In a decision just made public (see the full text here - large PDF), the EPA has essentially killed off the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the foreseeable future.
Sierra Club’s petition raises two issues. First, Sierra Club argues that the Region’s permitting decision violates the public participation provisions of Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) section 165(a)(2), which require the Agency to consider “alternatives” to the proposed facility. Sierra Club contends that the Region erred by failing to consider
alternatives to the proposed facility that are similar to alternatives U.S. EPA Region 9 recommended in comments on the draft environmental impact statement for a different facility, the White Pine Energy Station Project in Nevada.
Second,Sierra Club argues that the Region violated CAA sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3) by failing to apply “BACT,” or best available control technology, to limit carbon dioxide (“CO”) emissions from the facility. Sierra Club points to the Supreme Court’s April 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), as establishing that CO is an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the Act. Sierra Club contends that because CO is an air pollutant, the permit violates the requirement to include a BACT emissions limit for “each pollutant subject to regulation under [the Clean Air] Act.”
(...)
By order dated November 21, 2007, the Board granted review of the CO BACT issue while holding under advisement the “alternatives” issue.
(...)
Held: The Board denies review of the Region’s alleged failure to consider alternatives” to the proposed facility, but remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision.
As a fellow enviro blogger put it, "as I understand it, it would essentially require Best Available Control Technology for CO2 as part of air permits for new coal plants" - which means that "essentially this will at least hit the pause button on permitting for a good long while--hopefully long enough to put a more permanent legislative/regulatory solution to coal, GW, etc in place."
This is major, major news - kudos to the Sierra Club for running this.
More details as they become available.
UPDATE 1: Sierra Club Press Release:
In a move that signals the start of the our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.
“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,” said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. “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,” continued Spalding
The decision follows a 2007 Supreme Court ruling recognizing carbon dioxide, the principle source of global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.
“Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country,” said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. “Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric.”
The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
“Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover,” said Nilles.
To get background information and see how the case unfolded visit www.sierraclub.org/coal/plantlist.asp
A copy of the decision can be found here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/...