Breaking: Landmark EPA Ruling Kills 30+ Planned Coal Plants

Wow. A decision by the Environmental Protection Agency today has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated.

What this means is that 30 permits for new coal-fired power plants in the seven state directly regulated by the EPA's permitting process, plus projects on all Indian Reservations will immediately die because of this ruling.

Joanna Spalding, the Sierra Club attorney who successfully argued the case, delivered this statement:

Today's decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.

Here's the official statement from Sierra Club on the decision.

And here's the official ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board (PDF).

The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.

Comments

[Teamster]

Until all resource is of our nation examined completely this a mistake on the global scale.

People so poor so destitute as to glean the rails of our nation to find coal a cook stove.

more research potential available still .

Steam propelled our nations commerce once. and can once more . mother earth hold many treasures.
Too many to list here.

[HilaryLambert]

Environmental and social justice activists here in Kentucky have devoted their lives to slowing the monster that is King Coal, the monster that destroys families and communities, blasts the tops off mountains, fills creek valleys with mine debris, and chokes stream life with sediment and coal slurry.
Next time you click on a light, take a moment to think about where the coal comes from to power that switch. This EPA ruling is an exciting early signal that our excellent federal enviromental laws may once again be enforced. That's great news for the land, air, water, people and biota in coal country USA.

[olephart]

Green energy cannot compete with fossil fuel at this time based on price alone. For intelligent people there are other considerations than price alone; climate change, security and balance of payments considerations to name a few. We have an opportunity to eschew the restraints of the "free markets" and replace them with focused economic pursuits. These pursuits should include energy security via domestic production and carbon friendly technologies. These will not come cheap.

Government subsidies must be invoked to both start and maintain this new energy paradigm. These fly in the face of the drill baby drill Nineteenth Century technology crowd. Good! Tax credits for wind and solar energy have been extended. These need to be vastly enlarged to include direct subsidies for individuals and businesses to go solar.

High gasoline prices brought about by rampant non regulated speculation had the fortunate side effect of reducing gasoline consumption. Now with prices falling this consumption may increase. A painful solution to over consumption and funding for green tax subsidies is available for a politician with courage. A tax on gasoline large enough to reduce consumption can fund green energies. The monies would be sequestered from the general fund and restricted to rebates for individuals and businesses for green energy. You"d pay at the pump and get it back from wind generators or the solar panels on your roof. Eventually your plug in hybrid would largely free you from the pump. The by-product would be jobs.

[sposton]

I guess EPA is trying to redeem itself before Obama takes the oath.

[Octoberon]

Time for the US to join the club, whether it's the Sierra Club, or the gathering of people who were prepared to sign up to Kyoto. This is good news as long as something else gets put in the place of those coal-fired power stations - which takes me to ProudAmerican23's post about the cost of a solar installation.

The problem isn't that solar (or any other green alternative) is intrinsically and inevitably a poor substitute. It's more the case that the economies of scale aren't yet in place. If solar panels, wind turbines and other alternative equipment was being mass-produced, surely the economics would look very different.

[ProudAmerican23]

While planning to build a new home in Texas, I looked at using solar... the investment wouldve been around $65,000 for my 2600 sq ft house... that would take around 25 years to pay off, provided those huge batteries lasted that long without replacement (they dont) and with around 15 of them at 1200 dollars each needing to be replaced every 8 years... you do the math here) then comes the question where do I recycle a 158 lbs battery? dump it in the landfill? Sorry I did the research and I wasnt sold on it.

[KillTheMessenger]

If you had done your research, you would have known that batteries are not necessary. So one can only conclude that you are trolling.

[TerrapinCB]

As another Texan, I did use renewable tech in my new house. If you've every lived in TX, you really should try WIND power. I'm off the grid and selling back to TXU unused power.

