Regulatory: Considering energy regulations—Coal
A recent EPA decision will have an important impact on the future use of our baseline fuel.
January 04, 2012 at 06:19 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Consideration of energy regulation must begin with coal—the baseline fuel for the American economy.
Coal accounts for 45 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., and coal-fired plants are the nation's single largest source of air pollution. While local opposition to siting new plants is a perennial concern, the major controversies over coal as an energy source involve air pollution regulations intended to reduce the adverse health effects of toxic chemicals in smokestack emissions and, increasingly, to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Disputes over air pollution rules for coal-fired electricity plants have dominated the battles between Congress and the Obama Administration over regulatory policy.
On Dec. 21, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the most expensive air pollution regulation in its history—the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology Rule, which took two decades to develop. This rule will require coal-fired plants to make major reductions in mercury, acid gases and sulfur dioxide emissions within four years.
Combined with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSPAR) that the EPA issued in July 2011, the rule will require major modifications in the country's electricity generation infrastructure. It marks the final reversal of a policy decision Congress made in 1976, in the aftermath of the first Arab oil embargo, that older and dirtier coal plants would not be compelled to close, but could continue to operate as the economy ratcheted down its use of oil.
The Utility MACT rule is designed as an action-forcing device that will induce owners to close many older coal plants that lack modern pollution controls because the cost of retrofitting those plants, especially smaller facilities, will exceed the costs of obtaining replacement power from natural gas-fired plants. Cost comparisons by Clear View Energy Partners suggest that 17.4 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity will be retired as a result of the rule. The economic consequences of the rule are quite significant, as are the projected health benefits. The EPA estimates that the rule will cost power companies $9.6 billion per year and increase electricity rates by 3.1 percent.
The Utility MACT rule is a seminal act in EPA's efforts to reduce air pollution from electric plants. The technology required to accomplish the reductions in emissions of the toxic gas emissions covered by this rule also will substantially reduce emissions of other pollutants regulated under existing rules (e.g., sulfur dioxide), so that there will be less pollution for EPA to eliminate when it considers rule revisions. The next generation of power plant rules are likely to focus more directly on reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions as well as on adverse health effects.
The EPA's calculation of the benefits and costs of the Utility MACT rule are highly controversial, and the rule will be challenged in court. Further, the electric utility industry has substantial concerns that the rule will undermine the reliability of the country's electricity distribution network. The short, four-year transition period provided by the EPA may not afford utilities enough time to plan, obtain necessary licenses and permits, and construct a gas-fired plant to replace a coal plant that must clean up or die by December 2015.
The Utility MACT rule illustrates how U.S. energy policy is made. Policy is not determined directly and comprehensively. It emerges as a by-product of decentralized efforts to solve other problems. The EPA is a specialized agency dedicated to fighting pollution, and has neither the authority, the expertise, nor the resources to determine the optimum mix of fuels for the country. Yet the EPA's decision will have an important impact on the future use of our baseline fuel, and thereby trigger relative price changes and substitution of other fuels for coal throughout the economy.
The next column will analyze regulation of the principal fuel used for transportation—oil.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250