Clean Air

for the
Birmingham
Area

A Publication of the Southern Environmental Law Center

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the health and environment of the
Southeast (Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia). Founded in 1986, SELC’s team of 40 legal
experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast
and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

This report was prepared by Senior Attorneys Gil Rogers and Frank Rambo. GIS mapping by Jovian Sackett. SELC is grateful to
Alabama First, who contributed information to this report.

Photographs: ©Joe O’Donnell (cover); Beth Young (Contents, pages 1, 14, 15, 17); Dorothea Lange (historical photo, page 1);
Ron Sherman (pages 2, 6, 8); Nelson Brooke (page 9); Robert Llewellyn (pages 11, 12).
© 2009 Southern Environmental Law Center

For additional copies of this report, or for more information

about SELC, please visit our web site or contact:
Southern Environmental Law Center
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434-977-4090
Fax 434-977-1483
SouthernEnvironment.org

Limited Grant of License: Community organizations, other nonprofit institutions and government agencies may make and distribute
reproductions of this report for noncommercial, educational purposes. All such copies must include notice of copyright and license.
All other rights reserved.
 Clean Air
for the
Birmingham
Area
Introduction 1

What’s In Birmingham’s Air? 3

What’s Causing the Birmingham Area’s Air Quality Problems? 7

Solutions for Cleaner Air in the Birmingham Area 13

Conclusion 17

I
n the late 1800s, Birmingham was unrivaled
as the industrial center of the southern United
States, widely known as the Steel Capital of the
South. But with the decline of the steel industry in the
late 20th century, the city had to reinvent itself—and
succeeded by becoming a thriving center of health care,
research, and financial services.
Today, with a more stable local economy secured, a
second, equally serious challenge must be met: cleaning
the city’s air.
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company in Birmingham, Alabama, 1936.
Highland Avenue Park, Birmingham, Alabama
Although most of the steel mills that once covered
the city in black soot are gone, Birmingham continues
to face serious air pollution problems. In fact, air qual-
ity in the metro area was recently ranked as the worst
in the South. In 2009, the American Lung Association
placed Birmingham at number 5 on its list of cities with
the highest levels of particle pollution (commonly called
soot), beating out larger cities such as Detroit that are
more often associated with unhealthy air. No other city
in the South appeared even in the top 10 in this ranking.
This trend will continue unless regulatory and policy
changes are made to target the area’s major pollution
sources, mandate better pollution controls, and rein in
unfocused growth that increases driving distances and
tailpipe emissions.
Many pollutants degrade the air in the Birmingham
area, but three pose the greatest risk of harm to the most
citizens:
• Particulate matter (or soot),
• Ozone, and
• Mercury.
Government data show that the Birmingham area
suffers from abnormally high amounts of all three of
these pollutants, which are endangering the health of lo-
cal citizens and the health of the local economy. Elevated
levels of soot, ozone, and mercury contribute significant-
ly to missed school days, missed work days, emergency
room visits, premature deaths, and general environmen-
tal degradation, among other effects. According to the
Jefferson County Department of Public Health, Jefferson
and Shelby Counties have lost $5 billion in economic
investment and have had to turn down 15 major manu-
facturing projects due to dirty air in the greater Birming-
ham area.
1
 With this report, the Southern Environmental Law
Center
• provides details on the amount of soot, ozone, and
mercury in Birmingham’s air and their impacts on
public health and quality of life in the metro area;
• examines the causes of this pollution and how they
can be addressed; and
• offers concrete recommendations for cleaning up
Birmingham’s air, based on what is being done
successfully elsewhere in the region and around
the country.
2
Birmingham’s air challenges are daunting, but area
citizens have reason to be optimistic. If smart choices
are made, and if effective policies are put in place, the
metro area can bring about substantial improvements in
the quality of its air. Not only will these changes benefit
public health, but they can also improve economic health
and prosperity by making the Birmingham area a more
attractive place for people and for businesses to locate.
Miller Steam Plant, Birmingham, Alabama
 What’s in
Birmingham’s Air?
PARTICLE POLLUTION ticles, and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold
Of the “criteria” air pollutants regulated by EPA, spores). These small particles are either emitted directly
particle pollution is the most closely linked to premature into the air or form after gases, such as sulfur dioxide
death.1 Birmingham’s levels have recently been cited as (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), react with water vapor
among the worst in the South; in 2009, The American already in the air.3
Lung Association ranked Birmingham number 5 in its Regardless of how it is formed, particle pollution
list of cities most polluted by both short-term and year- causes environmental damage.4 In the air, it creates hazy
round particle pollution.2 This means that air quality in conditions that reduce visibility. Once it settles on the
the Birmingham area is worse than major industrial hubs ground or the water, it can turn lakes and streams acidic.
like Detroit and larger cities like Atlanta, which have been Particle pollution also stains and damages stone and other
more historically associated with unhealthy air. materials, including culturally significant objects such as
Particle pollution is a mixture of microscopic solids statues and monuments.
and liquid droplets suspended in air. It is made up of a Research has linked exposure to particle pollution
number of components, including acids (such as nitrates with a variety of health problems, such as:
and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust par- • intensified asthma,
• chronic bronchitis,
• irregular heartbeat,
• heart attacks, and
• premature death in people with heart or lung
National Health Benefits disease.5
of Reducing Soot Pollution With these health problems come increased rates of
school absenteeism, emergency room visits and hospital
EPA has established two separate numerical admissions.6 The size of particles is directly linked to the
standards for the maximum allowable sickness and death they cause. EPA has determined that
concentrations of particle pollution.
Failure to meet these standards
carries huge costs. In fact, EPA
analysis shows that the national
benefits of bringing noncompliant
areas into line with both standards
include the value of an estimated
reduction of:
• 2,500 premature deaths,
• 5,000 heart attacks,
• 51,000 cases of asthma and
1,200 asthma-related emergen-
cy room visits,
• 7,300 cases of bronchitis; and
• 350,000 days when people
miss work or school, and
• 2 million days when people
must restrict activities because
of soot-related symptoms.7

