Coal plant permit blocked

By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 

Associated Press, 15 November 2008

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSt_gge-bueZU2rGVTx1SPZzbkAwD94EBL3O0

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has been blocked from issuing a permit for a proposed Utah coal plant without addressing global warming, jeopardizing the fate of scores of other proposed coal plants that will likely be left to the Obama administration.

An EPA appeals panel ruled Thursday that the agency's regional office didn't adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza coal burning power plant in Utah without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.

The panel threw the issue back to the EPA regional office in Denver and said it must more adequately explain why it did not require limits on carbon dioxide, calling it "an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process."

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shrader said, "We are reviewing the (appeals panel) decision and will be determining steps forward." He declined to say how many other coal plant permits might be affected.

But environmentalist as well as lawyers representing industry groups says the decision by the appeals panel, which traditionally gives great deference to the agency's decisions, stops the permitting of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants.

"In essence this is a punt to the Obama administration ... All permits in the pipeline are now stymied," said Jason Hutt, an attorney representing a number of utilities, merchant energy developers and refineries seeking permits. He said it also would affect permits for oil refinery expansion.

David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club, which had appealed the EPA Bonzana permit, said it will "stop permitting of any coal burning power plants "while EPA mulls over what to do next" about how the federal Clean Air Act is to be used to control carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels and a leading culprit in global warming.

"And that will be decided by the next administration," added Bookbinder.

Bookbinder, based in Washington, had led the Sierra Club's efforts to block the attempt by six electric cooperatives to build a second coal-burning generating unit at the Bonanza facility on the Uintah and Ouray Indian reservation in Utah, knowing a decision there on carbon dioxide could have broad implications.

He said as many as 100 coal power plant permits — both those in process and others under appeal — will now be decided by the EPA, or state agencies that closely follow EPA's direction, after the Bush administration leave office.

Bush has made clear that he believes the Clean Air should not be used, in permitting new plants, to control greenhouse gases. It's not yet clear how the Obama administration will address regulating carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court has told the EPA it must decide on whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, and if it does it must be regulated.

Michael Gerrard, an attorney not involved in the Bonanza case and author of "Global Climate Change and the Law," said the EPA appeals panel decision "will embolden the lawsuits" challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on climate.

"It means that the appeals board recognizes that carbon dioxide regulation of power plants is a very live and open issue. It does not ban them. It puts a cloud over them, by making it clear that this is a real issue," Gerrard said in an interview.

The Utah case has attracted wide interest because of its broader implications.

Among those who had filed briefs with the EPA's appeals panel, arguing the permit should be upheld, were the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this story.

The Moving Finger Writes; and, Having Writ, Moves On -- Victory!

Carl Pope

The Huffington Post, Posted November 13, 2008 | 06:45 PM (EST)

Read More: Carbon Emissions, Coal, Coal Plants, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Epa, Global Warming, Green, Green Energy, Politics News

President Bush may have been willing to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and that EPA must regulate it, but as the clock runs out on Bush's presidency, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) signaled the end of the Bush era this morning and the beginning of a clean energy future.

The EPA has continued to issue clean-air permits to coal-fired power plants without requiring those plants to use the best available technology to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. One such plant is a project called the Bonanza Generating Station, a 110-MW waste-coal facility being proposed by Deseret Power Electric Cooperative. The Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups appealed this permit to the Environmental Appeals Board.

The EAB ruled today that the EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions. This puts an effective hold on the final permitting of almost all new coal plants until the Obama administration decides on the best available control technology for CO2 emissions from coal plants.

"Today's decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy," said Joanne Spalding, the Sierra Club senior attorney who argued the case. "This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling, and rebuilding America.

"The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century."

Sierra Club Wins Big Victory Against Coal-Fired Power Plants

By Matthew Wheeland, 

GreenBiz, November 13, 2008

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2008/11/13/sierra-club-victory-coal-power-plants

One battle in the ongoing war between environmental groups and the Bush Administration's EPA may finally be over: the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board today handed down a ruling that will essentially hand the reins for regulating CO2 from coal-fired power plants to the Obama administration. 

The ruling comes in response to a complaint the Sierra Club filed against a proposed new coal-fired power plant in Bonanza Utah. In the ruling, the appeals board says the EPA should reconsider whether CO2 is considered an air pollutant, and thus should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Most notably, a new decision by the EPA should consider whether or not to require new power plants to use the "best available control technology" to reduce CO2 emissions. 

