Impacts of the Vacated CAMR

I promised to keep up to date on fallout from the recently vacated CAMR. It is my understanding that EPA has until the 24th of March to decide if it wants to appeal the Appellate Court ruling, so until that time we are still in some state of limbo.

Environmental Groups Rally Around Ruling
But that is not stopping environmental groups from using the ruling to now add mercury to their fight against permitting new coal burning power plants. Mercury was always an issue but has recently taken a back seat to Greenhouse Gases. At least for now with the courts siding with MACT as the correct avenue for mercury regulations, previously permitted plants and ones close in the process are now facing new hurdles to clear in their path. An excerpt from a Forbes article on the subject follows;

But for now, as lawmakers wrestle with how best to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the plant's opponents are focused instead on a few dozen pounds of mercury as they fight to keep it from ever coming online.
[...]
'It does give environmentalists another tool, another hook to use when arguing that it's time to phase these things out,' said Scott Edwards, a lawyer for the New York-based environmental group Waterkeeper Alliance. 'And the law gives us that argument. And public health gives us that argument. And ecological and aquatic health gives us that argument.'

Duke's new $2.4 billion generator, at its existing Cliffside Steam Station about 50 miles west of Charlotte, is among more than 20 coal-fired plants now under construction nationwide.

While the rate of construction is the most in more that two decades, environmentalist say they have already helped delay or completely block nearly 60 other projects.

An article in EarthTimes, picked up from PRNewswire, echoes the conclusions drawn by NRDC on the impacts the Feb 8th ruling is having on plant construction across the country. Some pieces from that article follow;

The prospects for 32 coal-fired power plants in 13 states have been shaken up in the wake of a February 8, 2008 federal appeals court ruling that requires each new coal-fired power plant in the U.S. to adopt stringent toxic air pollution control measures meeting the most rigorous standards under the Clean Air Act, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRD).

The states identified with the most coal-fired power plants now up in the air are: Michigan (four), Wyoming (four), Illinois (three), Nevada (three), Ohio (three), Pennsylvania (three), Texas (three), Iowa (two), Kentucky (two), Louisiana (two), Georgia (one), New Mexico (one) and North Carolina (one).

The ruling will impact various aspects of three dozen or more coal-fired power plants, including some now already under construction.

Major coal-fired power plants impacted by the ruling include: LS Power White Pine (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Sierra Ely (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Toquop (850 MW - permit pending in Nevada) Desert Rock (Sithe Global's 1500 MW in New Mexico); Longleaf ( LS Power's 1200 MW Plant in Georgia); Cliffside (Duke Energy's 800 MW Plant in North Carolina); Alliant Marshalltown (600 MW - permit pending in Iowa); LS Power Waterloo (750 MW - permit pending in Iowa); AMP (1000 MW - permit challenged in Ohio); LS Power/Dynegy (750 MW in Michigan). For a complete list of all 32 plants, go to http://www.nrdc.org/.

Natural Resources Defense Council Clean Air Director/Senior Attorney John Walke said: "The February 8th court ruling will have far-reaching consequences for coal-fired power plant construction, permitting and pollution controls. This important new legal tool will increase the pollution control obligations for new coal-fired power plants, raise the already considerable expense of these projects, and add to the weight of arguments that the public deploys to oppose conventional coal-fired plants."

Wisconsin DNR Mulls New Mercury Timetable
The WI-DNR may make a trade-off with utilities. They are proposing to extend the deadline for 90% mercury reduction if the utilities will reduce acid rain gases even further. The controversial compromise has received both favorable and critical comments. A few excerpts from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel follow;

State regulators will propose a new plan this month giving utilities more time to cut mercury emissions from power plants if they make reductions in a pair of other key pollutants
[...]
The DNR has called for a 90% cut in the past. But the agency also is offering an inducement for utilities to delay compliance from 2015 to 2021 if they also make reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
[...]
As the public weighs in, a key business group will complain that the change will lead to higher electricity prices. One environmental group likes the approach, while another says it doesn't go as far as neighboring states. And one large utility thinks a national plan is better than a state approach.
[...]
Keith Reopelle, program director for Clean Wisconsin, said his group believes the DNR's latest proposal has merit. He said utilities' claims about the technology needed to make big cuts in mercury are no longer valid.

He cited data from the Institute of Clean Air Companies of Washington, D.C., showing 82 projects making substantial reductions in mercury.

But environmental groups are split on the issue. The Sierra Club believes Wisconsin is moving too slowly. Eric Uram, conservation chair of the club's John Muir chapter, said Illinois will move to a 90% reduction by 2012.

"It's not far enough; it's not fast enough," Uram said.

Milwaukee-based We Energies declined to comment on the proposal until it has a chance to study it.

A spokesman for Madison-based Alliant Energy, which operates in several Midwestern states, said a state rule should follow a federal rule. Spokesman Rob Crain said Alliant thinks that after the defeat in federal court, the EPA will move quickly with another federal mercury rule.

EPA Unionized Workers Voicing Concerns
Union leadership representing more than 10,000 EPA employees have just withdrawn their cooperation with politically appointed leadership. The recent EPA refusal of the California waiver on GHGs and the Feb 8th Circuit Court ruling on CAMR have emboldened (gotta love that word) rank and file members against what they feel has been a disservice to their service. An AP article details some of their concerns;

Nineteen union local presidents representing more than 10,000 Environmental Protection Agency employees signed a letter to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson last Friday accusing him of "abuses of our good nature and trust."

Under Johnson's leadership EPA has ignored jointly developed principles of scientific integrity "whenever political direction from other federal entities or private sector interests so direct," the unions charged.

Asked for comment, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said only: "As a 27-year career EPA scientist, the administrator values the expertise and advice of his staff and will do so through his time in leadership."

The letter cited the California greenhouse gas waiver denial and several other issues, including mercury emissions from power plants.
[...]
"EPA boasts of the principles of scientific integrity before the Congress and the public as an example of EPA's dedication to using only good science in its decision-making, but refuses to agree to an adjudication process for resolving disputes arising from alleged violations," says the letter, released Monday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
[...]
Evans said that the purpose of the Clinton-era National Labor-Management Partnership Council was for senior agency officials and workers to deal with workplace and other issues before the decision stage.

Instead, "what we found is decisions are being made and they're being presented to us," said Evans.

The union leaders told Johnson they'd be suspending involvement in the partnership council "until we receive from you a clear commitment and specific direction."

To most casual observers and certainly to those paying any attention at all it is a surprise it took so long for the rank and file EPA employees to step up and voice these concerns. I know EPA has lost a lot of talent in the last seven years but the union leadership has been very quiet to this point. Looking out for the job security of some 10,000 dues paying members will do that I suppose.