EPA Blocks Coal Plant, Could Change Power Landscape

The EPA just struck a major blow to coal power plants trying to rush construction before an Obama administration has the chance to pass new regulations. The EPA coal plant ruling that came down late Thursday said that a permit for a new plant in Utah wouldn't be granted over global warming risks:

The Environmental Protection Agency's appeals panel rejected the permit issued by its Denver office, saying it had failed to support a decision to grant the plant a permit without requiring the best available controls to limit carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for warming the planet.

It ruled Denver would have to reconsider why it did not require the plant to have the CO2 controls.

Deseret Power, a group of six cooperatives that wants to build the 110 megawatt plant on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation near Bonanza, was not immediately available for comment.

Lawyers for an environmental group that had sought the review of the regional permit said the decision puts into question the fate of dozens of planned coal-fired power plants.

Blogging here at the Huffington Post, Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope wrote that the EPA coal decision signaled that change has arrived:

President Bush may have been willing to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and that EPA must regulate it, but as the clock runs out on Bush's presidency, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) signaled the end of the Bush era this morning and the beginning of a clean energy future.

Joe Romm of Climate Progress elaborated on how it the EPA coal ruling could limit CO₂ elsewhere:

I'm no lawyer, and I will link to other posts and interpretations as soon as they are online. But if this stands, it would seem to require "Best Available Control Technology" for CO2 in the EPA air permits for new coal plants or additions.

Certainly it is going to slow down the permitting of any new coal plant dramatically, until the EPA figures out the answer to the $64 billion question: What is BACT for CO2 for a coal plant? That will probably take the Obama EPA at least 12 months to decide in a rule-making process.

Comments

[watchingthings]

Maybe they figured nobody will notice since they planned to build it on an Indian Reservation.

[Ohg]

Capitalism is economic natural selection. We humans tinker with the fundamentals of natural selection - when it is cold, we build shelters. . ................

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/16/the-utility-of-socialism/

[wadenelson1]

We poison rivers when it enriches a few.

[Tyrione]

It's real simple: Put in the safeguards and you're in business.

[Mildmannered]

hasn't a "clean coal" plant been built in Europe???

[GoneGreen]

The citizens (not the utility, not the government) of Pasadena, California came out a couple of years ago to object to their municipal utility signing on for additional long term coal-plant power, insisting instead, that the utility procure sustainable sources for electricity in the future. Some came out to stave off the perceived global warming effects. Others saw coal as too costly when all the real costs are factored in, including the health effects of do called Slightly-Less-Dirty Coal ("Clean Coal" to the crowd in the oxymoron department). The utility capitulated, and declined to enter into the long term coal contract.

Coal. It's just so 19th Century!

[Ramirez]

Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record

Michael Asher (Blog) - November 7, 2008 6:32 PM

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979. ...

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

[SupremeIdiot]

"That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero, indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from 1979-2000.

Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming."

That's from your article.

You're also going to have to learn the difference between short-term sea ice and long term sea ice. The permanent ice in the Arctic is shrinking and is not effected by short term ebb and flow of the seasonal ice flow.

[Ramirez]

And then the article continues:

"Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.

On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years. ..."

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

We want clean energy. Thank you EPA

[mick7191]

I am amazed that the EPA did that. Bravo.

[watchingthings]

They should be fined for purposely leaving out that technology...ridiculous.

[HoraceOvidson]

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.

[haramagoti]

It is not enough to prevent future coal plants from emitting those levels, though a remarkably miraculous step. The EPA needs to listen to itself and further enforce such restrictions and conditions upon ALL coal plants existing in the US. Those who cannot should be similarly shut down until "safe(r)" levels are reached, until the green calvary (energy infrastructure) arrives, which won't be that long a wait at all with responsible leadership from the incoming administration.

[whiteman]

let's say america approached alternative energy with the same enthusiasm that we did the computer industry. could we offset the losses of nongreen industries with new green-focused industry? forgetting global warming for a minute, by refocusing dollars could it make economic sense to go green? i'm talking about clean energy, cars, and whatever else would be appropriate.

[Jkoncelik]

Well, maybe lawyers are useful once in while:) That is not quite what the EAB did. They actually punted. They said the Sierra Club was wrong- there is no mandatory requirement to control CO2 in the Clean Air Act. But they said the EPA has discretion to require controls, like BACT, for CO2 emissions. Then they sent the permit back for EPA to decide. Here is a link to my blog in case you are interested. http://www.ohioenvironmentallawblog.com/2008/11/articles/climate-change/deseret-power-case-co2-regulation-issue-punted-to-obama-administration/

[ajm8127]

Hey, people are finally listening to James Hansen, after 20 years! This big though, and a step in the right direction.

[jacobomorales]

the EPA did something intelligent and did not heed their masters?

[Sumocat]

Looks like the EPA has decided to party like it's January 20, 2009.