New action would be taken Alternative of Coal Fuel

New action would be taken Alternative of Coal Fuel,
An environmental review board has shot down the EPA approval of a new coal plant, stating that the Environment Protection Agency needs to come up with nationwide standards for dealing with carbon dioxide. The decision will cause lengthy and stricter rules, making the investment in expensive coal plants substantially riskier.

Therefore, the money will go into alternative energy, like solar or wind energy. The Environmental Appeals Boards’ decision to send the coal plans back to EPA with instructions to come up with standards was not a legal victory exactly, but the result is practically the same. Basically, the agency’s regional office has to at least consider whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, before it gives a green light to build the plant located in Utah.

The decision — which responded to a Sierra Club petition to review an E.P.A. permit granted to a coal plant in Utah — does not require the E.P.A. to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, something which environmentalists have long sought.

Rather, it requires the agency’s regional office to at least consider whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, before the agency gives a green light to build the Utah plant. On a broader scale, it will delay the building of coal-fired power plants across the country, long enough for the Obama administration to determine its policy on coal, according to David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club.

“They’re sending this permit — and effectively sending every other permit — back to square one,” he said, adding, “It’s minimum a one to two year delay for every proposed coal-fired power plant in the United States.”


The decision references the landmark Massachusetts v. E.P.A. decision last year that declared carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That ruling, however, has not yet prompted the E.P.A. to act to regulate it.

It is the latest setback for coal plants, which emit far more carbon dioxide than natural gas or other power plants. Last year Kansas state regulators denied a permit to a coal plant on the grounds of its carbon dioxide emissions.

“Although a new administration could always have reversed course, this makes it easier by providing the first prod,” said Jody Freeman, director of the environmental law program at Harvard Law School. “And it’s a heads-up to the coal industry that stationary-source regulation of CO2 is coming.”

The coal industry put its best face on the decision. The ruling “merely says what the court has said — that the E.P.A. has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,” said Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, an industry group.

However, she said, before rulemaking occurs, the E.P.A. has to make an “endangerment” finding, which has not yet been done. An “endangerment” finding would involve the E.P.A. declaring that carbon dioxide is a danger to public welfare, and would lead to regulation.

“We still believe, as do many in Congress, that the Clean Air Act is not very well structured to regulate greenhouse gases, and that Congress ought to address this through legislation,” added Ms. Raulston.

Ms. Freeman said that this week’s decision was part of a larger debate going forward “over whether and how the Clean Air Act might be used to regulate greenhouse gases while we wait for new climate legislation.

“E.P.A. has the authority to impose limits on CO2 coming from sources like power plants through the normal permit process,” she continued. “And we may see this happen in the new administration.”
The decision — which responded to a Sierra Club petition to review an E.P.A. permit granted to a coal plant in Utah — does not require the E.P.A. to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, something which environmentalists have long sought.

Rather, it requires the agency’s regional office to at least consider whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, before the agency gives a green light to build the Utah plant. On a broader scale, it will delay the building of coal-fired power plants across the country, long enough for the Obama administration to determine its policy on coal, according to David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club.

“They’re sending this permit — and effectively sending every other permit — back to square one,” he said, adding, “It’s minimum a one to two year delay for every proposed coal-fired power plant in the United States.”


The decision references the landmark Massachusetts v. E.P.A. decision last year that declared carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That ruling, however, has not yet prompted the E.P.A. to act to regulate it.

It is the latest setback for coal plants, which emit far more carbon dioxide than natural gas or other power plants. Last year Kansas state regulators denied a permit to a coal plant on the grounds of its carbon dioxide emissions.

“Although a new administration could always have reversed course, this makes it easier by providing the first prod,” said Jody Freeman, director of the environmental law program at Harvard Law School. “And it’s a heads-up to the coal industry that stationary-source regulation of CO2 is coming.”

The coal industry put its best face on the decision. The ruling “merely says what the court has said — that the E.P.A. has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,” said Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, an industry group.

However, she said, before rulemaking occurs, the E.P.A. has to make an “endangerment” finding, which has not yet been done. An “endangerment” finding would involve the E.P.A. declaring that carbon dioxide is a danger to public welfare, and would lead to regulation.

“We still believe, as do many in Congress, that the Clean Air Act is not very well structured to regulate greenhouse gases, and that Congress ought to address this through legislation,” added Ms. Raulston.

Ms. Freeman said that this week’s decision was part of a larger debate going forward “over whether and how the Clean Air Act might be used to regulate greenhouse gases while we wait for new climate legislation.

“E.P.A. has the authority to impose limits on CO2 coming from sources like power plants through the normal permit process,” she continued. “And we may see this happen in the new administration.”