Some nights the flares that burn off excess toxic gases at the Indorama ethylene oxide plant in Groves, Texas, are so powerful they rattle the windows of the house across the street. Often — 500 times since 2003, state records show — the plant malfunctions and releases extra pollution beyond what its permits already allow.
Five hundred times.
Not incidentally, a few years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that the cancer risk from ethylene oxide for people who live near Indorama was 20 times higher than the highest acceptable cancer risk.
Twenty times.
This is another way of saying that there’s already too much pollution in Groves. The community ranks in the 98th percentile nationally for vulnerability to cancer risk from toxic air pollution. But the plant was still given one of the Trump administration’s exemptions to ignore certain standards under our national clean air law.
A new investigation by the New York Times provides the most detailed look to date at how the exemptions came to pass, revealing the process through which the administration maneuvered to allow some of the country’s dirtiest facilities to do their worst, “prioritizing the economic interests of corporations and easing costs for polluting industries” at taxpaypers’ expense.
We’ve sketched out that process here before. Trump’s EPA set up a special email address and invited hundreds of facilities to ask for exemptions for all kinds of pollutants. One request was sent from an iPhone: “Hello, I am a gas company looking for an exemption. How do I start?”
It didn’t take much more than that. Companies didn’t even need to make a case, as it turns out, as long as they invoked “national security” or claimed certain technology wasn’t “widely available.” As the Times reports, “The president approved [the exemptions] even though the equipment was readily accessible and the industry’s national security claims had little detail to substantiate them.”
So far, 71 coal plants, 71 chemical plants, 40 medical sterilizers, 19 steel-related facilities and one copper smelter have received passes. At least 3.3 million people live within three miles of one of them.
And what’s more? Even after the supposed deadline came and went, industrial facilities didn’t stop asking, and the Trump administration didn’t stop handing out exemptions, records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by Environmental Defense Fund show. “Giving companies a pass to delay long-needed, commonsense pollution controls puts more Americans in harm’s way,” Erin Murphy, an attorney at EDF, said.
Stories from the States
Texas
“National security” is the same justification the Trump administration has given repeatedly for its hostility toward clean energy, but Texas has been proving that it’s just as flimsy in this case, too.
In fact, a surge of new clean energy has only made the state’s grid more secure. This very hot summer, Texas set records for demand. But the rapid deployment of solar, wind and battery storage over the past five years kept the grid humming, even as the state added people. On 94% of days this summer, the grid was running on mostly clean energy at one point at least.
Just watch solar rise to the occasion:
The grid’s performance — and the utter disappearance of conservation alerts from ERCOT, the grid’s operator — is a direct rebuke of claims that clean energy isn’t reliable, Colin Leyden, Tom Brindle and Ian Lloyd write.
And it makes the case for more investment in wind, solar and battery storage in the years to come. “This year has shown how an open and free energy market in Texas has resulted in a strong and reliable grid that keeps cost and pollution down,” they write. “As the next legislative session approaches, Texas should ensure the market stays this way.”
Want to nerd out? Click through an interactive calendar that details the state’s power share each day this summer.
California
Despite the strong performance of clean energy, California’s latest Climate Change Assessment, though, isn’t quite as sunny.
The assessment arrived with a heavy underline, released the same week the mayor of the state’s largest city called for utility shutoffs to be suspended after months of hellacious heat waves. Relaying “dire projections,” the report suggests that the snowballing costs of blasting air conditioning might only be the beginning. “In just a few decades, summers in California will not only be much hotter, but will also stretch for months longer,” The New York Times reported. “Floods will become more widespread and extreme. Exposure to wildfire smoke will kill thousands more people every year.”
If the assessment makes anything clear, Katelyn Roedner Sutter, who leads Environmental Defense Fund’s work in the state, said, it’s that we can’t afford inaction anymore.
“Everyone pays a high price when our leaders fail to confront the climate crisis. As the Trump administration blocks clean energy and embraces policies accelerating climate change, California must show the world why it can continue to look to us for leadership when it cannot look to D.C.. We’ve pioneered solutions for families on a budget, the climate and our economy. The security and prosperity of future generations depends on having state leaders committed to pressing onward.”