The News & Observer tells us this morning:

According to the state Attorney General’s Office, pollution from 13
states encroaches into North Carolina. Of particular concern are
emissions from 3,000 megawatts of coal-burning plants in Tennessee
built in the 1950s and 1960s, all owned by the Tennessee Valley
Authority and some situated less than 100 miles from Asheville.

In
a separate legal action, Cooper’s office is suing the TVA over
windborne pollution from the giant utility’s 59 coal-burning units at
11 sites.

Exacerbated by cross-border air pollution, pollution
levels in a number of North Carolina counties exceed federal air
quality limits, the worst being Mecklenburg.

It’s a good time to remind you of this finding from Joel Schwartz’s recent report on TVA power plant emissions:


About 98.5 percent of the claimed health benefits from emission
reductions come from reduced output of a substance called particulate
matter, Schwartz said. ?The problem with the experts? assessment is
that the particulate matter targeted by forced emissions reductions is
not harmful,? he said. ?Particulate matter from power plants is mostly
ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. Neither is harmful, even at
levels tens of times greater than levels ever found in the air
Americans breathe.?

?In other words, 98.5 percent of the benefits claimed for power plant
emission reductions depend on the false assumption that ammonium
sulfate and nitrate are toxic,? Schwartz added. ?They?re not toxic, so
98.5 percent of the claimed benefits are not real.?

Schwartz also found problems with the other 1.5 percent of claimed
health benefits. ?These benefits come from proposed reduction of ozone
pollution,? he said. ?But the attorney general?s expert reports
exaggerate the benefits of ozone reductions. The experts assume that
ozone causes premature death, even at the relatively low levels
encountered in the air today. Decades of studies show this is not true.?

The expert reports contend that 96 percent of projected ozone reduction
benefits come from the reduced chance of premature death, Schwartz
said. ?Since ozone doesn?t cause premature death, this is another case
of the attorney general?s experts citing benefits that are not real.?