Download Lipeles_Environmental Law and Coal

Rules and Exceptions The Costs of “Cheap” Coal




Many plants pre-date modern environmental
law
Exemptions, lax regulation for decades
Pollution costs externalized, borne by public
and environment
“War on coal”:
◦ Some exemptions ending
◦ Some new regulations – of varying stringency
◦ As more costs internalized, more plants closing

Air Emissions  Clean Air Act

Water Pollution  Clean Water Act
◦ Common pollutants (PM, SO2, O3, NOx, CO)
◦ Hazardous air pollutants (e.g., Hg)
◦ Carbon dioxide
◦ Cooling water –
 Intake system – harm to aquatic life
 Heat discharge – thermal pollution
◦ Coal ash – wastewater discharge

Land and Groundwater Pollution
◦ Coal ash disposal – ponds and landfills

EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
◦ Standards must protect public health
◦ Ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, lead
◦ Reviewed/revised every 5 years


States must ensure compliance with NAAQS
within their boundaries
Permits/technology-based limits for
new/modified sources

Coal plants’ response:
◦ Tall stacks  interstate impacts
◦ Changes without “modification” permits/technology
◦ Legal challenges to regulations and standards

Belated remedies:
◦ Interstate pollution limits
◦ Enforcement – modification w/o permit
◦ More stringent standards

Reduce power plant emissions (SO2 and NOx)
in upwind states to help downwind states
1990: Acid rain program  trading; low-sulfur coal
1998, 2005, 2011: O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS
1998: summer NOx limits (O3) – upheld
2005:summer NOx (O3), year-round NOx and SO2
(PM2.5) – struck down but temporarily in effect
◦ 2011: same coverage as 2005; different approach
◦
◦
◦
◦
 Upheld by Supreme Court 2014
 Implementation tied up in court

Construction permit/pollution controls
required:
◦ New plants
◦ Existing plants with major modifications
 Exception: If “routine maintenance, repair, or
replacement” (RMRR)
 Expectation: Existing plants retire; new ones use
modern technology

Reality:
◦ Plants undertook life-extension projects, piecemeal
◦ Claimed RMRR to try to avoid pollution controls
◦ Enforcement lawsuits: mixed results



Strict standards
D-e-l-a-y-e-d Implementation
Example: PM2.5
◦ New standard 1997
◦ Implementation delayed ~ 10 years

Example: SO2
◦ Revised 2010 – source-sensitive (power plants)
◦ Implementation delays
 Atrophied monitoring network
 Resistance to use of modeling (“conservative”)
◦ Local implementation issues


1990: New and existing plants subject to strict
technology controls (MACT), set by EPA
Exception: Before setting standards for coal
plants, EPA must study and find it “appropriate
and necessary”
◦ Dec. 2000: Appropriate and necessary finding
 Power plants largest domestic source of mercury emissions
◦ 2005: EPA reversed course; trading program for mercury
◦ 2008: Court vacated 2005 decision
◦ 2012: New appropriate and necessary finding and
regulations -> Supreme Court 2015

Proposed CO2 emission limits for new and
existing power plants
◦ “Best system of emission reduction”
◦ New sources – based on carbon capture technology
◦ Existing sources – “111(d)”
 Rarely-used provision
 Innovative approach:




Increased efficiency of plants
More use of natural gas plants
Increased renewable energy
Increased energy efficiency


Permit required to discharge water pollution
Permit limits based on:
◦ Technology-based standards - set by EPA
◦ Water quality standards – set by states

Power plants’ ash pond discharge
◦ EPA limits – none set for toxic metals in ash
◦ Set in 1980s, proposed updates, not yet final

Power plants’ cooling water: exceptions
◦ Intake systems – new, weak EPA regulations
◦ Heat discharge – variances to avoid water quality
standards

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
◦ Standards for generators of “hazardous waste”
◦ Permits for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous waste
◦ Exception: EPA to study and submit findings to
Congress regarding coal ash waste before
regulating
 1993 and 2000: EPA found not necessary to regulate
coal ash as hazardous waste
◦ 2008: Coal ash dam collapsed Kingston, TN
◦ 2014: EPA signed federal regulations
 Weak scheme
 Congressional attack