[ProudAmerican23]

It all sounds good until the "rolling brown outs" begin, then the screaming starts! Dont believe me? go down in your basement and throw the main circuit breaker and leave it that way for a couple days! Co2 will smell sweet compared to your food spoiling in the fridge. :o)

[Sumocat]

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

[joebhed]

This is first an opportunity.
It is not a solution.
One thing to remember about the coal plants that will be delayed is that they have primarily been working from energy growth forecasts that were based on economic growth forecasts that were based on the historical trends up through 2005.
Most folks would recognize and admit that these forecasts are not valid today.
Thus, the "new" coal plants that have been sidelined for lack of a proper regulation are not going to cause any kind of a resource imbalance in the near to mid term.
Right now, for the most part, they are an unneeded resource.
I hope they will all be built someday.
After we have developed the technology to operate them within the carbon-balance goals that we establish in the meantime.
The bigger fear to me is that the developing economies of the world will continue to take the coal from our country and burn it in the dirtiest plants in the world as a means of catching up to our standard of living.
We have the opportunity to develop the environmental regulations needed to control carbon and other GG emissions, and to engineer the solutions to clean coal development.
We should not waste either opportunity on the premise that if we can over-regulate this industry, then our coal will stay in the ground.
It will not.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Wow, that's like regulating water must not contain more than one hydrogen atom.

Rotsa ruck.

[darthdarcy]

Wait since corporations have "personhood" aren't CO2 emissions then their "free speech..?"

I am sure one could argue this to Judges Alito, Scalia Roberts and Thomas maybe Kennedy and find fertile ground among those Federalist Society Tory swine...

[RTIII]

They don't have person hood yet - and never will if I can have any say in the matter - they are well on their way, however...
.

[olephart]

Check the interpretaion of the 14th amendment, its a done deal.

[Binckeslaw]

Any responsible legislation targeted at the environmental consequences of new coal fired electrical plants should include emissions of mercury and lead in addition to CO2. There are cheap commercial remediation processes that are patented, tested by utilities, and ready for utilization. The industry will not employ the technology, which will safeguard air, land and water supplies from contamination, unless mandates require them to do so. Any legislative action that regulates CO2 emission must include the patented scrubbing process that can protect us from lead and mercury getting into the air, our land, and our drinking water. See Solucorp Industries.

[DuganS1]

This is going to result in higher costs for consumers, less available energy, and less jobs. This done despite knowing that stopping the operation of 30 coal plants will do zero in halting global warming. It's a sad day.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Tell that to the workers at the solar panel plant in my home town, and all the workers at the wind turbine factories, that we have to use coal instead because coal miner jobs are more important than their jobs.

[DuganS1]

Solar and wind power is not well suited to most parts of the country. Plus most of the biggest solar companies are Chinese.

[KillTheMessenger]

And why would I care? Do you really think I can't pay another $10/month for my electricity bill?

And, well, DuganS1, if you can't, maybe it's time to get a job instead of wasting your time "blogging". What do you think?

[DuganS1]

I could get one less shirt from Zegna every year and use that money to pay that higher bill, but higher costs for many consumers could be troubling. Plus, the delays in the construction of these coal plants means less available energy, which could mean more blackouts and brownouts across the country. It will also result in less jobs, which we sorely need right now. It's also a shame that we don't take advantage of our country's rich coal deposits - we're the Saudi Arabia of coal- especially considering the mitigating effect for global warming and the environment that not building 30 coal plants will do is about zero. What a waste. Down the road there could be some solar plants, but that is a long ways off and so far very few utility companies have expressed interest in investing in it.

[Kevin Grandia - Huffpost Blogger]

And what proof do you have of this? Or did you just read this in the Washington Times?

[DuganS1]

If the plants aren't build, engineering companies lose the business and construction workers don't get the work. The coal companies will also lose the work because they won't need to produce the extra coal. The companies that manufacture the mining equipment, like Joy Global and Bucyrus, will lose some business as well. Regarding higher costs, it is supply and demand. If less energy is available it will cost more, especially during peak months o if there is a cold winter or hot summer.

[Pdubya]

49% of our energy is directly or indirectly generated by the coal industry. will new programs or sources supply that void when coal is regulated into the grave?

we should regulate human flatulance if we're really interested in global warming. meanwhile, top scientists are arguing over another potential ice age.

will the government print or borrow more money to re-train coal workers when their jobs are lost? will they get to work at a solar panel plant or nuclear facility?

[BlackbirdHighway]

I don't think this fight is over yet, but this is very good news. The first step is to stop building new coal plants. Then we need to boost solar and wind and geothermal. I don't even care if we need to boost nuclear. As bad as nuclear is, it's miles ahead of coal for the environment. If we keep spewing CO2, we won't have to worry about storing those nuclear wastes for thousands of year because humans won't be around that long.

Step three is to start shutting down coal plants. Step four is massive conversion of our transportation to clean power.

