Related topics:
Recommend this:
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.
CUTTING COMPLIANCE COSTS-CAN YOU AFFORD NOT TO?
Implement a cost effective compliance management program. Find out how. >>
ENTERPRISE EHS COMPLIANCE SOLUTION
Globally manage EHS initiatives - locally execute compliance programs. >>
In a study of consumer opinions of marketing claims, survey respondents identified most ...
click to view full size chart »
For most organizations today, sophisticated carbon management is simply not possible. At best, ... continue »
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, 2008The 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