iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

U.S. Carbon Emission Rules Could Ultimately 'Send The Message That Coal Is Dead'


First Posted: 02/13/2012 3:13 pm Updated: 02/13/2012 6:34 pm


* Proposed rules on new plants expected this month
* Could push carbon capture, other ways to cut emissions

By Timothy Gardner and Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected soon to unveil long-delayed rules limiting carbon emissions from new coal-fired power stations, possibly helping to slam the door shut well into the future on building plants that run on the fuel.

The Environmental Protection Agency has dragged its feet on proposing the new standards on carbon emissions that would hit new coal plants or facilities undergoing expansion.

The short-term impact of the rules, the first to limit U.S. carbon emissions from new power stations, is expected to be symbolic -- the rules will not tackle existing plants, which would have been far more disruptive to the industry.

But in the long run it could set the stage for rules that take on such cuts.

"The proposed rule is certainly expected to send the message that coal is dead," said Christine Tezak, an energy policy analyst at wealth management company Robert W. Baird & Co.

Republicans sharply oppose a raft of clean-air initiatives from the EPA and are keen to take the argument on the campaign trail for this year's presidential election that the initiatives kill jobs and saddle businesses with onerous costs.

The longer the administration delays, the less likely the rules will be finalized before November's vote and the greater the chances they could be overturned if President Barack Obama loses.

But EPA chief Lisa Jackson, whose mantra is smart rules can protect the environment, human health and the economy, says the carbon plan will be out early this year.

The delay on the carbon rules is simply to work out the kinks so they are not too costly on power companies, said administration sources, who asked not to be identified.

U.S. states and environmentalists who have sued the EPA in the past to speed up the carbon rules also expect to see the proposal soon. "It's our expectation that the rules for greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants will be issued this month," said Mike Myers, a New York state government lawyer involved in talks with the EPA.


BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY
After delaying the carbon rules in June and again in September last year, the EPA finally submitted them in November to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, where they were being reviewed before going back to the agency.

The OMB has already held the rules for 90 days, which is normally the length of time the White House would review proposals such as these.

The environmental groups that sued the EPA on the carbon plan would consider going back to court if the White House continued to delay the rules, according to sources in the organizations.

A ruling favorable to the environmental groups could result in the courts laying down a hard date for the release of the rules.
Obama delayed a major smog rule last fall, leading some environmental groups outside the talks on the carbon regulations to worry a precedent had been set for axing clean-air initiatives.

Still, officials from states and environmental groups in the talks said the administration would move forward. The agency has created a public database of the country's top emitters and is requiring the biggest emitters to hold permits for releasing greenhouse gases.

"The administration is working on getting it right," said Jeff Tittel, head of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, one of the groups that have sued the EPA over carbon. "It's better to be safe than sorry, because they don't want to rush a rule that can't be implemented."

WHAT IF GAS RUSH SLOWS?
The outlook for new coal plants has been darkened by the EPA's host of clean-air rules and as electricity companies dash to build plants to burn much cheaper natural gas.

The EPA rules have pushed utilities to close more than 30 coal-fired plants, and companies have announced plans to shut at least 130 more through 2020. No new coal-fired plants were started in 2011, but more may be needed in the future if the economy recovers and natural gas prices rebound.

The carbon rules could require new coal-fired power plants to capture a portion, up to 60 percent, of their carbon emissions and bury them permanently underground, or take other measures to reduce emissions.

The EPA's overall clean-air efforts have divided the power industry between companies that have moved toward cleaner energy, including Exelon and NextEra, and those that generate most of the power from coal, including Southern Co and American Electric Power.

Southern, which owns the three largest carbon-polluting power plants in the country, would not comment on the carbon rules, but has said EPA air rules taken together will force it to shut 40 percent of its coal-fired generation.

Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for American Electric Power, said the United States needed to worry about the long-term implications of the carbon rules.

"Near-term it's not an issue, but what are the implications of the rules longer-term if the shale gas business doesn't pan out the way people expect it to?," she said. "It's a concern for long-term reliability" of the electric grid.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 166
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
09:40 PM on 02/14/2012
Coal should be burned only in historical reenactments.
Nuclear for baseload, renewables for peak.
There, that wasn't so hard.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot 70
11:01 PM on 02/14/2012
And the hundreds of thousands who survive off the coal industry in Ky, Tenn, Va and Wv? Should they starve, lost their homes, jobs, cars, houses, families?