[Kevin Grandia - Huffpost Blogger]

I was out with a good friend the other day who is a tireless climate activist and he said, "Kevin, I've finally leaped over the nuclear Rubicon, if C02 emissions are our greatest worry then we need nuclear to replace coal right away."

[rjmiller]

The primary historical problems of nuclear power, waste and safety, are being addressed.

The waste is still a problem, but there is a solution. Vitrification traps waste inside of glass so it is unable to leak and contaminate ground water. The glass is then put into a stainless steel canister and welded shut, keeping it safe long enough for a few half-lives to pass and the waste to decompose into non-radiating metals. The only major problem left to address is the long-term storage of the glass canisters. I'm not a geologist so I can't speak for the viability of Yucca Mountain but the idea of it is valid, even if the particular site is not ideal.

In terms of safety, nuke plants have progressed in the 30 years since Three Mile Island to become very safe. You would not believe the amount of safety regulations and training that is involved on every level in the design and operations of any project related to nuclear materials.

continued below...

[rjmiller]

PART 2

I'm designing the automated controls for a vitrification plant right now, and there is almost a pathological push for safety on the project. Every single meeting is begun with "Safety and Quality Messages" that reinforce our "Nuclear safety and quality culture." Every single design document is checked by a senior engineer before being submitted to be checked by a multi-discipline committee (mechanical, electrical, nuclear, nuclear safety, safety assurance), before it can be signed and then rechecked by the Environmental & Nuclear Safety group who must sign off every design. This is all overseen by the DOE who regularly audit us and add more and more safety and quality requirements.

There is still the problem that nuclear power requires a material that is mined. That is not a problem that can be solved, and is a big impetus for a move to wind and solar energy since they merely require air and light.

[Ozarks]

Decommissioning costs more than installation. Present rules , at least in MO is that a reserve fund must be established for decommissioning costs in a tariff as soon as a nuke plant goes on line and is included in rate base. Yucca Mountain is as yet not resolved as storage for at least 100,000 + years of lethal half life, subsidized by taxpayers. Nuke is not the way to go if a nuke plant is estimated at $ 6 billion , that is a laugh, utilities do "cost plus" they don' care about ultimate cost since it all goes in rate base at an 11% rate of return . Callaway and Wolf Creek for MO were estimated at $700 million, they costed out at $3.5 billion - apply the same "inflation" to $6 billion plus the 27 years of decommissioning costs and it is a no brainer - no more nukes.

[lastcallmd]

yeah, that's great, cause I'm sure the utilities wanted to spend the money to build those plants just for the hell of it. So, when electric bills go up, (supply and demand and all that) and the windmills aren't turning, and the sun isn't shining, don't complain when you get your third world electricity reliability--that is, it's on when it's on, and it's not when it's not. And when it is, it's expensive. But that's OK, the poor folks will appreciate doing their part to fight global warming, even if it's a little cold with no heat.

[Kevin Grandia - Huffpost Blogger]

Again. All rhetoric and no substance - last time I checked the price of coal is going through the roof due to ever-increasing demand for a finite resource (sound familiar). Last time I checked, sunlight is free.

[DuganS1]

The price of coal has gone up because of the huge worldwide demand for metallurgical coal used to make steel, which many US coal companies export. Prices are coming down now rapidly because of the global recession.

[Pdubya]

things are going through the roof because of our monetary policy by the federal reserve: print or borrow. the deleveraging that is propping up our dollar right now is temporary. the dollar will fall like a rock soon, when the world won't lend us anymore money that we can't buy back. it is government intervention in the market that has encouraged mal-investment. i expect they will try to do the same in green energy markets. but for the individual, free market approach to going off the grid is the way to go. currently, i have two solar panels, a 2,000 gallon water cistern, a 500 gallon tank full of grease and we're buying a diesel generator and used mercedes to run with it. our goal is to pay our taxes and thats all. no utilities, no gas pumps. we've gardened and canned for two years now. i'm not looking forward to cap and trade or a global carbon tax.

[Ozarks]

They build them at cost plus. This cost plus is put in rate base for a guaranteed for life return of a least 11% . Then they play games with the depreciation reserve by moving it around or try to make it a Market value instead of original cost depreciation rate. They avoid using fluidized bed or putting new generation scrubbers on , too innovative or god forbid coal carbon capture or gasification.- Believe me utilities love to pump up rate base because all "above the line" capitalization like a new plant is picked up - guaranteed for life- by ratepayers and gee the equity stockholders get a no risk assured 11-12% rate of return.