UPDATE: The Seattle office of EPA posted this press release Wednesday morning, a document that provides some clear information, but not enough for the extensive discussion that this topic requires.

Improving the air quality in Fairbanks, a community where a lot of people burn wood because of the price of heating oil, is not an easy or inexpensive matter.

The latest sign of difficulty is that the federal Environmental Protection Agency wants to reject key parts of the plan put forward by the state to deal with air pollution in Fairbanks.

In one big particular, EPA questions the state claim that modifications to existing power plants are not feasible because they are so expensive. This has serious implications for the Fairbanks area. The health consequences of breathing polluted air also have serious implications, but the focus will be on the costs here and now.

This is a complicated topic and neither the press release from the state Department of Environmental Conservation nor the long document EPA published Tuesday on the Federal Register does the situation justice.

The latter fails not because the EPA released a detailed technical document filled with jargon and acronyms, but because the agency did not include a summary that will be understood and read by the public.

I suggest that Fairbanks residents contact the EPA and ask Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-0340 for a summary written in clear English. If he can’t provide it, someone else should.

His email is jentgen.matthew@epa.gov. This is a serious communications failure by EPA. The jargon and tortured acronyms mean nothing to 99 percent of the people who live here.

Here is the insufficient notice on the EPA website. The EPA handling of this practically guarantees the tone of the coverage that will follow. The News-Miner reporting largely echoes the state press release, condemning the EPA.

The DEC press release says Fairbanks “and the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have been making progress on this contentious issue for 14 years despite EPA’s failure to oversee and certify wood stoves. These devices contribute nearly 90% of the health-threatening pollution that disproportionally impacts vulnerable populations.”

“At the heart of this proposed disapproval are incredibly costly control measures that the EPA will now mandate that won’t move the needle on the local air pollution issue. EPA wants to mandate the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) for home heating oil at an incredible expense to Interior residents with limited health benefits, while also placing $100s of millions in additional costs to electric utilities within the nonattainment area. DEC’s plan showed that these control measures were too expensive, but with this proposed disapproval EPA is telling the community that these controls are affordable, required, and if not implemented EPA will penalize the community by withholding over $37 million in annual Federal Highway funding,” DEC says.

Public comments will be taken by the EPA until March 13.