3
 Map 1: The Birmingham Area’s Nonattainment Zone
particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter—by
comparison, a human hair is about 70 microm-
eters—pose the greatest health risk because they
can get deep into the lungs and potentially into the
bloodstream.8 (The agency refers to this as fine par-
ticulate matter or “PM2.5”). Furthermore, increases
in concentrations of PM2.5 carry across-the-board
health risks. According to a recent study, even very
small increases in exposure to particulate matter can
increase the risk of premature mortality.9
Recognizing that the dangers posed by breath-
ing particle pollution stem from short-term ex-
posure at relatively high levels as well as from
long-term exposure at lower levels, in 1997 EPA
established two separate numerical standards for the
maximum allowable concentrations of this pollut-
ant. One is based on particle pollution concentra-
tions measured and averaged over 365 days, or the
annual standard. The other is based on the average
particle pollution concentrations over a 24-hour
period, known as the daily standard. For both stan-
dards, regulators average air quality monitor data
from the most recent three years to determine if
there has been a violation of allowable levels.10
In April 2005, EPA found that the Birmingham re- OZONE
gion—especially north Birmingham, Wylam and Leeds— Depending on how and where ozone gas forms, it can
exceeded the annual level of particle pollution. The agency be either good or bad. “Good” ozone occurs naturally in
issued the same finding for the daily standard in Decem- the stratosphere, forming a layer approximately 10 to 30
ber 2008 after it lowered that standard in 2006.11 (The miles above the earth’s surface that insulates the planet
Clean Air Act requires EPA to review its limits on particle from the sun’s harmful rays.16 Ozone is “bad” when it
pollution and ozone periodically to make sure they are forms at ground-level. The main component of what
protective of public health, and to revise these limits as is commonly called smog, ozone is not usually emitted
appropriate in light of the latest scientific studies.) In both directly into the air, but is created by a chemical reac-
instances, EPA drew the boundary of the violating area tion between pollutants from nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
around all of Jefferson and Shelby counties and a portion volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of
of Walker County (see Map 1).12 The trend continues sunlight and heat.17
today, as two of the area’s nine monitors exceed both Motor vehicle exhaust, power plants, and industrial
the annual and daily standard, and several others hover facilities emit NOX and VOCs that contribute to ground-
exactly on the benchmarks or are on the cusp of exceeding level ozone, which is most prevalent during the warmer
one or both of them.13 months, generally April to October. The official “ozone
In the Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman area, substan- season” runs from May 1 to September 30.18 Because
tial numbers of people fall into one or more of the eight ozone formation varies with weather conditions, yearly
groups identified by the American Lung Association to variations in ozone to some extent correspond with yearly
be “at-risk” for short- and long-term exposure to particle variations in weather.
pollution, including approximately 331,000 with cardio- Ozone is extremely detrimental to human health.
vascular disease, 26,000 suffering from pediatric asthma, Exposure to ozone has been shown to trigger a variety of
and 78,500 adult asthmatics.14 EPA estimates that if a problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation,
moderate-size city, such as Birmingham, reduced its aver- and congestion.19 It can worsen asthma, bronchitis, and
age annual concentration of particles by a very small frac- emphysema, and may even cause active non-asthmatic
tion in order to meet the existing standard, 25 to 50 fewer children in highly polluted areas to develop asthma.20 For
people would die each year from breathing pollution.15

4
asthmatics, ozone is particularly problematic, as it can
reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs, Asthma in Alabama
and repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue.21 Asthma takes a heavy toll on those who
Ozone can also harm plants and ecosystems by dis- suffer from this disease—particularly children
rupting the way certain plants produce and store food, and the elderly. Asthma is an inflammatory
making them more susceptible to disease, insects, and condition of the lungs that makes breathing
harsh weather. It can also damage the leaves of trees and difficult. It is chronic, meaning that inflamma-
other plants, and reduce forest growth and crop yields.22 tion is always present, even when there are
no noticeable symptoms. When provoked
EPA has attempted to keep up with the mounting by a trigger, the inflammation worsens and
evidence linking ozone to ill effects by gradually strength-
the insides of the airways swell, resulting in
ening the federal clean air standard for ozone. In 1997,
chest tightness, coughing and wheezing that
EPA revised the standard to set it at 0.084 parts per mil-
can lead to asthma attacks. If severe, the
lion (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period.23 After studies
symptoms can cause severe shortness of
about ozone’s harms continued to mount, the agency in
breath and low levels of oxygen in the blood
2008 lowered this standard slightly to 0.075 ppm, a level
that can result in limited physical activity,
still above that urged by its scientific advisers.24
hospitalization, and in rare cases, death.
When EPA sets a new standard or revises an existing
Both particle pollution and ozone contrib-
standard, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to designate ar-
eas as attainment (“in attainment with” or meeting federal ute to asthma. In Alabama, over 17% of teens
standards), nonattainment (not meeting the standards), aged 15-18 and 7% of all adults are asthmatic.
or unclassifiable (insufficient data to classify). States must In addition to its negative health impacts,
then make recommendations to EPA for areas to be desig- asthma is also costly from a financial per-
nated attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable. The spective: in 1998, asthma cost Alabama
deadline for these recommendations based on the 2008 about $177 million, including $100 million in
ozone standard was March 2009. EPA will issue final des- direct costs such as medicines and health-
ignations of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable care services and over $76 million in indirect
areas no later than March 2010.25 costs such as lost productivity due to missed
days at school or work.30
The Birmingham area’s ozone levels have repeatedly
exceeded federal standards over the past two decades.26
Although the Birmingham area is currently in attain-
ment with the weaker 1997 standard, it is clear that
the area will fail to meet EPA’s new, tougher 2008
standard when it goes into effect. In anticipation of
this, ADEM has officially recommended to EPA that
Jefferson and Shelby counties be designated as nonat-
tainment. Based on the agency’s history, it is likely
that EPA will accept, or possibly expand, ADEM’s
recommended nonattainment area.27
This ongoing trend of dangerously high ozone
levels is taking a toll on the health of Birmingham
citizens. According to the American Lung Association,
hundreds of thousands of people in the Birmingham-
Hoover-Cullman area are particularly at risk from the
dangers of ozone pollution because they are either
children or senior citizens, or suffer from asthma,
chronic bronchitis, or emphysema.28 Of these, nearly
80,000 adults and over 25,000 children in those
counties are struck especially hard by ozone exposure
because they suffer from asthma.29 In 2009,

