Ohio EPA wants to make it easier for economic development to occur in areas like Cleveland, which are designated "non-attainment" with the federal air quality standards (NAAQS) such as ozone or PM 2.5. Federal regulations require companies looking to build or expand in these areas to offset their emissions. Offset is achieved by securing the requisite emission
CO2 Decision Impacts Ohio Coal Plant Permits
It didn’t take long for the Deseret Power Decision to come back to Ohio. The debate is over whether a permit for the proposed coal to liquid fuel plant proposed by Baard Energy and AMP Ohio’s new coal power plant can move forward in light of the decision. Here is a sampling of the debate
Deseret Power Case: CO2 Regulation Issue Punted to Obama Administration
Talk about your pro-bowl quality punts…U.S. EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board made a major one this week on the issue of climate change. All eyes were fixated on the Board waiting for their decision on whether the Clean Air Act requires immediate regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs-which include CO2). The Board’s answer? We would rather
Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act “Absurd”
|
ABSURD –adjective 1.utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation. –noun 2.the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world. |
It is hard to believe but there are those who think regulating greenhouse gases under the current framework
Decision on CO2 Won’t Wait for EPA
Lets get everyone up to speed with events on regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) including CO2:
1. Supreme Court says CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In Massachusetts v. EPA decided in April of 2007, the Supreme Court held that GHGs are pollutants that may be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But
CAIR Part II: Update on Short Term/Long Term Impacts
In my previous post on the CAIR decision, I discussed the environmental and practical ramifications of the Court’s decision vacating the program. While speaking at a large permitting seminar for manufacturer’s, I had a chance to discuss the conclusions of my prior post with some State officials. While I was correct that the CAIR decision complicates
First Court Revokes Air Permit Over CO2 and Clean Air Act
For the first time a court has revoked a permit due to concerns over C02 emissions and climate change. While there have been previous instances where states have denied permits due to concerns with C02 emissions, this is the first time a court has revoked a previously issued permit. Notably, the Court did not base its decision on state law, rather it ruled the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires analysis and control of C02 emissions.
Other courts are currently hearing similar challenges. If this decision is a trend it will have major implications for any new facilities seeking an air permit. In a future blog post I will discuss the implications of using the Clean Air Act, specifically the New Source Review provisions, to regulate CO2. Much speculation has been made as to whether CO2 will be regulated even without action by Congress on comprehensive climate change legislation.
The CO2 decision was issued on June 20, 2008 in Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Court. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division had approved a permit for the construction of a proposed 1200-megawatt coal-fired power plant. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, challenged the permit saying the plant’s emission of 8-9 million tons of CO2 had to be considered. Siding with the Sierra Club, the Court overturned the State’s issuance and sent the permit back to perform the analysis it said was required under the CAA.
Note: According to Sourcewatch, between 2007 and 2008, plans for 69 coal plants have been canceled.Continue Reading First Court Revokes Air Permit Over CO2 and Clean Air Act