But the ruling will affect more than just the Utah permit: the board writes, in part, that it "recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond" the one Utah facility, and that the EPA should reconsider CO2 emissions on a national level. 

Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope summed up the impact of the ruling today on The Huffington Post:

The EAB ruled today that the EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions. This puts an effective hold on the final permitting of almost all new coal plants until the Obama administration decides on the best available control technology for CO2 emissions from coal plants.

Over at the politics blog Daily Kos, user WattHead has a somewhat more detailed analysis of the ruling, looking ahead to what the decision will mean for the Obama administration. The Associated Press also has a short article on the ruling, and includes a quote from a lawyer for energy companies that are seeking permits from the EPA as saying that today's news represents "a punt to the Obama administration." 

Given Obama's public support of clean coal technology, it seems more than likely that his administration's EPA will embrace using the latest technologies to make coal as clean as possible. Of course, it remains to be seen whether that results in more new (but less-polluting) coal-fired power plants, or whether the high costs that utility companies fear from installing new technologies leads to an end of new plants altogether.

Climate Change Could Cost California Billions Annually: Report

By ClimateBiz Staff, ClimateBiz

Published November 14, 2008

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/11/14/climate-change-could-cost-calif-billions-annually-report

Energy & Climate » Climate; Reduce Emissions;

OAKLAND, Calif. -- More than half of California's real estate assets are at risk from rising sea levels and wildfires caused by climate change, and the state could end up spending billions of dollars each year coping with its effects, a research report released Thursday found.

There is, however, a chance the price tag could shrink if the state takes steps now toward mitigation and adaptation in its policy and infrastructure decisions, according to "California Climate Risk and Response" from the University of California, Berkeley and nonprofit Next 10.

In what is billed as the first overview of the long-term economic threat to California from global warming, the report explored the potential toll  on the state's assets under three scenarios ranging from climate stabilization to high emissions. It also examined seven economic sectors and the issues they will likely face.

Roughly $2.5 trillion in real estate assets is at risk. The report calculated an annual cost to the state between $300 million and $3.9 billion in damages from the physical impacts of climate change. The ultimate cost depends on how warm the earth gets and how quickly we adapt.

The report ominously quotes Charles Darwin: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

Yet David Roland-Holst, the report's lead author and UCB adjunct professor, cautioned that the research isn't a "Doomsday" report.

"We have the resources to adapt," he said, pointing to recommendations offered in the report.

For instance, policy decisions made with climate change in mind could lead to a state better equipped to deal with its negative impacts, such as more efficient water allocation and agricultural practices, promotion of renewable energy, and the strategic investment in state infrastructure.

The state has already pledged to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 1996, from which multiple initiatives have spawned, including binding climate change considerations to land use planning decisions and a low carbon fuel standard.

Doing nothing to address or prepare for climate change is the most expensive option, the report warned. Sectors will face significant adjustment challenges. There is also tremendous uncertainty.

"This uncertainty is costly, increasing the risk of both public and private mistakes and the deferral of necessary adaptation decisions," the report said. "The process of improving research and understanding of climate effects may itself be costly and difficult, but policymakers must have better visibility regarding climate risk and response options."

The energy revolution has already begun; it's time to march

Erwin Jackson

The Age, November 17, 2008

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-energy-revolution-has-already-begun-its-time-to-march/2008/11/16/1226770258608.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Other related coverage

• World on track for 6 degree warming, says report

Climate-change action could well lift us from this economic slump.

WHEN the world's environment ministers gather in the Polish city of Poznan next month to discuss the new global climate deal, the Federal Government will announce its long-awaited short-term targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. This will give the world an opportunity to assess the scope of Australia's climate change credentials and ambition.

The latest World Energy Outlook from the conservative International Energy Agency underlines the fundamental choice before the Government: introduce strong targets and policies to help stimulate multitrillion-dollar investments in creating a clean energy system or, in the words of the energy agency, face "catastrophic and irreversible damage to the global climate".

The report warns that the world is on track to increase average temperatures by six degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100, which is three times the target limit set by governments in Bali last year.

The IEA, which advises its 28 member countries, including Australia, on energy policy, includes some of the world's foremost experts on energy technology and economics. The first paragraph in its report of 570 pages reads: "It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today — securing energy security and switching from greenhouse-emitting technologies to clean energy sources. What is needed is nothing short of an energy revolution."