5
 the American Lung Association ranked the
Birmingham area number 20 in its list of the
cities most polluted by ozone.31
MERCURY
Mercury occurs naturally in the envi-
ronment in many forms, including in coal,
which when burned releases mercury into
the air. As it falls out of the air with rain and
other precipitation in rivers, wetlands and
other surface waters, mercury is converted to
methyl mercury, which is highly toxic. This
form of mercury accumulates in the aquatic
food chain, contaminating fish and shellfish
that are then consumed by humans and
wildlife.
Exposure to mercury can cause serious permanent
health effects in humans. Large doses are toxic to adults,
but much lower levels have been shown to impair neu-
rological development in fetuses, infants, and children.32
According to the Centers for Disease Control, almost
6% of American women carry mercury concentrations
at levels considered to put a fetus at risk of neurologi-
cal damage.33 Mercury exposure in the womb can harm
a fetus’ brain and nervous system, impacting cognitive
thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor
and visual spatial skills.
Who Regulates Air Pollution in the Birmingham Area?
Air pollution is governed under the federal Clean
Air Act and its regulations. The United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency has the first duty to
identify air pollutants and calculate levels of pollut-
ants that are harmful to human heath and the envi-
ronment.
In Alabama, the Clean Air Act is administered
primarily by the Alabama Department of Environmen-
tal Management (ADEM), which issues air permits to
stationary sources of air pollution, such as factories
and power plants, and is responsible for ensuring
that permit conditions are obeyed. In the Birming-
ham area, however, air emissions are regulated by a
combination of two agencies: ADEM and the Jeffer-
son County Department of Public Health. The county
health department is the front-line enforcer of the
Clean Air Act in Jefferson County; the county does
this in cooperation with and under the oversight of
6
Given the way that mercury cycles through the envi-
ronment and comes into contact with people, water quality
and fish tissue samples are frequently used to determine
whether levels are too high in a particular area. In Alabama,
the state Department of Public Health has imposed fish
consumption limitations based on mercury contamination
on 36 bodies of water, including Opossum Creek and Val-
ley Creek in Jefferson County and Lewis Smith Reservoir in
Cullman County.34 Likewise, ADEM has declared sections
of Opossum and Valley creeks “impaired waters” under the
federal Clean Water Act because of mercury pollution.35
ADEM. However, in those portions of the Birming-
ham area outside of Jefferson County, such as
Shelby and Walker Counties, ADEM alone is the
regulatory agency that establishes permit condi-
tions and ensures enforcement.
In addition to stationary sources, the Clean Air
Act also regulates mobile sources of air pollution,
mainly exhaust from cars and trucks. The regula-
tory process involves the Birmingham Metropoli-
tan Planning Organization, or MPO, which comes
up with transportation plans every three years.
These transportation plans consist of projects
that improve or expand roads, railways, and other
infrastructure, through the use of local, state,
and federal funding. In areas with pollution prob-
lems, these transportation plans must conform
to a state’s overall plan for reducing air pollution,
known as the State Implementation Plan, or SIP.
 What’s Causing the
Birmingham Area’s Air
Quality Problems?
PARTICLE POLLUTION
The primary sources of particle pollution in the
Birmingham area are SO2 and NOX. Based on the most
recent public data, the vast majority of SO2 emissions
and more than half of the NOX emissions are
emitted by three old coal-fired
power plants:
• the Miller Plant in
Jefferson County,
located on the Black
Warrior River;
• the Gaston Plant in
Shelby County on the
Coosa River; and
• the Gorgas Plant in
nearby Walker County,
also on the Black War-
rior River.
Figure 1 compares the
emissions at these three power
plants with the emissions from
comparably-sized new coal-
fired power plants with modern
pollution controls installed.
These three power plants are
much older; Gorgas was con-
structed in 1951, Gaston in
1960, and Miller in 1978. The
Environmental Integrity Proj-
ect ranked the Miller Plant the
number 2 dirtiest power plant in
the country in 2007.
There are signs of some
improvement. Since 2005,
Alabama Power has installed pol-
lution control devices designed
to reduce SO2 or NOX on some
of the boilers at the three coal-
fired power plants, and more are
projected to be installed over the next few years.36 These
advanced control devices can be very effective, poten-
tially cutting SO2 by 95% and NOX by 80% or more,
but only if pollution controls are operated at full capacity
whenever the plant is operating. Current state regul-
ations, however, do not require
Map 2: The Birmingham Area’s
Coal-Burning Power Plants Alabama Power to run these pol-
lution controls full-time.37
Assuming a regulatory status
quo, a reasonable projection is
that, even after all the planned
controls are installed (projected
to occur by 2012), the three
plants will still account for 89%
of SO2 emissions (almost 104,000
tons per year) and 50% of NOX
emissions (nearly 52,000 tons per
year) in Birmingham.38
Diesel vehicles, primarily
trucks and heavy construction
equipment, are another major
Figure 1 contributor of particle pollution
How Alabama Power Company’s Plants in the Birmingham area. Citizens
Compare to New Plants living near intersections, bus
Thousands of tons of SO2 stops, highways, bus and truck
160 depots, or construction sites with
Alabama Power Company heavy equipment, are exposed to
140 Coal-Fired Plant especially concentrated levels of
New Plant Equivalent diesel exhaust, which can lead to
120 Standard
a host of health problems includ-
100 ing asthma attacks, respiratory
80
disease, heart attacks, and even
premature death.
60
Under the federal Clean
40 Air Act, once Birmingham was
designated as nonattainment
20
for particle pollution in 2005,
0 ADEM was required to develop a
Gaston Gorgas Miller plan, known as a State Imple-
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2008.
7
 Nonattainment: Economic
Disadvantage for the
Birmingham Area
In addition to the public health and
environmental consequences of the failure
to clean up Birmingham’s soot and smog,
there are direct economic disadvantages.
When an area is designated as being in
nonattainment, the Clean Air Act automati-
cally makes it harder to build new major
stationary sources or to modernize exist-
ing ones in the area, and may also curtail
spending on highway projects.
If the state fails to bring the area into
attainment by the deadline, EPA may
impose even tighter restrictions on new or
modernizing facilities and on transporta-
tion funding.39 To avoid these repercus-
sions, the state must bring the area into
attainment with air quality standards as ex-
peditiously as possible. In order to do this
efficiently, a nonattainment area must ac-
curately capture all contributors to air qual-
ity problems so that the regulating agency
can have a full picture of the sources of
air pollution and develop comprehensive
plans to set the region on track to improve
its air as quickly as possible. The Birming-
ham nonattainment boundary should be
enlarged, as needed, to encompass ad-
ditional counties with pollution sources or
land development patterns that contribute
to Birmingham’s poor air quality.
Route 280 in Birmingham.
8
mentation Plan or “SIP” by April 2008, setting out the
measures it will implement to ensure Birmingham meets
the particle pollution health standard by 2010. In March
2009, ADEM finally issued its long- overdue SIP. The
plan is now being reviewed by EPA. Surprisingly, the only
mandatory pollution control measure required in the SIP is
an open burning prohibition in the summer months, along
with a public education program. It does not include any
concrete mandates on emission controls at any of the three
coal-fired power plants in the Birmingham area, or any
measures to control pollution from diesel engines, although
it does promote voluntary diesel engine retrofits. Instead of
requiring concrete measures to control pollution from the
major emitters in the Birmingham area, ADEM assumes
that sufficient reductions will occur as a result of federal
changes in fuel economy standards and other rules growing
out of the Clean Air Act. This is highly debatable.
OZONE
Power plants and vehicle traffic are the primary sources
in Birmingham of the two main precursors for ozone—
NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Figure 2
(p. 10) shows that well over one third of VOC emissions
come from tailpipes, with another large portion com-
ing from a variety of smaller stationary sources. For NOX
emissions during the May 1 to September 30 ozone season,
shown in Figure 3, the predominant sources are the three
local coal-fired power plants owned by Alabama Power.40
Some of the boilers at Alabama Power’s three coal-fired
plants have been or are projected to be equipped with
advanced pollution control devices that could cut NOX
emissions by 80 percent or more. However, with the excep-
tion of two boiler units at the Miller plant, existing legal
requirements do not require them to do so. Therefore, it is
anticipated that the power plants will continue to account
for the single biggest share of ozone pollution across the
Birmingham area.41
Furthermore, several substantial transportation projects
are currently being constructed or planned for the Bir-
mingham area that could have significant local and regional
impacts on air quality because of increased mobile source
emissions. Corridor X, which will eventually become
Interstate 22, will run from Memphis to Birmingham,
entering the metropolitan area from the northwest. This
road has largely been constructed, with only the last few
miles to Interstate 65 incomplete. The proposed Northern
Beltline (See Map 3) would travel almost 60 miles around
the northern side of Birmingham, serving as the northern
equivalent of existing Interstate 459. These two projects
would dramatically increase vehicle traffic and the result-
ing emissions in northern Jefferson County. On the other
The Miller plant (foreground) and Gorgas Plant (background) are major contributors to unhealthy air in the Birmingham area.

