lives each year once it is implemented. We urge you to keep the standard just as strong as or stronger than the proposed rule when you finalize the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule in November. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Sincerely, 39
Contact Information Leslie G. Fields Director, National Environmental Justice and Community Partnerships Program Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW Eighth Floor Washington DC 20001 Leslie.Fields@sierraclub.org www.sierraclub.org/ejcp 40
Synergy Global Development Group Jerome C. Ringo Chief Executive Officer 337.802.4546 Jerome.Ringo@SynergyGDG.com As CEO, Jerome Ringo works diligently at promoting Synergy s vision. He is a dedicated champion of environmental justice and a vocal advocate of clean energy. His firsthand knowledge of the challenges faced came from working for more than 20 years in Louisiana s petrochemical industry. As he began observing the negative impacts of the industry s pollution on local communities; primarily poor, minority communities, he began organizing community environmental justice groups. His experience in organizing environmental and labor communities, and his drive to further diversify the environmental movement encouraged many to create a broad based coalition to provide real solutions for our energy crisis. As a result, in 2005, as President of the Apollo Alliance, he built a coalition of over 17 million members. In 1996, Mr. Ringo was elected to serve on the National Wildlife Federation board of directors. In 2005, he became the chair of the board, making him the first African American to head a major conservation organization. Mr. Ringo was a delegate to the United States 1998 Global Warming Treaty Negotiations in Kyoto, Japan, and represented the National Wildlife Federation at the COP 15 talks in Copenhagen, Denmark. Ringo also served as a representative at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 1999. In 2006, Mr. Ringo was a McCloskey Fellow and Associate Research Scholar at Yale University s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. In 2008, he was a Visiting Lecturer at the University of California, Santa Barbara s Bren School of the Environment. Mr. Ringo appeared in the Academy Award Winning Documentary An Inconvenient Truth. He has also co-authored Diversity and the Future of the U.S. Environmental Movement (published 2007), and The Green Festival Reader (published 2008.) Mr. Ringo inspires audiences around the world to create a new clean energy economy. Some of his most notable speaking appearances include: * the Montreal Climate Summit in 2006 * the United Nations African Climate Conference in Nairobi, Kenya in 2006 * the Kyoto Plus Conference in Berlin, Germany in 2007 * the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. Mr. Ringo continues to actively testify on numerous Environmental Justice issues within U.S. Congress, House and Senate, for Green / Clean development and accountability matters.
Additional Information If you are interested in submitting public comments on the EPA proposed rules, please visit http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/getinvolved.html To view the slides presented today or to view this webinar again, please visit http://jointcenter.org/institutes/climate-change **Please join us next month as we discuss the EPA s Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Reconsideration. For more information: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 www.jointcenter.org 42