Advertisement

April 17, 2014

EPA Likely to Delay Issuance of Final Greenhouse Gas Rules for Power Plants

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unlikely to meet its April 13, 2013 deadline for issuance of its highly anticipated final rule limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new or modified power plants.  In light of voluminous comments, EPA is reportedly considering whether to change its approach to one that would effectively  allow new construction of coal-fired power plants, which essentially would be banned under the rule as proposed.

On April 13, 2012, EPA proposed a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) that combined coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants into one source category (TTTT) with a uniform pollution standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electrical output (77 Fed. Reg. 22,392). This standard currently can only be achieved by natural gas combined cycle power plants; coal-fired plants could only achieve that standard through the use of carbon capture and sequestration, technology that is not yet commercially available. Thus, the rule would amount to an effective ban on new coal-fired power plants, as well as imposing severe restrictions on modification of existing plants.

Industry groups, as well as politicians from both parties, have urged EPA to reconsider its proposed rule. For example, on March 18, 2013, Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), and Mary Landrieu (La.) wrote a letter to President Obama urging an alternative that would consider coal-fired and gas-fired power plants as separate categories with different standards that could allow the construction of some supercritical (higher temperature and pressure) coal generation. Millions of comments (including bulk submissions as well as at least dozens of more substantive analyses) have been filed, both for and against the approach taken in the 2012 proposal.

EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to finalize the rule within 1 year of proposal, or by April 13, 2013 (42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(10)). However, EPA has not yet sent the final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the required regulatory review, which can take weeks or months, especially for a rule as controversial as this. Timing of the rule may also be influenced by the competing timeframe of the confirmation process for air chief Gina McCarthy’s nomination to be EPA Administrator. It is possible that EPA may re-propose the rule, with revisions, for a new round of comment.

Regardless of when the final rule is published and whether it retains the combined source category approach from the proposal, the final rule is almost certain to be challenged in court and to receive substantial Congressional attention. Moreover, under Clean Air Act section 111(d), EPA must promulgate emissions guidelines, which must be implemented by states, for existing sources after the NSPS rules are in place.

© 2014 Beveridge & Diamond PC

About the Author

David Friedland, Environmental Lawyer, Beveridge & Diamond Law Firm
Principal

David Friedland is a Principal in the Washington, DC office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.  He is past chair of the Firm’s Environmental Practice Group, and past chair of the Firm's Air Practice Group. He currently serves as the Vice-Chair of the Air Quality Committee of the ABA’s Section on Environment, Energy and Resources, having formerly served for two years as Chair.

202-789-6047

About the Author

Alexandra M. ('Andie') Wyatt, Environmental Attorney, Beveridge Diamond Law Firm
Associate

Alexandra M. ("Andie") Wyatt is an Associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., with a general environmental, regulatory, and litigation practice.

202-789-6086

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be