side of Birmingham, a proposal to expand Highway 280 MERCURY

through portions of Jefferson and Shelby Counties would The Miller, Gorgas, and Gaston plants also dominate
result in an increase of ozone and particle pollution that mercury emissions in the Birmingham region. As Figure
would further degrade air quality. 4 shows, in 2007, they emitted more than 75% of all
mercury and related compounds released into the envi-
ronment in Jefferson, Shelby, and
Walker counties. They even stand
out on a national basis. The plants
each ranked among the nation’s
30 dirtiest power plants for mer-
cury emissions in 2007, with the
Miller Plant grabbing the top spot
by emitting almost 2,000 pounds
into the air.42 The Gaston Plant
ranked 8th in the nation, and the
Gorgas Plant ranked 28th.
The SO2 and NOX pollution
controls that have been or are
projected to be installed on some
of Alabama Power’s boilers should
also reduce mercury emissions.
How much depends on numer-
ous factors, including how the
devices are operated. Regardless,
even with all the devices installed,
the three plants will continue to
emit the vast majority of mercury
released into Birmingham’s envi-
ronment.43

9
 POLLUTION FROM OUTSIDE THE BIRMINGHAM AREA Figure 3
Study after study has shown that controlling local Sources of NOx Emissions During Ozone Season
sources will improve local air quality. Scientists have long in the Birmingham Area
known that certain precursors of particle pollution and 100% = 36,305 tons
ozone, such as SO2 and NOX, can travel long distances. Other
In fact, EPA has issued a transport rule intended to curb Stationary
power plant emissions of SO2 and NOX that originate Sources 22%
in upwind states and eventually contribute to particle Coal-Fired
pollution and ozone violations in another state. As part
39% Power
of its analysis, EPA determined which states’ emissions Fires 1% Plants
were seriously affecting certain downwind counties, and
concluded that nine states, including Alabama’s four
border states, send emissions that add significantly to an- Non-Road* 14%
nual particle pollution levels in Jefferson County.44 Given Mobile
EPA’s analysis, it is reasonable to assume that reducing Sources
NOX and SO2 in those states would help lower pollution
levels in the Birmingham region.45 25%
EPA also examined the impact of in-state NOX and On-Road* Mobile
SO2 power plant emissions on Jefferson County. The Sources
analysis showed that the portion of the annual particle Sources: U.S. EPA, National Emissions Inventory, 2005; U.S. EPA, Clean Air Markets Division,
Emissions Database.
pollution levels traceable to Alabama sources was triple
the highest upwind-state contribution.

Figure 2 Figure 4
Sources of VOC Emissions in the Birmingham Area Mercury Emissions in the Birmingham Area
100% = 58,370 tons 100% = 5,438 lbs.
1% Electric Generating Other
Plants Sources

On-Road* 8%
Mobile Iron and
25% Sources Steel Mills 14%

Other
Stationary 61% 12% Non-Road*
Sources Mobile
Sources
78%
1% Fires
Coal-Fired
Power Plants
Source: U.S. EPA, National Emissions Inventory, 2005. Source: U.S. EPA, Toxics Release Inventory, 2007.

* The U.S. EPA defines on-road mobile sources as any mobile source of air pollution such as cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses that travels on
roads and highways. Conversely, non-road mobile sources may be “mobile” but do not travel on roads or highways. These can include farm and
construction equipment, gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment, power boats, and outdoor motors that emit pollutants.46

10
 Carbon Dioxide
HOW WILL GLOBAL WARMING AFFECT ALABAMA?

Although we can’t get sick directly from exposure to mingham is essentially the same as it is halfway across the
carbon dioxide as we can from soot, smog, and mercury, country or halfway around the globe. A comprehensive
CO2 emissions are the leading cause of global warming, assessment of rising carbon dioxide levels is beyond the
which holds serious public health and environmental scope of this report. We do know, however, that if the
consequences. In addition to causing a rise in sea lev- current trajectory continues, Alabama will feel the effects.
els and a change in forest landscapes, global warming
On the Gulf Coast, sea levels are expected to rise, and
will result in hotter, more humid conditions that will
across the state, changes in weather patterns are projected
likely encourage the spread of tropical diseases and may
to bring more droughts and more intense hurricanes.50
increase heat-related illnesses and death.47 Moreover,
Rising temperatures will also magnify the effects of ozone
because ozone forms more readily in warmer months,
pollution and may increase the damage that pests, like the
global warming will also exacerbate ozone pollution and
southern pine bark beetle, cause to crops and forests.51
its related health impacts.48
Alabama’s Outsized Carbon Footprint
In the U.S., more than 80 percent of carbon dioxide
Alabama emits more CO2 than most other states—in
emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels (coal,
fact, per capita, Alabama ranks 9th worst in the nation
oil, and natural gas).49 Once emitted, CO2 remains in
for carbon dioxide emissions. Between 1990 and 2005,
the atmosphere for centuries, resulting in a fairly consis-
carbon dioxide releases in Alabama rose 23%.52 Only nine
tent concentration around the world. Thus, unlike the
other states saw higher increases.53 Of the CO2 emitted
concentrations of particle pollution, ozone, and mercury,
by energy production in Alabama, as shown in Figure 5,
which vary from place to place, the CO2 level in Bir-
more than half came from coal-fired power plants, and

11
 another quarter from cars. In 2008, a survey revealed that
the Miller plant in Jefferson County is a major culprit, America’s Clean Energy
holding the number two spot on a list of the nation’s
highest CO2-emitting power plants.
and Security Act
As the public grows more concerned
Given the Miller plant’s CO2 emissions, it is not about rising temperatures, severe storms,
surprising that in 2008 the Birmingham-Hoover region and prolonged droughts, there is growing
was ranked 22nd in the nation for metro areas with the consensus that we need effective climate
greatest CO2 emissions per person—more than Atlanta, policies. Federal global warming legisla-
Charlotte, and several other larger urban centers.54 tion is currently under debate. On June
Solutions for the Future 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representa-
To complement federal climate legislation (see side- tives passed America’s Clean Energy and
bar, “America’s Clean Energy and Security Act”), per- Security Act, signaling a seismic shift in the
sonal, local, and statewide steps must be taken to reduce U.S. policy on climate change. Before it is
Alabama’s outsized carbon footprint and its emissions of passed by the Senate, however, the mas-
other harmful gases. sive bill needs strengthening in key areas,
and the Senate must make certain that this
At the local level, the mayors of Birmingham,
historic measure results in genuine reduc-
Hoover, Trussville, Pelham, and other area cities should
tions in greenhouse gas emissions—and
join the mayors of Auburn, Bessemer, Huntsville, Ope-
lika, Troy, Tuscaloosa, and more than 900 cities across the without endangering forestlands that are
country in signing the U.S. Conference of Mayors Cli- vital to wildlife, water quality, and the eco-
mate Protection Agreement, and should initiate measures nomic well-being of southern communities.
that will achieve carbon reductions. At the state level, For additional details and updates on this
the Governor, the Public Service Commission, and the rapidly changing legislation and its poten-
legislature should overhaul policies with an eye toward tial impacts on the Southeast, please visit
reducing air pollution by promoting energy efficiency, SouthernEnvironment.org.
renewable energy, and alternatives to driving.