You do know that we are shutting down coal mines, even as we import coal from China that is so poor quality that it will not even burn?

But it's okay, right? After all, they are just poor miners and their poor families.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
08:54 AM on 02/15/2012
Last I checked, we don't import coal, flammable of not, from China.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._coal_imports

Why are the miners and their families so poor? They're poor when the mines close, but, heck, they're poor when the mine's open.
The Peabody International Coal Company keeps them that way, and the mine owners keep them that way and all the politicians in all their pockets keep them that way, and the investors, and yes, when you get down to it you and I, consumers of the product, keep them that way.
Getting this country off of coal may be the only chance they have.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
svasol
Environment means we are all in this together
12:49 AM on 02/18/2012
Far better jobs in nuclear, solar, wind, geo and conserving. Give them a hand to move up in our society. This is about everybody doing the right thing for everyone.
12:09 PM on 02/15/2012
How do you use renewables for peak on day with no wind?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
04:38 PM on 02/15/2012
It's in the spirit of generosity. You and I both know where the juice comes from on a cloudy calm day.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Uhgg
Just another Neanderthal
07:24 PM on 02/14/2012
Well there goes the power bill and we will not be able to charge our electric cars now because it will cost more than gas to do so
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
svasol
Environment means we are all in this together
12:54 AM on 02/18/2012
Millions of cars charging on off peak times are going to be a huge source of energy storage. Every home on the smart grid.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulBardinas
Educating one person at a time.
03:25 PM on 02/14/2012
I hope energy costs do rise. This in turn will help curb our appetite for cheap dirty energy. Perhaps those energy efficient light bulbs, energy efficient appliances, and energy efficient homes won't seem so silly when the true costs of energy are factored in. Perhaps when energy costs go up we'll unplug all those energy wasting gadgets. Perhaps we'll lower the thermostat a bit. Perhaps we'll start living like nature intended, sustainably. Wishful thinking, I know.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:52 PM on 02/14/2012
Perhaps poor families in the northern climes won't be able to pay their heating bills, and their children will suffer through misreably cold nights. Perhaps some will get sick and die from the experience.

Perhaps poor families will be unable to afford to run the air conditioner during summer time heat waves. Perhaps the impoverished elderly will die off as a result.

Perhaps food prices will skyrocket, and childhood nutrition will suffer as a consequence.

Perhaps entitled upper-middle-class white dudes will choose to voluntarily reduce their luxurios use of energy by skipping the trip to HI. Perhaps they will stop indulging in poorly informed fantasies about how wonderful an energy starved world will be.

