November 17, 2008
EPA Ruling Delays Proposed Coal Plants, Recognizes CO2 As Pollutant
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club over a proposed coal plant on a American Indian reservation in Utah, the Environmental Appeals Board blocked the EPA from issuing a permit to the plant. The ruling also said that “the EPA has no valid reason to refuse to regulate the CO2 emissions that come from new coal-powered plants,” Time reports.
The decision, which pointed to a 2007 ruling by the Supreme Court that recognized CO2 as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act and therefore needs to be regulated by the EPA, means any new new pollution permits for coal plants will need to use the Best Available Control Technology to reduce CO2 emissions. Previously, CO2 wasn’t affected by BACT because the EPA did not recognize it as a pollutant, but this decision changes that. In the short-term, the ruling also makes it difficult to certify new coal power plants because the EPA will need to reconfigure its rules on CO2 regulations.
There are currently no definition for BACT for CO2 and industry insiders estimate that it will take between six months to a year to figure that out.
David Bookbinder, Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel, told Wired that “this is incredibly good for green energy.” The decision delays proposed coal plants and has the potential to funnel money into alternative energy power plants that are more likely to be built without delays.
Advertisers
Enhance Sustainability. Improve Profitability.
Learn how at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>
Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?
Learn how it could affect your business. >>
EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st
CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>
Product Environmental Compliance Best Practices
How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 11/20/2009
- 11/19/2009
- 11/18/2009
- Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
- EPA Is One Step Closer to New Ship Emissions Standards
- European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990
- CDP Launches Water Disclosure Project
- Whirlpool Cuts Water Use by Nearly 22% from 2004 to 2008
- National Grid Again Rejects High Costs of Offshore Wind
- California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
- Agilent To Save $3.5M Over 10 Years With Solar
- S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
- Texas, China Wind Partners May Build U.S. Factory to Appease Critical Lawmaker
- Volvo, Mack Engines First to Meet 2010 EPA Emissions Standards
- Around the Web – Nike, Google, Nissan, Bush’s Green Library, WWF
- Fossil Fuel Emissions Rose 29% since 2000
- SEC Charges Four in ‘Green’ Investment Ponzi Scheme
- No Sunny Skies for Two Solar Projects in Texas, California
- Canada Delays GHG Emissions Regs, Russia Ups Emissions Cuts
- News Corp. Taps Hara for Energy Efficiency, Environmental Management
- Rising Sea Levels Would Hit U.S. East Coast Hardest
- Building an Energy-Efficient Data Center Using Virtualization Technology
- Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
- A/V Equipment Gets New Energy Star Requirements
- By Scaling Back Catalogs, JC Penney to Save 30% on Paper
- Around the Web – Starbucks, EcoFactor, UPS, Brownfields, Eco-Labels
- Subaru Touts Energy & Environmental Initiatives
- U.S., China Partner on Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency
- Green Buildings Do Double Duty: Reduce Energy Use, Lower Financial Risk
- UK to Ease Rules for On-Site Renewable Energy Installations
- Intel Eyes Wind, Electric Cars
- Nike Tops Annual Climate Action Scores
- Iranian Tanker Firm to Cut Fuel Use 28%
- Corporate Jetsetters Can be Carbon Offsetters
- USPS Energy Use Down 9% From 2005 to 2008
- From Solar Applications to Christmas, LEDs Light the Night
- EPA May Regulate Sulfur Dioxide Emissions on Hourly Basis
- MITEI: Sustainable Energy & Terawatt-Scale Photovoltaics
- Around the Web – Health Care & Energy, Shell, NBC
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
Trade Association on Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
"Seriously… that..."
Gary Markowitz on Supermarkets Tackle Emissions Reductions, Fuel Efficiency
"Supermarkets waste over 10 percent of their energy through improper..."
peter in ireland on Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
"Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot! 1...."
Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."
Jake on UPS Trying New Hydraulic Hybrid Trucks
"A point of clarification: the Reuters press release referenced herein reports that 20 UPS will purchase..."
Custom Organic Shirts on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"90% of North Americans believe it is urgent to get a global climate..."
peter dublin on California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
"Why energy efficiebnt regulation on buildings –..."





Reader Comments
The article on the Deseret Power decision overstates the effect of the ruling. The Board did not go as far as to say EPA must regulate CO2 from coal plants. The Board said the basis EPA put forward in refusing to regulate CO2 for the Deseret permit was not defensible. However, the Board said EPA still has discretion to develop a defensible position for saying monitoring requirements are not enough to trigger full blown regulation of CO2.
Joe Koncelik | November 18th, 2008
The sierra Club and the rest of Gore’s Ilk is destroying the fabric of this countryt with warm and fuzzy nonsense. There is no science what so ever to declare CO2 as a pollutant since every living thing on this planet needs it in order to survive, the food we eat the air we breathe, some of the drinks we drink all contain CO2. IT IS NOT A POLLUTANT! Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, and Cognitive Dissonance are all things you need to google now and get on with civilly getting after all the environmental socialists who want to herd you into the big city to control you, take your land, and amke you a servant. Before you open your mouth look at the facts. 500 global scientist all claim this as a fraud and what these groups are doing is treason, communistic control. It has nothing to do with the environment and I challenge everyone to prove this wrong. Ask their attorneys, there is nothing on this planet that will make anything done on public land, OK regardless of what the technology or science says.
Capt. Planet | June 16th, 2009