Figure 5
Alabama Energy-Related CO2 Emissions (2005)
100% = 156 million tons
Commercial 1%
Residential 2% 2% Other Power Plants

Industrial
15%

55%
Trans- 25%
portation

Sources: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, State Carbon Dioxide
Emissions by Energy Sectors, 2008. U.S. EPA, Clean Air Markets Division, Emissions Database.

12
 Solutions for Cleaner Air
in the Birmingham Area
The Southern Environmental Law Center supports dividual plant, or by setting a stringent annual cap on the
the following seven solutions for achieving cleaner air for amount of pollution each source could emit.
the Birmingham area:
Require concrete reductions in the mercury
Place stringent limits on nitrogen oxides and sul- emissions of the Miller, Gaston, and Gorgas
fur dioxide at Alabama Power’s Gorgas, Gaston, plants, along with other coal-fired power plants
and Miller power plants, and make sure that the in the state.
company follows through on installing and op- EPA’s attempt to regulate mercury emissions from
erating control devices to maximize emissions existing power plants using an inappropriately loose cap-
reductions throughout the year. and-trade system was struck down last year by a federal
If Birmingham is to avoid further prolonged expo- court (See p. 16, “Cap-and-Trade: How Does It Work?”).
sure to unhealthy air, ADEM and EPA must be held EPA must now develop a new mercury rule. The agency
accountable in implementing particle pollution clean-up may take two years or more to finalize such a rule, mean-
measures.55 Considering the pervasive particle pollution ing that even more time will pass before existing plants
statewide and the variety of sources that contribute to
ozone levels locally, cleaning up Birmingham area’s air
will require a variety of different approaches, but the key
remains emissions from the big three coal-fired plants.
The federal cap-and-trade programs (see inset, page
16) that compelled Alabama Power to begin a multi-
year process of equipping some coal-fired boilers with
advanced control devices do not, on their own, provide
a sufficient guarantee that the company’s local emissions
will be reduced enough to improve Birmingham’s air
quality.56 Absent additional legal requirements, installing
advanced controls to comply with the cap-and-trade pro-
grams does not mean they have to be operated continu-
ously or at full capacity.57 If the cost of running a control
device to remove one ton of pollution is greater than the
cost of buying an allowance for emitting the pollution,
Alabama Power theoretically can bypass or turn off the
control device.58
ADEM and the Jefferson County Department of
Public Health should fulfill their obligation to clean Bir-
mingham’s air by setting strict limits that give Alabama
Power a clear, binding direction to continue installing
and to fully operate advanced controls to maximize emis-
sion reductions.59 Therefore, as part of the particle-pol-
lution State Implementation Plan, ADEM should force
continued investment in and maximum use of advanced
controls by establishing tight emission rates for each in-

13
 are required to comply with the restrictions.60
In the meantime, ADEM could fill this regulatory
gap and protect the Alabama public simply by put-
ting standards in place that compel mercury emission
reductions from all coal-burning power plants in the
state. Initial substantial reductions could be achieved by
requiring all coal-fired plants to install and run scrub-
bers designed to control SO2 and other devices aimed at
reducing NOX emissions.61

Expand ADEM’s proposed boundary for non-

attainment of the new ozone standard from
Jefferson and Shelby Counties to include Bibb,
Blount, Chilton, Cullman, St. Clair, and Walker
Counties. Generally, counties should be ex-
cluded only if ADEM can clearly show that they
are not contributing to the Birmingham area’s
ozone pollution.
ADEM’s immediate priority on ozone must be to
supplement its existing contingency measures to control
exceedances of the 1997 standard. This requires a more
comprehensive assessment of NOX and VOC emissions
in the Birmingham area, and if necessary, more rigorous
regulation of sources. Implementing further reductions
now, especially through lowered emission rates or strong
pollutant caps on coal-fired power plants, makes even
more sense because Jefferson and Shelby Counties will
likely be designated a nonattainment area in March
2010 under the more-protective 2008 ozone standard
and these tough measures will eventually be necessary to
attain that standard.
The effort to meet the new standard will also be
boosted if EPA expands the nonattainment area bound-
ary. In the past, ADEM has sought to sharply restrict the
area included in EPA’s nonattainment designations. EPA
should reject any attempt by ADEM to exclude areas
or counties that are home to the sources that pollute Bir-
mingham’s air. Instead, EPA should abide by its stated
policy of drawing nonattainment boundaries broadly.62
Under this policy, EPA should expand the current
nonattainment area for the 1997 standard, Jefferson
and Shelby counties, to include Bibb, Blount, Chilton,
Cullman, St. Clair, and Walker counties, unless ADEM
can definitively show why those counties should be
excluded.63 This approach helps ensure that all major
contributors to ozone are in the nonattainment area
and, therefore, will be subject to the additional control
requirements necessary for clean air.
Oak Mountain State Park near Birmingham, Alabama
Pass legislation mandating cuts in power plant
emissions as other states have done.
Elected officials in other states have addressed
pervasive stationary source pollution by supplement-
ing the Clean Air Act’s protections with state laws that
have forced substantial emissions reductions by in-state
sources. For example, the Clean Smokestacks Act, enacted
by North Carolina in 2002, requires the state’s 14 largest
fossil-fuel burning power plants to dramatically cut SO2
and NOX emissions.64 These reductions have gone a long
way toward improving the particle pollution and ozone
levels in North Carolina’s nonattainment and attainment
areas. Comparable state legislation could help ADEM
address the particle pollution and ozone pollution from
stationary sources that are both pervasive throughout the
state and concentrated in Birmingham.
Once it has done this, Alabama can credibly exercise
the right that all states have under the Clean Air Act to
ask EPA to force sources in upwind states to cut emissions
that significantly degrade air quality in the home state.65
Pursuing this right is especially important in light of the
recent nonattainment designation for the daily particle
standard and the inevitable nonattainment designation
for the new ozone standard. Building on EPA’s techni-
cal analysis for its regulations of upwind power plant
emissions, which showed that electric generating plants
in nine states are partially to blame for Birmingham’s dif-
ficulty in meeting the annual particle pollution standard,
ADEM should be able to demonstrate that these sources
contribute to Birmingham’s nonattainment problems with
the daily particle standard and the new ozone standard
(See p. 10, “Pollution Outside the Birmingham Area”).