Wishful thinking, I know.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulBardinas
Educating one person at a time.
10:00 AM on 02/15/2012
Nonsense and wrong. Any intelligent comprehensive plan to reduce our dependence on dirty fossil fuels could also include help for the poor. Again it's just this sort of scare mongering that serves no purpose but to stifle any progress. Take the billions of dollars the US spends protecting oil supplies around the world and you have more than enough money to help the poor heat their homes in Winter. Or take the tax credits from oil companies and help the poor. Tax those entitled upper-middle-class white dudes a little more and perhaps they won't take the trip to HI. For the record, I could be consider an upper-middle-class white dude, although I wouldn't consider myself entitled. I worked thru HS and paid my way thru college to become fairly successful. But, even with the means to do so, I don't think I'm entitled to destroy the planet. Me and my wife drive 100% electric cars. We grow 90% of all our vegetables and fruits organically in our vegetable garden. We raise chickens, goats, and rabbits for meat and milk. We use water captured from our gutters to irrigate with. We set the thermostat at 65°F and 78°F. None of this is wishful thinking only real conservativism in action.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulBardinas
Educating one person at a time.
03:19 PM on 02/14/2012
It really does get tiring to hear the same arguments made over and over again about harmful products or old technologies. Coal is a dirty form of fossil fuel, no way around that. Coal has polluted our air and helped fuel global warming. Instead of embracing this fact, all I hear from the right are tired arguments about lost jobs and expensive energy. So what, I say! When science proved that cigarretts caused cancer and that tobacco execs new it, we fined the tobacco companies, taxed cigarrettes, and limited their ability to market their poison. Guess what? Prices for cigarretts went up! Fewer people smoke or have to breath secondhand smoke. Some people lost their jobs. Some states lost revenue. Would anyone suggest that we all start lighting up again out of some misplaced sense of patriotic duty. Absolutely not! Coal, like cigarrettes was a mistake. We know that now. Now, we must fix it. Consequences be damned!
NoahScape
Knowledge is good - Emil Faber
04:14 PM on 02/14/2012
Creating a logical fallacy of false equivalence between tobacco and coal doesn't make for much of an argument.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulBardinas
Educating one person at a time.
04:58 PM on 02/14/2012
I could easily make an argument against Coal without the need to make any equivalence between tobacco and coal. I was making an argument against the often used arguments by the right for defending all the bad policies they support. Job loss's and economic doom are the default argument for any additional regulation. Cigarretts are just one example. Financial regulation is another. Or perhaps the EPA in general. Anytime science and the facts prove that a product or industry requires regulation you can count on Republicans to drum up the same false argument. That was my point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulBardinas
Educating one person at a time.
05:07 PM on 02/14/2012
I'd love to make my argument against Coal by saying that CO2 emitted by coal burning was contributing to global warming. I'd like to point out how coal burning causes billions of dollars in health related costs and contributes to premature deaths. I'd like to point out the harm that byproducts of coal burning cause our waters. I'd love to point out how coal mining has devastated the environment and the people in WVA and PA. These are, unfortunately, facts that most Republican can seemingly deny. Here's another logical fallacy of false equivalence for you. They deny the facts about Coal with the same easy that they can deny the facts about evolution or physics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot 70
11:11 PM on 02/14/2012
Yes, lets look at tobacco. The tobacco industry was shut down, the price went up. Farmers lost their jobs, kids went hungry, towns disappeared.

Then cigarettes went from 75c a pack to more than seven dollars a pack. The farmer still gets about 2c for each pack worth of tobacco, and the manufacturer still gets about 8c to make it into a product. Then the shipper gets 5c to ship it, and the retailer gets about 28c to sell it.

The government gets 1.00 or so in state taxes, 1.25 or so in federal taxes on the sales side, and 2.60 on the tobacco companies side in fees, penalties, and punishments. 4.85 in taxes on a product that can be made with .45c worth of tobacco and labor.

So the farmers die off, the kids starve, and the crops are not planted. Property values go down, employees are laid off, and a black market starts up wide open. the ATF prosecutes people arrogant enough to try to grow their own, and while the shippers lay off more truck drivers the growers put for sale signs in their yards.

Yes, let's destroy an industry. Smart, really smart.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulBardinas
Educating one person at a time.
10:25 AM on 02/15/2012
Yes, let's destory it. Your argument is again the same old default. Just because an industry employs people or is their livlihood is not a sufficient reason to defend it. Slavery was once the primary economic engine that powered the South and agriculture in this country. The same absurd arguments were made by slaveholders. Take away my slaves or force me to pay for the work and it will spell doom. No! What you must understand is that when an industry is harming the environment, threatening human health, or helping to melt our planet than the needs of the many outway the needs of the few. Not all tobacco farmers lost their jobs. Some, smart enough to see the need for a change, planted something else. The jobs, wealth, or needs of any particular industry should never come at the expense of the greater good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
svasol
Environment means we are all in this together
01:02 AM on 02/18/2012
390 ppm CO2 and rising fast. Arctic snow caps melting fast - sun's infrared is being absorbed exponentially. Massive coal burning killing life on planet.

Much better jobs in nuclear, renewable, conservation.... keep smoking whatever you want= but getting the world off coal is not optional.
02:41 PM on 02/14/2012
Southern company is building 2 clean and green zero environmental footprint nukes to replace coal.
02:23 PM on 02/14/2012
Oh no didn't you hear they have clean coal now I think it's light grey or beige.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot 70
11:12 PM on 02/14/2012
No, that's Obamastool. It wont burn, it just blows the fire out, too much trapped gas.
11:38 PM on 02/14/2012
Wow great argument! Oh no wait that wasn't an argument that was just stupid I apologies
02:14 PM on 02/14/2012
Coal won't die. You just won't see people making a killing off it by the likes of Don Blankenship, hopefully. And if big coal's campaign that coal is actually red, white and blue. doesn't work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot 70
11:14 PM on 02/14/2012
I grew up around coal, and can tell you that it is already dead. The US would rather import some rocks from China that won't even burn, than to use good black US mined coal.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
01:10 PM on 02/14/2012
Coal is vital to the Military! Cap and Trade transfers wealth from the Gas Industry to the Coal Mines and Miners to keep them open.

