Untested Nature of Carbon Capture May Present Loophole for Coal and Electric Industry
Provided by HG.org
The Obama administration has been cracking down on environmental regulations, particularly with regard to global warming. Faced with this increased pressure, the coal and electric industries are applying a new legal strategy they believe will allow them to take advantage of a loophole and prevent most EPA enforcement measures.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set pollution standards using the "best system of emission reduction" with technology that has been "adequately demonstrated." Relying upon this standard, the EPA issued a series of new rules providing separate standards for the construction of gas and coal fired plants. Under the new rule, any new coal plant built in the United States must be able to emit at a rate of no more than 1,100 lbs of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour; far below an estimated 1,700 to 1,900 lbs/MWh for the most efficient plants currently in operation anywhere. This would require the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) devices. A new plant that uses CCS would capture carbon from the smoke stack, inject it underground and either store it or use it in an oil recovery process.
But, this same “adequately demonstrated” standard has presented opponents with a new tactic for challenging the regulations: attacking the idea that CCS, a decades-old, but commercially tenuous, technology, is a viable solution to curbing greenhouse gases. Indeed, the “adequately demonstrated” language is likely to form the foundation of any number of lawsuits to be filed by these industries to challenge the new regulations.
Supporters of the new EPA regulations think that the government has confidence in the nascent CCS technology. The fact that the EPA changed its original emissions proposal to give plants seven years, rather than the 30 years proposed last year, to reach the new emissions targets suggests EPA has full confidence in CCS.
Some argue that the coal industry is at fault for the failure to develop CCS technology after having lobbied to prevent legislation that would have raised up to $60 billion to support the deployment of the technology by 2035. The Waxman-Markey bill, which would have created an economy-wide carbon cap-and-trade system, would have set aside a certain portion of emission permits to fund CCS development. Although the bill passed the House of Representatives, it died in the Senate, largely due to the coal industry's lobbying efforts.
Environmentalist argue that it is unfair and unreasonable for the coal industry to lobby against a bill that would fund technological development of CCS then complain that the technology is still in its infancy a few years later when forced to rely upon it to meet new government standards.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
But, this same “adequately demonstrated” standard has presented opponents with a new tactic for challenging the regulations: attacking the idea that CCS, a decades-old, but commercially tenuous, technology, is a viable solution to curbing greenhouse gases. Indeed, the “adequately demonstrated” language is likely to form the foundation of any number of lawsuits to be filed by these industries to challenge the new regulations.
Supporters of the new EPA regulations think that the government has confidence in the nascent CCS technology. The fact that the EPA changed its original emissions proposal to give plants seven years, rather than the 30 years proposed last year, to reach the new emissions targets suggests EPA has full confidence in CCS.
Some argue that the coal industry is at fault for the failure to develop CCS technology after having lobbied to prevent legislation that would have raised up to $60 billion to support the deployment of the technology by 2035. The Waxman-Markey bill, which would have created an economy-wide carbon cap-and-trade system, would have set aside a certain portion of emission permits to fund CCS development. Although the bill passed the House of Representatives, it died in the Senate, largely due to the coal industry's lobbying efforts.
Environmentalist argue that it is unfair and unreasonable for the coal industry to lobby against a bill that would fund technological development of CCS then complain that the technology is still in its infancy a few years later when forced to rely upon it to meet new government standards.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