14

Faced with that evidence, EPA would be required to
mandate pollution reductions in the nine upwind states
that specifically harm the Birmingham area. It is possible
that these reductions might overlap with those ultimately
required under revised upwind pollution rules that EPA is
slated to propose. However, by exercising its right to make
a direct request to EPA, ADEM could put specific emis-
sions reductions that the Birmingham area so badly needs
on the fast track.
North Carolina is currently pursuing a similar strat-
egy against upwind states in the wake of the passage of its
Clean Smokestacks Act.
Create a long-range transportation plan that
boosts mass transit and recognizes the link
between land use and transportation.
Mobile sources accounted for nearly a quarter of Bir-
mingham’s NOX emissions and a third of VOC emissions
in 2005.66 The trend across the Southeast has been to-
wards increased automobile travel, and as a consequence,
increased mobile source emissions.
The Birmingham area’s population increased by 6%
between 1995 and 2005.67 Over this same period, the
average daily miles traveled (including both freeway and
arterial streets) increased by 22%, and the total annual
delay time—an indicator of congestion—increased by an
astounding 86%.68 In other words, the distance traveled
and congestion experienced by Birmingham area drivers
increased at rates far greater than the population growth.
Currently, the typical commute to work in the area is 27
minutes, with 87% of commuters driving to work alone.69
With vehicle use increasing and some measure of
additional controls slated for coal-fired power plants,
mobile sources will play an increasingly prominent role
in the Birmingham area’s ozone problems. Fuel standards
and automobile efficiency are largely set on a nationwide
basis. Long commutes, increasing congestion, and an
auto-centric culture, however, are often a function of lo-
cal planning decisions.
The key to reducing vehicle travel is to link land use
and transportation planning to discourage the sprawl-
ing, low-density development that is all-too common
throughout the Southeast. This linkage can be achieved
by supplementing Birmingham’s mass transit system,
funding transportation projects that favor more compact
development over sprawl, and making zoning decisions
to discourage poorly planned suburban growth. All of
these provide opportunities for guiding the Birmingham
area’s land use and transportation planning to reduce
vehicle travel and emissions.
The Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion (MPO) is responsible for comprehensive transporta-
tion planning in Jefferson and Shelby counties, and is
composed of local and state government officials as well
as representatives from the Birmingham-Jefferson Coun-
ty Transit Authority and the Alabama Department of
Transportation. The MPO recently adopted a 2030 Long
Range Transportation Plan which assesses the area’s trans-
portation needs and sets forth improvements necessary
to address those needs over a 20-year period. Currently
under revision, this plan provides an important op-
portunity for Birmingham citizens to contact the MPO
and voice their support for projects that do not promote
further sprawl and tailpipe pollution. The MPO also
develops short-term transportation plans that contain
specific projects eligible for funding. Birmingham area
residents should ask the MPO to keep sprawl-inducing
roads from being funded, and to direct funding instead
to well-planned development infrastructure that reduces
vehicle miles traveled and tailpipe emissions.
Reduce particle pollution from heavy-duty
diesel engines and reduce the economic and
public health burden of diesel pollution.
Diesel vehicles are a significant source of particle
pollution and contribute to poor air quality, rising public
health problems, and global warming. While new diesel
engines are getting cleaner, existing diesel engines con-
tinue to emit harmful pollutants. To meet federal health
standards for particulate pollution, the Birmingham area
15
 must take action to reduce diesel pollution from existing
engines. ADEM should implement a diesel retrofit pro-
gram that would require any publicly-used or contracted
on-road diesel vehicles (such as transit, tour and school
buses, and garbage trucks) and non-road diesel vehicles
(such as construction equipment, maintenance vehicles,
and agricultural equipment) to be equipped with the
best available pollution control technology.
More than twenty states have passed anti-idling
regulations for all types of diesel vehicles, and Alabama
should do the same. A diesel vehicle burns 0.5 to
1 gallon of fuel per hour of idling. Reducing idling not
only reduces pollution, but also reduces wear and tear on
vehicle engines and saves fuel and money.
Citizens should also support federal and state pro-
grams to retrofit best available pollution control technol-
ogy onto interstate long-haul trucks. Truck stop electri-
fication units along Alabama’s interstate corridors should
be expanded and accelerated to reduce idling time.
Make energy efficiency and renewable energy
higher priorities.
The Birmingham area should become a leader in
the promotion of both energy efficiency and the use of
renewable energy, thereby reducing reliance on coal as a
power source.
Figure 6 shows the difference in renewable energy
pricing between Alabama Power and other utilities
around the country. The premium that is placed on
renewable energy production is unacceptably high. Even
within Alabama, Alabama Power lags behind both TVA
and Alabama Electric Cooperative in charging an overly
high rate for renewable energy.
Cap-and-Trade:
How Does It Work?
Cap-and-trade pollution control programs are based
on trading pollution allowances, also called “credits.”
The purpose is to provide flexibility to industries and
other pollution sources, while still improving overall air
quality. When structured correctly and equipped with
adequate safeguards, the allowance trading approach
can help companies reduce emissions in a cost effec-
tive manner and improve air quality. The programs can
be set up in numerous ways but essentially they work
like this:
An overall cap, or goal, for a pollutant is set for a
geographic area, the whole country, perhaps. Regula-
tors determine the specific sources of that pollutant—
power plants, waste incinerators, and so forth—and
assign credits to each facility that represent the amount
of pollutant they are allowed to emit, usually measured
in pounds or tons per year.
Companies have a number of ways to comply.
They can invest in pollution controls to meet those
limits. They can reduce more than their limit, and sell
leftover credits to other facilities. Or a company can
purchase credits from other facilities, allowing them to
pollute more than their limit. Companies are less likely
to pursue this last strategy as the overall pollution cap
becomes more stringent, which increases the cost of
allowances.
Depending on the program, regulators may continue
to lower the annual cap to further cut pollution.

Figure 6
Alabama Power Company Compared with Companies Listed in Top 10 Green Utilities
Price of Renewable Power
Premium
¢/kWh
5
4

2
1

0
–1
Alabama Indianapolis Park Electric Avista Edmond OG&E
Power Power and Cooperative Utilities Electric Electric
Company Light Services

16
 Conclusion

Local, state, and federal agencies, businesses, public interest groups and citizens all
have a responsibility in meeting Birmingham’s air pollution challenges. Law and policy
at the federal and state level provide tools that could assist Birmingham in cleaning its
air, if they are faithfully implemented by ADEM. Birmingham area citizens can become
engaged in air quality issues in the region, and urge ADEM, EPA, and other authorities
to take steps that will guarantee air quality improvements. By making these changes,
the Birmingham area will take a major step toward reclaiming its reputation as a vibrant
community with an exceptional quality of life for its citizens.

17
 Endnotes
1. Multiagency U.S. government AIRNow Web site, http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=particle.airborne#1. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulates primarily two types of air pollutants: “criteria” and “hazardous.” Criteria air pollutants are compounds that EPA has determined are traceable to a
wide variety of sources and may reach levels so high that they pose a danger to public health and the environment. Hazardous air pollutants, also called air toxics, are
generally less pervasive than criteria pollutants, but pose especially serious health risks. See U.S. EPA Web site for additional information, http://www.epa.gov/air/
data/info.html.

2. American Lung Association, “State of the Air 2009,” 16–18, http://www.lungusa2.org/sota/2009/SOTA-2009-Full-Print.pdf.

3. General information about particle pollution may be found on EPA’s Web site, http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/index.html.

4. Ibid.

5. AIRNow Web site, http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=particle.airborne#1; EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Review of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information,” Publication No. EPA-452/R-05-005a, December 2005, 3-1
to 3-68, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf.

6. American Lung Association, “State of the Air 2009,” 25–28, http://www.lungusa2.org/sota/2009/SOTA-2009-Full-Print.pdf.

7. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards,” 2006, Table 1-5, http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%201--Introduction.pdf.

8. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/.

9. In one of the more recent studies linking soot to premature mortality, the authors demonstrated that life expectancy in U.S. cities increases with actual reductions
in particle pollution. C. A. Pope III et al., “Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine 360 (2009):
376–86, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/360/4/376.pdf.

10. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/standards.html.

11. EPA Web sites: for annual standard, http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/final/statemaps/Alabama.htm; for daily standard, http://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/2006standards/final/region4.htm.

12. In contrast, EPA has designated only Jefferson and Shelby counties to be part of the Birmingham area when considering noncompliance with the ozone standard.

13. This information is based on data available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/dv_pm25_2005_2007.xls and data downloaded from EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) Data Mart at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart/.

14. American Lung Association, “State of the Air 2009,” 17, http://www.lungusa2.org/sota/2009/SOTA-2009-Full-Print.pdf.

15. “Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,” Final Rule Federal Register 72, no. 79 (April 25, 2007): 20586, 20589.

16. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/index.html.

17. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/gooduphigh/bad.html#6.

18. Alabama Administrative Code, Rule 335-3-1-14(2)(b).

19. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/basic.html.

20. Ibid.

21. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/health.html.

22. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gooduphigh/bad.html.

23. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/actions.html.

24. EPA’s advisers unanimously recommended setting the standard between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm. Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, letter to Stephen L. Johnson, EPA Administrator, April 7, 2008, 1–2, http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AF8764324331288852574250069
E494/$File/EPA-CASAC-08-009-unsigned.pdf.

25. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/state.htm.

26. During the 1990s, the area strained to meet the 1990 ozone air quality standard, dipping in and out of attainment. “Approval and Promulgation of State Imple-
mentation Plans (SIP) for the State of Alabama—Call for 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for the Birmingham, Alabama Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Area,”
Final Rule, Federal Register 65, no. 209 (October 27, 2000): 64352. Birmingham finally met the 1990 standard in 2004. “Approval and Promulgation of Implemen-
tation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama; Redesignation of Birmingham Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for
Ozone,” Final Rule, Federal Register 69, no. 49 (March 12, 2004): 11798. Two years later, in June 2006, EPA agreed that the area met the 1997 standard, but within
18 days air quality monitors revealed that the standard was once again being violated. Jefferson County Environmental Health Services, “Jefferson County’s Local
Perspective,” a presentation at the Air Regulatory Update meeting held in Montgomery, Alabama, September 16, 2008, http://www.adem.state.al.us/AirDivision/Air-
RegulatoryUpdate.pdf. Despite this almost immediate backsliding, the area is legally considered in attainment with the 1997 standard.

27. Historically, EPA has accepted states’ recommendations unless the agency finds it necessary to expand a nonattainment area.

28. American Lung Association, “State of the Air 2009,” 18, http://www.lungusa2.org/sota/2009/SOTA-2009-Full-Print.pdf.

18
29. Ibid.

30. The 1998 cost figures are based on a prevalence rate of 5.56 percent. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America Web site, http://www.aafa.org/display.
cfm?id=6&sub=63&cont=142. However, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) notes that asthma is increasing in the state and estimates that in 2005 more
than 17 percent of high school–aged kids and 7 percent of all adults in Alabama were asthmatic. ADPH Web site, http://www.adph.org/steps/index.asp?ID=693. An American
Lung Association study also shows higher asthma rates. It estimates that the portion of adults in the Alabama area with asthma has risen from 6.1 percent in 2000 to 8.8 per-
cent in 2007; it also estimates that in 2003 almost 10 percent of children in the state suffered from the disease. American Lung Association, “Trends in Asthma Morbidity and
Mortality 2007,” January 2009, Tables 13 and 15, http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.22884/k.7CE3/Asthma_Research__Studies.htm.

31. American Lung Association, “State of the Air 2009,” 18, http://www.lungusa2.org/sota/2009/SOTA-2009-Full-Print.pdf.

32. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm.

33. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Laboratory Sciences.
“National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.” NCEH Pub. No. 05-0664, July 2005, http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/factsheet_mercury.pdf.

34. Alabama Department of Public Health, “2008 Alabama Fish Consumption Advisories,” July 2008, http://adph.org/tox/assets/2008_FishAdvisory.pdf.

35. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, “303(d) Information and Map,” 2008, http://www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDivision/Wquality/303d/WQ303d.htm.

36. Onis Glenn III, ADEM director, letter to J. I. Palmer, Jr., EPA Region 4 administrator, October 2, 2008, Appendices A–C, http://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_AL_EPAMOD_CMT.pdf.

37. For instance, state regulations impose SO2 emission rate limits on the three plants, but those limits are more than 90 percent higher than the emission rate that can be
achieved at a boiler unit with fully utilized advanced control devices. The state imposes no rate limit on NOx emitted on an annual basis. The only annual NOx rate limitation
that applies to any of the boiler units at the three plants applies to Units 3 and 4 at the Miller plant pursuant to a consent decree in a case brought by EPA and in which the
Southern Environmental Law Center represents the coplaintiff. To meet the NOx emission rate imposed by the consent decree, the company generally must maximize, or at
least come close to maximizing, the emissions reductions potential of the advanced control devices installed on Units 3 and 4 year round. U.S. and Alabama Environmental
Council, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company, Case No. 2:01-cv-00152-VEH, Partial Consent Decree, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/civil/caa/alabamapower-
cd.pdf.

38. The projection for SO2 emissions assumes that by 2012 scrubbers (advanced technology to reduce SO2 emissions) will be installed on all four boiler units at Miller; Units
8, 9, and 10 at Gorgas; and Unit 5 Gaston, and that the scrubbers will cut the tons of SO2 emitted from those units in 2005 by 95 percent. SO2 emissions from all other
boiler units in 2012 are assumed to be the same as in 2005. SO2 emissions from all other source categories in the Birmingham area are also assumed to hold steady between
2005 and 2012. For NOx, the projection is based on 2008 emissions data to account for the fact that the last of the advanced control devices designed to cut NOx emissions
(selective catalytic reduction [SCR] systems) that Alabama Power plans to install at the plants began operation by May 1, 2008 (on Units 3 and 4 at Miller). The plants’ pro-
jected emissions for 2012 are assumed to be only slightly lower than in 2008 to take into account that the SCRs on Miller Units 3 and 4 will be operating the full year in 2012
instead of only May through December, as in 2008. NOx emissions from all other source categories are assumed to hold steady between 2005 and 2012. The 2008 emissions
data used in these projections are taken from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division Web site, http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=iss.isshome. The 2005
emissions data are from EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_2006_techinfo.html#F-2.

39. Clean Air Act of 1990. United States Code, Title 42, chapter 85, subchapters 7503, 7506(c), and 7509.

40. Figures 7 and 8 are based on data for Jefferson and Shelby counties from the 2005 National Emissions Inventory, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_2006_techinfo.
html#F-2, and data from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division, http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=iss.isshome. The ozone season NOx emissions for
the two coal-fired power plants in Jefferson and Shelby counties, the Gaston and Miller plants, are based on data reported to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division. The ozone
season emissions for other sources are based on annual data available through EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory and on the assumption that those other sources’ NOx
emissions are uniform throughout the year, so that their emissions during the five-month ozone season is 5/12 of their recorded annual emissions.