WHERE IS ALL THAT TOXIC SAND going to be dumped if they build that pipeline ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot 70
11:15 PM on 02/14/2012
What are you talking about? Wow, that made a lot of sense.
photo
aforbes808
Naked is a state of mind.
12:29 PM on 02/14/2012
Come on people. If we can put a man on the moon, we can figure this out. What is lacking is political will. Big oil and coal doesn't want to see their industry killed and our rulers are addicted to the industries "free speech". I say R.I.P.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Energy Conservation can save you M-O-N-E-Y!!!!!!!!
01:15 PM on 02/14/2012
Big Oil left the US decades ago. Just after we nationalized coal, oil & natural gas in 1977.
You and I are Big Coal and Big Oil. We The People make more in the petroleum industry than all 13,000 American Oil companies combined. A third of the States are totally dependent on coal, oil and/or natural gas to maintain their budgets (which they can't exceed like the federal government does). Gasoline purchasers subsidize the transportation industry.
Industries only exist due to our Demand. They Supply what we Demand. No Demand, they either go bankrupt or move overseas. That is why most of our corporations have moved overseas (along with the jobs). We only buy foreign cheap goods.
I'm all for stopping the Demand. That is how We have control over Industry no matter how much they might pay the government. But We have Demand. That is why we have subsidies. But the good news is We The People make $65 for every $1 in oil subsidies. Or is that bad news? We have backed ourselves into a corner. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. But at least we have someone else to blame for our own greed.
photo
aforbes808
Naked is a state of mind.
12:23 PM on 02/14/2012
R.I.P. Coal
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blood1
11:40 AM on 02/14/2012
naysayer's are whining - what is that about?
Are we supposed to forget the many ads from last year where the coal industry said, no worry, we have "clean coal".
Hmm, now they are whining saying that there is a concern if their own answer fails to work.

Chiropracter's gotta love these whip-lash turn-abouts by the industry who said they had an answer then, but not now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
10:56 AM on 02/14/2012
That influenced peddled Salazar at the Interior, just rounded up several thousand wild mustangs, killing several in the process, and turned their native land over to big coal.

I hope I see the end of the use of all fossil fuels before I die.
photo
psandysdad
The older you get, the more excuses you have.
10:40 AM on 02/14/2012
Coal is dead, eh? Tell that people in PA or WVA and see how popular you are.
01:16 PM on 02/14/2012
Don't have to tell them, will just send flowers to the families losing there Fathers and Sons to unsafe conditions to save the company a buck
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot 70
11:31 PM on 02/14/2012
48 miners died in the US last year.
3,443 people died from downing last year.

More people died in the Agriculture industry.

With the UMWA, safety regulations from OSHA, and improved mining methods, people do get hurt, but it's generally a safe place to work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elstewart
progressive plantsman, writer & artist
10:10 AM on 02/14/2012
Let's hope so. There is no such thing as "clean coal." Just ask the folks in West Virginia whose mountains have been flattened and their towns washed away in floods. It's time we get on board with truly environmentally friendly renewable resources such as wind, solar & geothermal and say goodbye to polluting fossil fuels once and for all.
11:29 AM on 02/14/2012
Do you know what goes into solar and wind power generators? I believe you would have a different opinion after how the materials are made that go into building them....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Energy Conservation can save you M-O-N-E-Y!!!!!!!!
12:18 PM on 02/14/2012
Also, that the land around wind generators have been unnecessarily destroyed. There was an environmentally-friendly way that they could have installed thousands of wind generators in Texas, but they chose the cheap and dirty route. If it does rain in West Texas, the water isn't likely to soak in. There are thousands of miles of caliche roads that contain fine particles that blow across the plain and settles on the ground. The water runs off, the plants die, the animals die. The end result is wind and water errosion. This area is about 600 miles long and 200 miles wide. And are these thousands of generators connected to the grid yet?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Howell
10:09 AM on 02/14/2012
You think you power bills are high now. Just wait. Don't worry about the poor! They can afford it, but we do love you so please, keep voting for us Demogressives!