EPA Ruling Could Allow 8,000MW of New Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Bush administration chalked up another in a growing list of environmentally ignorant midnight rulings by “clarifying” a rule that could allow the approval of several new coal-fired power plants.
Instead of decommissioning America’s fleet of coal-fired power plants and making concerted efforts to prevent the construction of any new ones, the United States Government is finding ways to make sure plenty more can be built. In a memo issued by EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson on Thursday, the Bush administration has “clarified” a rule prohibiting any federal agency from denying an operating permit to new or significantly remodeled power plants based on their carbon dioxide emissions.
Thursday’s ruling stems back to a 2007 case in Utah when the Sierra Club sued EPA because they granted an operating permit to a new coal-fired power plant without taking the new plant’s carbon dioxide emissions into account.In November of this year, the appeals board with legal jurisdiction in the case said the EPA’s rule was unclear. Thursday’s memo from Johnson was an effort to make the administration’s position clear; they have no intention of treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, despite being told by the Supreme Court they needed to do just that.
But it’s not just the highest court in the land the EPA is blowing off. In the memo, Johnson didn’t seem phased by the rising tide of public opinion regarding climate change either. He wrote, “The current concerns over global climate change should not drive E.P.A. into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls.”
Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The New York Times that as much as 8,000 megawatts of new coal-fired power plants could win swifter approval as a result of the ruling.
Some of the power plants which may be allowed to move ahead blissfully ignorant of the position taken by the Supreme Court include a proposed $1.25 billion plant, called Pee Dee, that a South Carolina utility, is seeking to build; a project in Rogers City, Mich., that the Wolverine Power Cooperative Electric is seeking to build; and another project in Utah, a small plant sought by Consolidated Energy in Davis County.
But the big question is whether any of these plants will be able to squeeze through the rest of the permitting process before president-elect Barack Obama’s administration moves in and takes a much tougher position on carbon dioxide. Obama has said he would direct his administration to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
Image: Mikko Itälahti via flickr under a Creative Commons License
Thanks for the heads up. I would quibble with the “environmentally ignorant” label. It is other than ignorance; they know what they are doing.
This is Business As Usual And Above All Else. This is showing loyalty to back room campaign promises despite the environmental devastation it can wreak. This is remaining loyal to “my people” while exhibiting disdain for life as we know it on the planet.
It is a Hitler jig, Hurst.
Perhaps “environmentally disdainful” would have been more apropos. In using the word ‘ignorant’ I was trying to capture the Latin root of the word, ignorare, which essentially means ‘to ignore.’ Johnson knows what he’s doing here, but is doing so with such irreverence it is shameful, especially considering he knows the next administration will be working to take a completely different path on the issue.
I’m sure the electorate is counting on Obama to roll back, reverse, cancel, delete any and all proclamations from Bush the minute he takes office. The people have spoken very clearly that they want to move in a direction of clean air, clean water and sustainable energy.
That doesn’t mean there is no place for coal, it simply means that everyone must be focused on the same goals, and skirting the law in order to favor one industry and circumvent efforts for a healthy planet is not part of that path.
you buncha treehugging pansies think windmills will keep your lights on???????wake up, some of us make a decent living working in the coal fields..if you dont like coal powering your country then go to vietnam and farm on some rice paddies and leave the rest of us AMERICANS alone!!!!!!!!!!
People make a decent living selling crack, too. But that doesn’t mean we should support it. The rational comment directly above your ridiculous one hits the nail on the head. Coal is here right now, and is likely not going anywhere any time soon. For the immediate time being you will still be able to lob off mountaintops and pollute streams with your dirtiest of fossil fuels. I know exactly how much power I get from coal, and unfortunately, it’s way more than I want. But the beauty of this country, is that we can change things we don’t like. And I am actively involved in changing that mix.
One’s ‘freedom’ to pollute stops when it encroaches on another’s right to pursue their own well-being.
I’m not even sure why I approved your comment, other than to tell you that calling us treehuggers isn’t the least bit offensive.
And yes, “miner”, I do expect that windmills, solar panels, geothermal, and other sources of energy other than coal will, sooner rather than later, keep my lights on. And yours too, you poor ignorant schmuck.
[...] to his back room campaign promises despite any environmental devastation they could wreak. By a recent EPA ruling that could allow 8,000MW of new coal-fired power plants, Georgie remains loyal to “his [...]
Your summary grossly and unfairly mischaracterizes the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which did NOT direct EPA to regulate carbon, but only cleared the way for EPA to choose whether and/or how to do so in EPA’s discretion. By mischaracterizing such an objectively verifiable fact, you reveal your willingness to bend truth, scientific and otherwise, to suit a preconceived ideaological agenda. Therefore, I don’t trust you or others who may choose to use this outlet of propaganda, because you’re willing to lie to me.
Cool Headed-
What EPA v Mass. did is prevent the EPA from disallowing regulating CO2 as a pollutant. I think we are splitting legal hairs here. The intent of the decision will soon play out as EPA will begin to regulate CO2 as a pollutant in an Obama administration.
The EPA cannot entirely choose whether and how they will regulate if states (i.e Mass. and California) choose to do so. This is the critical point here.
[...] >>See also: EPA Ruling Could Allow 8,000MW of New Coal-Fired Power Plants [...]