

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Kathleen Sutcliffe, (202) 667-4500, ext 235
A panel of federal judges will hear arguments today in a lawsuit
by environmental groups seeking to close a gaping loophole in federal
air pollution regulations.
The groups, represented by the public interest law firm
Earthjustice, are challenging a regulation adopted by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) allowing refineries, chemical plants, and other
industrial facilities to ignore pollution limits whenever equipment
malfunctions, and whenever they start up or shut down operations.
During these periods, toxic emissions can skyrocket, severely degrading
air quality. Some facilities evade clean air protections by claiming
that they are in startup, shutdown, or malfunction mode during much of
their operating time.
Residents in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Wilmington, a Southern
California oil-refining hub, report seeing the tell-tale signs of
refinery malfunctions -- gas flares and billowing smoke - at the area's
four refineries on a nearly weekly basis.
Marie Malahi lives in the shadow of one such refinery and now
schools her asthmatic young son at home so she can protect him from the
unpredictable spikes in bad air quality.
"When you see the flames jump from the refinery stacks, you know
it's about to get really bad," Malahi said. "There's days when we can
barely function. We can't breathe, we can't work or play outside. We
have to sit inside, close the windows and keep the doors shut."
Earthjustice is representing Environmental Integrity Project along
with Sierra Club, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Coalition for
a Safe Environment, and Friends of Hudson -- groups in affected
communities in the Gulf Coast, southern California, and upstate New
York.
"This loophole allows major polluters to violate emission standards
with impunity," said Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew. "We're fighting to
close this enormous loophole so communities can breathe easier."
Excess emissions occur routinely at industrial facilities throughout
the country, according to a comprehensive report by the Environmental
Integrity Project titled "Gaming the System: How the Off-the-Books
Industrial Upset Emissions Cheat the Public Out of Clear Air." (report
available at: https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub238.cfm)
"Malfunctions at large petrochemical plants are routine, and
sometimes release more air pollution than so-called 'normal'
operations," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of Environmental
Integrity Project and former director of EPA's Office of Regulatory
Enforcement. "EPA and the industry want to keep these emissions out of
sight, out of mind, and off the books, by hiding the procedures that
industry is supposed to follow to prevent these mishaps. That's not
fair to the neighbors who live next to these plants, and have to suffer
the consequences when accidents poison their air with toxic pollutants."
With more than 250 industrial sites, Texas is home to the nation's
largest number of refineries, chemical and petrochemical plants in the
nation. The state is also one of a few that tracks pollutants released
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods: according to state
records, thirty facilities emitted more than forty-five million pounds
of toxins in just one year during these off-the-books periods. A chart
documenting recent major malfunctions at refineries in Texas is below.
"Fence line neighborhoods in Texas have been bombarded for decades
with massive plumes of thick, black, toxic smoke during emissions
flaring at refineries and chemical plants in periods of startups,
shutdowns and even malfunctions," said Neil Carman, clean air director
for the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter and a former Texas state
refinery inspector.
In nearby Louisiana, the problems are much the same.
"Equipment malfunctions, start up or shutdown operations are
responsible for much of the 20 million pounds of air toxics emitted
annually in our area," said Marylee Orr, executive director of
Louisiana Environmental Action Network. "When the big flares at one of
the local facilities go off it can cause significant problems in the
surrounding communities."
Also being challenged in court today is a provision eliminating
existing requirements that polluters have contingency plans in place to
minimize toxic emissions when startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
occur. This means when major malfunctions result in massive releases of
toxic material, polluters are off the hook for ensuring that it doesn't
happen again.
The importance of these backup plans was on full display in
September 2005, when a power outage caused pollution and safety
controls to fail at three major southern California oil refineries. For
more than eight hours, the refineries belched black and yellow smoke.
Last October, power to the refineries failed again, once more
blanketing the Wilmington neighborhood of Los Angeles in pollution.
