EPA Emission Rules To Effectively Ban New Coal Plants

By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 03/27/2012 06:56 PM ET

The Obama administration proposed on Tuesday the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. The rules will not regulate... View Enlarged Image

The Environmental Protection Agency effectively banned new coal-fired power plants Tuesday, announcing emission rules that will make them uneconomical to build. This follows other recent rules squeezing coal.
The actions show the administration following through on an earlier promise to crack down on the industry via regulation after the "cap and trade" carbon bill stalled in Congress in 2010.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the rules were necessary to protect the "health and well-being of the American people." She said cleaner-burning natural gas could offset any impact on coal power.
"This action is consistent with the move towards clean-burning, efficient natural gas generation, which is already the tech nology of choice for recently built and currently planned fossil fuel-fired power plants," she said.
The proposed rules state that no new plant may emit more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per megawatt generated. The typical coal plant produces more than 1,700 pounds. Gas-fired plants emit a reported 800-850 pounds.
Existing coal-fired plants and already-permitted plants would be grandfathered in.
The Natural Resources Defense Council hailed the "historic" rules and said the next step should be to improve "existing coal-fired power plants."
Federal rules require a 30-day comment period. But Jackson didn't directly respond to a reporter's query on whether the new regulations will kick in before Election Day.
Big Business and Republicans said the new rules belie the administration's claim to have an "all of the above" energy strategy. They see higher costs for consumers.
"Coal is an essential part of a diverse, reliable and affordable energy mix, supplying nearly 40% of our electricity," said Bruce Josten, the Chamber of Commerce's executive vice president, in a statement. "It remains a cost-effective and secure source of power in a time of soaring energy prices."
First Coal, Then Fracking?
Josten said natural gas might not be able to take up the slack, noting that several types of gas-fired plants also may not meet the new standards.
The administration also is expected to produce regulations for the natural gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, perhaps this year. Natgas futures have plunged to decade lows on soaring natural gas reserves due to fracking.
Earlier this year, the EPA issued a report on potential groundwater contamination from Wyoming fracking.
Jackson said that coal-fired plants could still be built but conceded they would need advanced technology such as "carbon capture and sequestration" to comply. Such technology should be "commercially available within the next 10 years," she said.
This follows a rule the EPA issued in July aimed at limiting cross-state smokestack pollution from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and another in December that limits mercury emissions. Together they are expected to force the closure of many coal plants, though the cross-state rule has been stayed pending a court challenge.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said the administration was "engaging in a war on coal. This approach relies totally on cheap natural gas, and we've seen that bubble burst before."
The move was not surprising to those who have followed President Obama's energy agenda. When cap-and-trade stalled in Congress, he was undaunted.
"Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat," he said in November 2010. "It was a means, not an end. I'm going to be looking for other means."
He was more blunt in 2008, telling the San Francisco Chronicle: "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."