You can tell the election season is coming because US EPA has benched another of its rules to the consternation of environmental advocates. This time it is the boiler rule affecting emissions from industrial site power plants.
The President has been trying to mitigate the criticism from business that his EPA was imposing new regulations to appease environmental groups at the expense of job creation and economic recovery. The government, of course, denied those allegations but the combination of business and Congressional objections has been taking their toll on the regulatory agenda. So far, EPA has delayed new rules on coal plant ash disposal and mountain top mining, on toxic emissions from cement plants and signaled it would speed up review of permits for deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
The EPA’s Boiler MACT on-site power plant rule was previously delayed for years until litigation forced EPA’s hand. The Boiler MACT rule was promulgated in April 2010 by US EPA, defending its action on the basis that as many as 4,800 premature deaths from respiratory ailments could be prevented by 2013 if mercury, dioxins and lead were reduced from the 13,600 industrial power plants covered by the rule. Business complained the rule would drive them off shore or out of business. EPA cried “uncle” asking the court to give it more time to study the impact of the proposed rule. Despite the court telling EPA to act, EPA watered down the boiler rule it issued and now has rescinded it.
Critics say the Administration is running for cover hoping the complaints will go away until after the election then it will re-impose the rules. Almost laughably, EPA said it rescinded the Boiler MACT rule in response to the President’s January executive order to reduce burdensome regulation.
U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction over EPA said he welcomed the rescission because “our environmental goals need to be in step with our economic realities.”
Stay tuned, there are more EPA rules where these came from.
Related articles
- EPA Puts Off Regulating Industrial Boiler Emissions (treehugger.com)
- EPA to rule on industrial emissions on Wednesday (reuters.com)
- Who’s got the MACT? (texasgreenreport.wordpress.com)
- EPA compromises on industrial pollution rules (scientificamerican.com)
- “What’s the Upshot of EPA’s Clean Air Rules?” and related posts (energy.nationaljournal.com)
- New Findings Reveal the Clean Air Act Saved 160,000 lives in 2010 and Aided the Economy (alternet.org)
TCLABZ Trends 
Had anybody noticed that the Energy Information Agency’s 2011 projection has over 40% of US energy supply coming from coal in 2035—down slightly from its 2007 projection? Has anybody suggested that the EIA be shut down and its $110,000,000 budget diverted to building solar energy facilities?
And if not, why not?
Despite the government bias against coal fired generation from US EPA, the US DOE Annual energy Outlook for 2011 shows that coal will continue to be a major fuel for power generation through 2035. The reason is that absent building more nuclear energy for baseload there is no cost effective substitute today for coal long term. Natural gas combined cycle is cleaner, easier to site and has tremendous potential and is the likely winner every time a coal plant is retired.
John, as for shutting down the US Energy information Administration, I’d suggest your ire is misplaced, better to shut down or combine the EPA with the Department of Energy and then task FERC with the DUTY to balance the energy, economic and environmental interests litigated before it—based upon the manifest weight of the evidence—so that decisions are made based upon a reasoned balancing of interests in the public interest rather than a politically-driven agenda by either party.
I believe the American people broadly support responsible environmental protections but we are reaching the point where over-reach by regulatory agencies and intervention-driven litigation by groups with no economic stake in the outcome except their settlement fees threatens our economy with enormous uncertainty when we can least afford it.
I keep reading that ‘coal is bad’ for the planet. CO2 CO2 CO2!!!!
What about the by-product of natural gas combustion, the super greenhouse gas, H2O?
TANSTAAFL.
tom