41. As with SO2 and annual NOx emissions, rate limitations on ozone season NOx imposed by state regulations are far above the rates that can be achieved with fully utilized
advanced control devices The only ozone season NOx rate limitation for the two plants in the Birmingham ozone nonattainment area, Miller and Gaston, is a rate that is
averaged over all the units at Miller and Gorgas. That rate is more than 50 percent higher than the rate that can be achieved at a boiler with fully utilized advanced control
technology. Based on preliminary 2008 emissions data, which reflects all of the advance control devices for NOx, ozone season NOx emissions from the three plants totaled
more than 10,000 tons. Assuming that ozone season NOx emissions form the other sectors remained constant between 2005 and 2008, the plants accounted for just over one-
third of the emissions in the area.

42. Environmental Integrity Project Web site, http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub385.cfm.

43. Alabama Power has stated that upon the completion of its planned advanced pollution control device installations (slated for 2012), it expects that mercury emissions from
the controlled units at Miller (Units 1–4) will be cut by as much as 40 percent and that mercury emissions from the controlled units at Gaston (Unit 5) and Gorgas (Units
8–10) will be cut by as much as 80 percent. Thomas Spencer, “Coal-fired Plant in West Jefferson County Puts More Mercury in Air Than Any Other in Nation,” Birming-
ham News, November 21, 2008, http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.ssf?/base/news/1227258934325230.xml&coll=2; Southern Company Generation,
“Environmental Construction Projects at Coal-Fired Power Plants” a presentation at the Air Regulatory Update meeting held in Montgomery, Alabama, September 16, 2008,
http://www.adem.state.al.us/AirDivision/AirRegulatoryUpdate.pdf. Based on these representations and assigning mercury emission to individual boiler units based on their
proportion of their plant’s electric generating capacity, the three plants are projected to emit 2,333 pounds of mercury in 2012. Mercury emissions from the uncontrolled
boiler units and from all other sectors are assumed to remain the same.

44. The others are Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Ohio. “Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone” (Clean Air Interstate Rule),
Final Rule, Federal Register 70, no. 91 (May 12, 2005): 25162, 25247, and Table VI-8,; EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Technical Support Document for
the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule: Air Quality Modeling,” 2005, Appendix H, http://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/finaltech02.pdf.

45. EPA has noted that Shelby and Walker counties would benefit from the same upwind reductions that would partially improve Jefferson County’s particle pollution levels.
EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/al.html In addition, EPA’s analysis predicted that ozone concentrations would get marginally better in Jefferson County
due to the NOx reductions projected to occur in upwind states. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air
Interstate Rule: Air Quality Modeling,” 2005, Appendix E, http://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/finaltech02.pdf.

19
 46. EPA Web site, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/index.htm.

47. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, “Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act,” sixth order
draft, June 21, 2008, 64–70.

48. Ibid., 70–73.

49. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007,” Figure 1, http://www.eia.doe.gov/
oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/0573(2007).pdf. CO2 is by far the most significant of the greenhouse gases emitted in the U.S., comprising 83 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in
the nation in 2007; Ibid., Table 1.

50. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, “Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems,” Synthesis and Assessment Product
4.6, Table ES-1 and 2-23, http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-6/default.php; U.S. Climate Change Science Program, “Impacts of Climate Variability and Change
on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Study,” Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7, Chapter 3, http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-7/
default.php.

51. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, “The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States,” Final
Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3, 69–74, http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm; Jianbang Gan, “Risk and Damage of
Southern Pine Beetle Outbreaks under Global Climate Change,” Forest Ecology and Management 191 (2004): 61–71.

52. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Emissions Data, State Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Summary,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/environ-
ment.html.

53. Ibid.

54. Marilyn A. Brown et al., “Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America,” May 2008, Table A1, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/Files/rc/
reports/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/carbonfootprint_report.pdf.

55. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Graphs and Maps for 2006 Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Final Rule, http://www.epa.
gov/oar/particlepollution/pdfs/20061025_graphsmaps.pdf.

56. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Graphs and Maps for National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,” Final Rule, Federal Register 71,
no. 200 (October 17, 2006): 61144, http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/pdfs/20061025_graphsmaps.pdf; “Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Mat-
ter and Ozone” (Clean Air Interstate Rule), Final Rule, Federal Register 70, no. 91 (May 12, 2005): 25162, 25252, Table VI-11.

57. For example, advanced controls for NOx emissions are routinely shut off or bypassed during the non-ozone season months unless there is a requirement to reduce NOx
emission on an annual basis.

58. For instance, many plants equipped with modern SO2 control devices found this to be the case following the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision striking down the cap-and-
trade programs set up under EPA’s interstate pollution rule. Under such circumstances, despite the millions of dollars spent installing the equipment, companies would lose
money by operating their control devices and thus would choose to comply with the cap-and-trade program by purchasing cheap allowances rather than reducing pollution.
Declaration of Brian J. McLean, Director, EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, in support of EPA petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, State of North Carolina v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1244, (September 20, 2008), 4–5, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/docs/CAIR_Rehearing_Pet_Declarations.
pdf; Eric Svenson, Vice President Environment, Health & Safety, Public Service Enterprise Group, testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, July 29, 2008, 12, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=58f62ab0-7ebf-4ab6-
8797-ba1c4851c43d.

59. If the company feels that it is unlikely that any scenario would arise that would cause it to turn off, bypass, or otherwise operate its control devices in a way that would lead
to emissions that would keep Birmingham from meeting the clean air standards, then it loses nothing by having those requirements written into law.

60. Once the revised rule is finalized, existing plants will have to comply “as expeditiously as practicable,” but not later than three years from the date the rule is finalized.
Under certain circumstances, the compliance deadline may be extended. Clean Air Act of 1990. United States Code, Title 42, chapter 85, subchapter 7412(i)(3).

61. Control devices designed specifically to reduce mercury emissions can remove 95 percent or more of the pollutant. Alabama Power foresees reducing by 40 percent to 80
percent its mercury emission from units equipped with SO2 and NOx control devices. The different removal efficiencies are primarily due to different coal types.

62. Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, “Area Designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,” memorandum to EPA regional administrators, Regions I–IX, December 4, 2008, 3–4.

63. Ibid., 3–4 and Attachment 2.

64. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality Web site, http://daq.state.nc.us/news/pr/2002/smokestack3_0602.shtml.

65. Clean Air Act of 1990. United States Code, Title 42, chapter 85, subchapter 7426.

66. EPA, 2005 National Emissions Inventory; EPA, Clean Air Markets Division, Emissions Database.

67. David Schrank et al., “The 2007 Urban Mobility Report,” September 2007, Mobility Data for Birmingham, AL, http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/tables/
birmingham.pdf.

68. Ibid.

69. Crystal Jarvis, “Birmingham Commuters Suffer,” Birmingham Business Journal, October 12, 2007, http://birmingham.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2007/10/15/
story2.html?b=1192420800%5E1534157.

20
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434-977-4090
Fax 434-977-1483
SouthernEnvironment.org