One could be forgiven for having a mental disconnect between these conclusions and the world we are familiar with today. To most of us, electricity supply decisions and structures are far removed from our daily lives except when the bills arrive in the mail.

Outside Australia, a not-so-quiet global energy revolution has already begun. From the solar manufacturing plants in Germany to the wind power stations being built in regional China, new investment is being stimulated and is creating thousands of jobs in the smart, clean-technology industries that will form the basis of energy systems in the years ahead.

Last year alone, about a third of new power generation capacity installed globally was in renewable energy technologies like wind and solar power.

The building blocks of the IEA's energy revolution already exist. While there are technological barriers, what we lack at present is political will. Those who have an interest in protecting the status quo for short-term gain are exploiting this in the climate change debate in Australia.

Some of Australia's heavy emitters have been running misleading and widely exaggerated public campaigns claiming economic Armageddon if the Government takes early and decisive action to reduce greenhouse emissions. Let's be clear, this is "short-termism" in the extreme and given what is at stake for our future prosperity, it is highly irresponsible.

Federal Treasury recently released the most comprehensive assessment of the economic costs of taking action on climate change ever undertaken in Australia.

While transition assistance will be needed in some communities and industries, it confirms that major reductions in emissions are achievable and affordable.

According to Treasurer Wayne Swan there is economically just a whisker of difference between pollution reductions of 5% and the scientifically credible 25% reductions off 2000 levels by 2020.

Similar conclusions can be drawn from the IEA report. About $US5.1 trillion ($A8 trillion) will need to be invested globally in clean-energy generation, and energy efficient appliances and buildings to 2030 to give the world a whisker of a chance of avoiding a dangerous impact on climate. This expenditure, while challenging, amounts to only 0.55% of annual global economic activity and over this period the energy efficiency investments would save the global economy $US5.8 trillion on fuel bills — more than the additional investment cost.

Given the current state of the global economy, there is understandable concern about acting decisively on climate change. However, the IEA has highlighted that we cannot afford to delay. Indeed, these energy investments could be a critical and competitive path out of the global slump. The new jobs, investments and businesses that are created from strong and early action will not only give Australia a competitive advantage over later starters but will avoid the cost of taking drastic action at a later date.

Further delay to appease the polluting industries of the past risks poisoning the economic prosperity of the future. We can redefine our energy future and maybe, just maybe, look our grandchildren in the eye and say we gave them the clean energy legacy and safe climate they rightly deserve.

Erwin Jackson is director of policy and research at the Climate Institute and a member of the Premier's Climate Change Reference Group.

Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear by 2035'

ABC News Online, Posted Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:48am AEDT

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/15/2420673.htm

Scientists have warned that glaciers in the Himalayas are at risk of disappearing by the year 2035.

Studies by the Indian Meteorological Department suggest the ice is melting faster than before.

The researchers say one glacier Kolahoi in Kashmir receded by more than 20 metres last year while small ones have disappeared entirely.

Work begins on Queensland clean coal plant

ABC News Online, Posted Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:43pm AEDT

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2419900.htm

Work is starting in central Queensland on Australia's first pilot plant using clean coal technology.

Federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson and his Queensland counterpart Geoff Wilson will visit Biloela, where refurbishment will start on the Callide-A Power station.

Mr Ferguson says the project will help secure the future of the coal industry.

"It is bread and butter for Australia to actually get carbon capture and storage right because we are a nation that is 80 per cent dependent on coal-fired power stations and that represents 32 per cent of Australia's CO2 emissions," he said.

"So when you think about reducing, in one single power station, 90 per cent of the emissions, you apply it across the nation, then you've got a huge reduction in emissions."

Quote from Jim Hansen's newsletter, 15th November 2008

The simple fact of the matter is that the only hope for keeping a planet that resembles the one of the Holocene, the past 10,000 years, is to halt any new CO₂ emissions from coal and to phase-out existing coal emissions promptly.  I suppose it is possible that some people honestly do not understand that no goal for future CO₂ emissions allowing construction of new coal plants will solve the problem and that "capture-ready" is a subterfuge.  Fortunately, young people are beginning to catch on to what is happening, and I do not think they will allow the shenanigans to continue much longer.  More on that later.

Jim