Roundtable: Judith Enck

Q: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying to undercut the Obama administration’s efforts to set stricter clean-air standards at the local level. Is that a risk?

JE: I think it’s unlikely to undercut the effort. What we’re talking about is the Clean Power Plan, also known as Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. This is a regulation that the EPA is moving forward with that for the first time ever would require reductions in greenhouse gas pollutions from fossil fuel power plants. It will cover not-yet-built and proposed fossil fuel plants—oil, gas and coal—and also existing fossil fuel power plants. This is one of the most important regulations that the EPA has ever proposed in the area of climate change.

I think a lot of people are surprised that there is not yet national regulation of carbon pollution from fossil fuel power plants. The way we’re doing this is a little different. It’s very flexible and it’s very cognizant of the need to ensure reliability and of potential cost to ratepayers. The way we’re doing it is, if you look at how we regulated pollution that causes acid rain, we came with numbers and said for every large fossil fuel plant you can’t emit X amount of sulfur dioxide or X amount of nitrogen oxide.

This approach is much more flexible. It shifts a lot of the decision-making to the state. We give each state renewable energy goals and energy efficiency goals with the intention of driving down carbon pollution. We say to each state, you figure out how you get there. So it’s expanded the role for the states. So the question logically becomes, what if a state chooses not to do a plan? Or more likely, if they do a plan that’s inadequate, what happens? What happens is, if a state fails to do a plan or do an effective plan, the EPA is obligated to develop a plan for the state. You can’t just say, I’m going to take a pass on this regulation or do an inadequate plan. If the state doesn’t do it, the EPA will do it. My guess is states would prefer doing their own plan. The plan then comes to the EPA for approval. If there are inadequacies, we will talk to the state and try to make sure that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Q: Is climate change having any tangible impact in New York right now?

JE: Yes. New York’s climate is already changing. We’ve got hotter annual temperatures, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme rain events. In the summertime, the afternoon rainstorms are much more intense than they used to be. A lot more rain comes down in a short period of time, completely overwhelming the sewer system in New York City. The easiest response is that sea level rise is increasing. Also, there are health impacts of hotter New York summers, especially for people on fixed incomes who can’t afford air conditioning.

Climate change is not something in the future. It’s here and now. While I know that there is some skepticism, but not much, actually, among community people, what really drove climate change home for so many New Yorkers was Superstorm Sandy. We can’t say that climate change caused the storm, but what we can say is that the warmer ocean temperature made Sandy much more intense than it would have been. So 44 people died in New York City due to Sandy, and we’ve got highly vulnerable populations living in coastal areas. Remember how people living in public housing were without electricity for a long time. I remember a media report about the debate on whether or not to evacuate a nursing home in Coney Island and everything that goes along with those hard decisions. So I am afraid that there are tangible impacts in New York right now due to climate change.

That’s why it’s so urgent as a coastal community that we have an effective national strategy that does two things. One is drive down carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. And then secondly, start building more resilient communities. There are some really modest, common-sense steps we can take on resiliency. Then there are the more profound issues, like where do we build and where do we rebuild and should we be building on flood plains? Should we building structures over the Hudson River that we know are vulnerable to climate change impacts? Whenever there’s an infrastructure decision to be made, part of the decision-making process has to include the potential impacts of climate change, whether that’s transportation or housing or where water treatment plants are built.

Q: Several coal-fired power plants in New York are being repowered with natural gas. What are the pros and cons of this trend?

JE: If it’s currently burning coal, burning natural gas will likely have less air pollution at the smokestack. But then you’ve got to look at how you get the natural gas. Is there a whole different set of environmental management concerns with natural gas extraction? The conversation should not be if you should have backup power or co-powering with coal or gas. The real question is, why aren’t we making a dramatic increase in investments in energy efficiency and renewables? The cheapest power plant is one you don’t have to build. If you get really serious about energy efficiency, not only does that drive down carbon pollution, it also saves utility ratepayers money and it creates scores of new jobs.

Q: The Cuomo administration announced late last year that it would ban hydrofracking in New York. What is the EPA’s current stance on fracking?

JE: We’re working with states and other stakeholders to help ensure that natural gas extraction does not come at the expense of public health and the environment.