"These incidents could have been easily avoided had the refineries
been required to prepare a contingency plan that included a backup
power source during a blackout," said Jesse Marquez, Executive Director
of the Wilmington-based Coalition for a Safe Environment. "Instead,
EPA's rules encourage a reckless lack of planning, subjecting
communities like ours to repeat performances of major air pollution
events year after year."
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. A copy of briefs filed by Earthjustice is
available at: https://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/112_enviro_proof-opening-brief.pdf
The Environmental Integrity Project report, "Gaming the System: How
the Off-the-Books Industrial Upset Emissions Cheat the Public Out of
Clear Air" is available at: https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub238.cfm)
Emissions Reported During Recent Malfunctions At Select Refineries in Texas
Refinery | Location | Date of Release | Pollutant | Amount Released (lbs) | Point of Release |
Atofina Total Petrochemicals | Port Arthur | 7/22/06 to 7/23/06 | Sulfur Dioxide | 200,958 | North, South Flare, Tail Gas Thermal Oxidizer |
Atofina Total Petrochemicals | Port Arthur | 8/30/06 to 11/27/06 | Volatile Organic Compounds | 568,883 | FPM Cooling Tower |
Motiva | Port Arthur | 7/13/06 to 10/28/06 | Volatile Organic Compounds | 972,988 | FCCU Cooling Tower |
Valero | Port Arthur | 11/26/06 to 12/05/06 | Sulfur Dioxide | 243,343 | Multiple Units & Flares |
Exxon Mobil | Beaumont | 5/23/08 to 7/19/08 | Sulfur Dioxide | 313,953 | FCCU Flare |
Source: Emissions data reported by facilities to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. All emission reports online at: https://www11.tceq.state.tx.us/oce/eer/index.cfm
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,” the lawmakers wrote.
A group of 31 Democratic senators has launched an investigation into a new Trump administration policy that they say allows the Environmental Protection Agency to "disregard" the health impacts of air pollution when passing regulations.
Plans for the policy were first reported on last month by the New York Times, which revealed that the EPA was planning to stop tallying the financial value of health benefits caused by limiting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone when regulating polluting industries and instead focus exclusively on the costs these regulations pose to industry.
On December 11, the Times reported that the policy change was being justified based on the claim that the exact benefits of curbing these emissions were “uncertain."
"Historically, the EPA’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone," said an email written by an EPA supervisor to his employees on December 11. “To rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”
The group of senators, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), rebuked this idea in a letter sent Thursday to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
"EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are 'uncertain,' what is certain is that they are not zero," they said. "It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health—including in saved lives."
"It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed," they continued. "The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President [Donald] Trump’s largest donors."
Research published in 2023 in the journal Science found that between 1999 and 2020, PM2.5 pollution from coal-fired power plants killed roughly 460,000 people in the United States, making it more than twice as deadly as other kinds of fine particulate emissions.
While this is a staggering loss of life, the senators pointed out that the EPA has also been able to put a dollar value on the loss by noting quantifiable results of increased illness and death—heightened healthcare costs, missed school days, and lost labor productivity, among others.
Pointing to EPA estimates from 2024, they said that by disregarding human health effects, the agency risks costing Americans “between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature deaths in the year 2032."
Comparatively, they said, “the total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, [would] be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value."
They said the plan ran counter to the Clean Air Act's directive to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare,” and to statements made by Zeldin during his confirmation hearing, where he said "the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.”
The senators requested all documents related to the decision, including any information about cost-benefit modeling and communications with industry representatives.
"That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist," the senators said. "It just means that [EPA] will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests."
"An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down," wrote the New Republic's editorial director.
Democratic voters overwhelmingly want a leader who will fight the superrich and corporate America, and they believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person to do it, according to a poll released this week.
While Democrats are often portrayed as squabbling and directionless, the poll conducted last month by the New Republic with Embold Research demonstrated a remarkable unity among the more than 2,400 Democratic voters it surveyed.
This was true with respect to policy: More than 9 in 10 want to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, while more than three-quarters want to break up tech monopolies and believe the government should conduct stronger oversight of business.
But it was also reflected in sentiments that a more confrontational governing philosophy should prevail and general agreement that the party in its current form is not doing enough to take on its enemies.
