EPA must regulate CO2 from new coal plants
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board made a ginormously significant ruling that the EPA must regulate CO2 emissions from new coal power plants. Up until now, CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming were not considered during the permitting process for new coal plants, which requires them to use the Best Available Technology (BACT) standard to reduce polluting emissions.
The decision was requested by the Sierra Club, which issued a press release today.
“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.”This could impact a number of proposed coal plants in Illinois, including the Taylorville plant by Tenaska that has been in the news lately. The company is asking the Illinois State Senate to pass a bill that will allow construction and fix rates for the plant to guarantee it stays profitable. Despite being labeled as a "clean coal" project, it does not limit CO2 emissions as proposed in its EPA permit.
Part of the Sierra Club agreement with CWLP over the new Springfield power plant called for monitoring CO2 emissions, even though it was not yet required by law. Once again, the agreement puts CWLP ahead of the national curve.
Comments
CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming were not considered during the permitting process for new coal plants, which requires them to use the Best Available Technology (BACT) standard to reduce polluting emissions......The most i like is covered by you....GOOD...
Posted by: Robot | November 14, 2008 4:48 AM
"Despite being labeled as a "clean coal" project, it does not limit CO2 emissions as proposed in its EPA permit."
This is incorrect. Under the legislation, the Taylorville project will capture and sequester more than half of its CO2 giving it greenhouse emissions comparable to a natural gas power plant and overall emissions better than a natural gas plant.
Posted by: DaveChgo | November 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Dave,
My comment wasn't about the legislation. My statement is about the permit for the plant submitted to the EPA for approval, and unless they've made a recent change to the original permit that I'm unaware of, it doesn't include carbon capture technology or limit CO2. That makes my statement accurate.
So this raises a good question about whether the company building the plant is telling the legislature one thing and submitting something else to the EPA. And which version are they actually planning to build?
Posted by: Will | November 14, 2008 4:45 PM
The air permit application was a 2-3 year process and, at the time, the company and the legislation did not require CCS. Under the new legislation, the plant will require at least 50% CCS and the company will go back to the EPA for an amendment to the permit. Nothing sinister, just part of a long process...
Posted by: DaveChgo | November 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Dave,
Are legislators aware that the change means going through that permitting process again? Because that isn't reflected in what the company is saying to the press.
Asking rate payers to pick up the tab for an experimental power plant that they know won't be profitable on its own may not be sinister but it stinks. So does calling "Clean Coal" a renewable energy source.
Posted by: Will | November 17, 2008 11:22 AM
Will,
For what it's worth, the question about the air permit came up on the Senate floor during debate before the vote was taken so everyone was aware that a modified air permit would be needed before the plant could move forward.
Also, just to be clear, this isn't an experimental plant. This is a commercial sized project. Gasification plants have been operating successfully for decades. The difference here is that this will be the first project of this scale to store the carbon.
Also, all that is being done here is ensuring that long term contracts with utility companies can be entered into so the plant can be privately financed. It's actually a pretty good deal which is why CUB and the AG are on board.
Posted by: DaveChgo | November 24, 2008 12:17 PM