CRE calling for a “war by coal”

From: FierceEnergy

By

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule for new coal plants has been called a “war on coal” because it will require the installation of costly, unproven carbon capture and sequestration — technology which many utilities can neither afford nor implement — resulting in a ban on the construction of new coal plants, according to the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE). CRE is calling for a change from a “war on coal” to a “war by coal” in which the coal industry exercises its legal rights.

An Ideal Time for the Coal Industry to Act

Editor’s Note: A pdf of CRE’s Press Release is available here.

CRE Press Release 10:00 AM Wednesday May 28, 2014 

EPA’s proposed rule for new coal plants has been called a “war on coal”. The “war on coal” occurs because the standard in the proposed rule can only be achieved by the installation of a costly technology called CCS, carbon capture and sequestration, which virtually no utility can neither afford nor implement and will result in a ban on the construction of new coal plants.

EAB Upholds GHG Permit Lacking CCS

From: Inside EPA/The Inside Story

EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has declined to review Sierra Club’s challenge of a permit issued by Region VI that the group said the agency rejected without adequate review whether to require carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology in the greenhouse gas (GHG) portion of the permit.

The board in its May 14 order in In Re: ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown Olefins Plant concluded that the agency “did not clearly err or abuse its discretion by eliminating CCS at step 4 of its [best available control technology (BACT)] analysis on the basis of consideration of several economic and environmental impacts, including the total cost of the control technology.”

The EPA’s Carbon Capture Flip-Flop: One of the agency’s own regional offices and a panel of EPA judges have ruled that the policy is too expensive.

From: The Wall Street Journal

By Brian H. Potts/Foley & Lardner LLP

With great fanfare, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule last fall that would require all newly built coal-fired power plants in the U.S. to install an expensive new technology called carbon capture and storage, or CCS. Although the technology has never been installed on a large-scale power plant anywhere in the world, it theoretically will separate the primary greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—from the plant’s exhaust and pump it to underground reservoirs for storage. 

Washington Steers Investment Astray

From: Cato At Liberty

By Chris Edwards

Experience shows that green business subsidies are a green light for misallocation and inefficiency. Subsidy programs seem to prompt company leaders to think:

  • “Washington experts say this is a good idea. Let’s do it!”
  • “Yeehaw, we’re getting free money. Let’s blow the bank!”

Those sorts of thoughts seem to have steered Southern Company into building a very expressive boondoggle project in Mississippi. The clean coal plant is to include a complex carbon capture system with a 62-mile pipeline. The Washington Post reports:

Mississippi: Clean coal tech hits snags

From: The Washington Post/Concord Monitor

Intended showcase of power supply’s future more than a year behind schedule 

By STEVEN MUFSON/Washington Post

Intended showcase of power supply’s future more than a year behind schedule 

  • Cranes stand at the construction site for Southern Co.’s Kemper County power plant near Meridian, Mississippi, on Feb. 25. The Kemper plant was designed to capture most of its CO2 emissions. Illustrates CLEAN-COAL (category f), by Steven Mufson © 2014, The Washington Post. Moved Saturday, May 17, 2014. (MUST CREDIT: Bloomberg News photo by Gary Tramontina)

Carbon Capture Report Recognizes Global Influence of CRE’s CCS/BACT Interactive Public Docket

From: The Carbon Capture Report, A Service of The University of Illinois

CarbonCaptureReport

 

 

 

 

EPA Regulations Set To Increase Natural Gas Prices By 150 Percent

From: The Daily Caller

By Michael Bastasch

Environmental Protection Agency policies resulting in the shutdown of coal-fired power plants will contribute to a 150 percent price hike for natural gas, accompanied by a 7 percent rise in electricity prices, according to government data.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that the accelerating rate of coal plant retirements will cause natural gas prices to rise from $3.44 per million British thermal units (Btu) in 2012 to $5.91 per million Btu in 2025. This would boost retail electricity rates for households and businesses from 9.8 cents per kilowatthour to 10.5 cents per kilowatthour — a 7 percent price jump by 2025.

The Supreme Court Dims the Lights on Coal Power

From: Bloomberg Businessweek

By Matthew Philips

The Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate air pollution from coal-burning power plants. The 6-to-2 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hands the Obama administration what is arguably its biggest environmental victory in its effort to use the Clean Air Act as a tool to fight global warming and reduce carbon emissions.

At issue was whether the EPA could use what are known as good-neighbor rules to regulate emissions that cross state borders. In short, the Supreme Court ruled that a power plant in Ohio whose emissions blow east into New York is liable for the damage caused there, even if it’s hundreds of miles away from the source.

Australian Government Cuts Funding for CCS

From: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

By Sara Phillips

Expectations for the Coalition’s first budget were not high amongst environmental interest groups. Despite an election commitment to action on climate change and threatened species, there was a suspicion that the government might wriggle out of its promises. As the budget grew closer, and the government reiterated what a tough budget it was likely to be, those suspicions only grew.

When the budget was handed down last night environment groups were united in damning it. Among the cuts were the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the National Water Commission, Carbon Capture and Storage funding, Landcare funding, CSIRO funding and alternative fuels funding.