By Sue Leake
EMERADO, N.D. -- I'm writing to correct a few errors found in Mac McLennan's recent letter ("Thanks for opposing EPA's haze plan," Page D3, Nov. 27).
McLennan thanks those Herald readers who opposed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's lifesaving clean air plan.
But he fails to mention that of the 28,000 members of the public who participated in the public process, an overwhelming majority of them supported the EPA's haze plan. The ratio was more than 6 to 1.
More than 24,000 members of the public told EPA they want healthier air in North Dakota. They support the use of proven technologies to significantly reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants in North Dakota.
ADVERTISEMENT
While I'm not one of those 24,000, put me down as number 24,001.
McLennan also made some claims about electricity rates.
But judging by a recent study on the matter, I think he may be confused.
The study was done by an economist and expert in utility planning and regulation. It looked at how electric rates would increase due solely to EPA's proposed changes.
No one disputes that pollution controls cost money; after all, that's one reason why they're such great economic stimulators and job creators (EPA's proposed changes are expected to create 5,100 temporary jobs and 130 permanent new positions in North Dakota).
The study predicts that rates will increase 0.6 to 10 percent, depending on your supplier -- nowhere near the 35 percent or more that some have claimed.
These costs are reasonable in light of the significant benefits and are similar to the costs of other power plants around the country that have to clean up.
Remember, too, that those other power plants had to comply with clean air standards decades ago, but the old North Dakota plants had an exemption pushed through by North Dakota's congressional delegation. They are living on borrowed time.
ADVERTISEMENT
And EPA's plan also would have another economic impact. Ninety percent less pollution would significantly lower America's $1.3 billion price tag -- paid by citizens like me, every year -- for health care problems associated with the power plants addressed by EPA.
Fewer asthma attacks, heart attacks, respiratory problems and premature deaths ... clearer skies for our families, communities and national parks ...
It is time for North Dakota's power plants to come into line with the rest of the nation. Dilution never has been the solution to pollution, even in North Dakota.
I'd like to thank McLennan for all the advertising his company did to "Stop the EPA"; the comments generated by the public were so overwhelmingly in favor of the EPA regulations, so it's obvious that his "Stop EPA" campaign hit a nerve.
Sorry, Mr. McLennan, but the state- and industry-purchased lobbyists just weren't successful in convincing me and other members of the public that clean air isn't important.
Leake is secretary of the Dakota chapter the Sierra Club.