Three-quarters said they wanted Democrats to "be more aggressive in calling out Republicans," while nearly 7 in 10 said it was appropriate to describe their party as "weak."
This appears to have translated to support for a more muscular view of government. Where the label once helped to sink Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) two runs for president, nearly three-quarters of Democrats now say they are either unconcerned with the label of "socialist" or view it as an asset.
Meanwhile, 46% said they want to see a "progressive" at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028, higher than the number who said they wanted a "liberal" or a "moderate."
It's an environment that appears to be fertile ground for Ocasio-Cortez, who pitched her vision for a "working-class-centered politics" at this week's Munich summit in what many suspected was a soft-launch of her presidential candidacy in 2028.
With 85% favorability, Bronx congresswoman had the highest approval rating of any Democratic figure in the country among the voters surveyed.
It's a higher mark than either of the figures who head-to-head polls have shown to be presumptive favorites for the nomination: Former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Early polls show AOC lagging considerably behind these top two. However, there are signs in the New Republic's poll that may give her supporters cause for hope.
While Harris is also well-liked, 66% of Democrats surveyed said they believe she's "had her shot" at the presidency and should not run again after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024.
Newsom does not have a similar electoral history holding him back and is riding high from the passage of Proposition 50, which will allow Democrats to add potentially five more US House seats this November.
But his policy approach may prove an ill fit at a time when Democrats overwhelmingly say their party is "too timid" about taxing the rich and corporations and taking on tech oligarchs.
As labor unions in California have pushed for a popular proposal to introduce a billionaire's tax, Newsom has made himself the chiseled face of the resistance to this idea, joining with right-wing Silicon Valley barons in an aggressive campaign to kill it.
While polls can tell us little two years out about what voters will do in 2028, New Republic editorial director Emily Cooke said her magazine's survey shows an unmistakable pattern.
"It’s impossible to come away from these results without concluding that economic populism is a winning message for loyal Democrats," she wrote. "This was true across those who identify as liberals, moderates, or progressives: An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down."
In some cases, the administration has kept immigrants locked up even after a judge has ordered their release, according to an investigation by Reuters.
Judges across the country have ruled more than 4,400 times since the start of October that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has illegally detained immigrants, according to a Reuters investigation published Saturday.
As President Donald Trump carries out his unprecedented "mass deportation" crusade, the number of people in ICE custody ballooned to 68,000 this month, up 75% from when he took office.
Midway through 2025, the administration had begun pushing for a daily quota of 3,000 arrests per day, with the goal of reaching 1 million per year. This has led to the targeting of mostly people with no criminal records rather than the "worst of the worst," as the administration often claims.
Reuters' reporting suggests chasing this number has also resulted in a staggering number of arrests that judges have later found to be illegal.
Since the beginning of Trump's term, immigrants have filed more than 20,200 habeas corpus petitions, claiming they were held indefinitely without trial in violation of the Constitution.
In at least 4,421 cases, more than 400 federal judges have ruled that their detentions were illegal.
Last month, more than 6,000 habeas petitions were filed. Prior to the second Trump administration, no other month dating back to 2010 had seen even 500.

In part due to the sheer volume of legal challenges, the Trump administration has often failed to comply with court rulings, leaving people locked up even after judges ordered them to be released.
Reuters' new report is the most comprehensive examination to date of the administration's routine violation of the law with respect to immigration enforcement. But the extent to which federal immigration agencies have violated the law under Trump is hardly new information.
In a ruling last month, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—provided a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE had violated just that month while deployed as part of Trump's Operation Metro Surge.
The report of ICE's systemic violation of the law comes as the agency faces heightened scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with leaders of the agency called to testify and Democrats attempting to hold up funding in order to force reforms to ICE's conduct, which resulted in a partial shutdown beginning Saturday.
Following the release of Reuters' report, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) directed a pointed question over social media to Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.
"Why do your out-of-control agents keep violating federal law?" he said. "I look forward to seeing you testify under oath at the House Judiciary Committee in early March."