EPA Moves Forward with GHG Regulations for Power Plants

November 9, 2011

EPA Moves Forward with GHG Regulations                    for Power Plants


The Obama administration on Tuesday posted a notice on the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website that indicates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has filed a copy of proposed rules to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new, modified, and existing power plants.

The EPA sent the regulations governing Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard for Electric Generating Units to the OMB, as is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the landmark ruling that included GHGs within the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollutants, said EPA spokesperson Betsaida Alcantara in a statement.

“EPA will work with OMB throughout the interagency review process and will issue the proposal when this review is complete,” she said. “EPA has engaged in an extensive and open public process to gather the latest and best information. The agency is fully considering this input as it develops smart, cost-effective and protective standards.”

The agency will be soliciting additional comment and information at the time that it proposes the new source rule and will take that input fully into account as it completes its process for this rule, she added.

The EPA had missed a court-imposed deadline to propose the rules by July 26, 2011, to more thoroughly review public comment on draft rules. In September, just weeks before its self-imposed deadline of Sept. 30, 2011, the EPA again deferred the proposal, not specifying a new date.

The agency had been expected to finalize the rule by May 26, 2012, as required by a December 2010 settlement agreement between the agency, several states, and environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund.

The review by the OMB could take up to 90 days.

About Mississippi Coal
Welcome! It is an honor to have a moment of your day. We are in favor of all forms of energy. We care about the future of this great Nation and seek to expose the corruption behind the Kemper County CO2 capturing experimental Lignite coal Demonstration unit. Our Chief complaint is that the rate payers pay for it in their electric bills. The CO2 capturing does not produce electricity so therefore serves no purpose for the ratepayers. It is a money scam for Mississippi power and Southern Company. Mississippi is first in following the (United Nation's Agenda 21) Kyoto Protocols for the regulation of carbon dioxide, a gas we breathe out of our lungs, by forcing the people to pay for it through energy bills and taxes. Through the process of investigating the Kemper County Coal Plant issue, we feel criminal acts have been committed and that soon FCC violations will be added to the offenses. People are being lied to, deceived, or misled and therefore are fully cooperating with this Lignite experiment. "This blog or any content may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of political pathways, Constitutional infringements, democracy, science, and other issues. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is compiled and distributed without profit. This blog does not always agree with certain personal views or agendas of the published authors, but we will overlook such views many times in order to present facts, conclusions, and connections for knowledge or clarification. We hope you gain from this critical subject matter of the article/op-ed."

5 Responses to EPA Moves Forward with GHG Regulations for Power Plants

  1. Yes, I DO consider CO2 a harmful gas that needs to be contained or kept from accumulating in our atmosphere.. Try breathing it some day. It’ll change your mind pretty quickly. It’s one of the gases that vehicle testing centers test for during the smog check. I’m an electrician that is certified to work underground and in confined spaces. CO2 is one of the major concerns for people working in those types of environments. It’s even worse considering how quickly we’re clearing the planet of trees. If so many huge swaths of rainforest around the world weren’t being clearcut, I wouldn’t be so worried about the CO2, because the forests of the world could contain it. But we’re cutting down virgin forests, and not replanting what we harvest, at an alarming rate.

    There was a study partially funded by kock Industries, undertaken by someone who used to be a skeptic about global warming. He is no longer a skeptic. He’s a believer. The ONLY research I’ve seen refuting CO2 as a GHG is research that was funded by interests that don’t want CO2 emissions to be controlled, for one reason or another. The petroleum industry sponsored a couple such studies. Scientists for the World Coal Association consider CO2 to be a harmful greenhouse gas. Most of the research debunking global warming has been shown to be inaccurate. Most of the research I’ve reviewed over the years was either independently undertaken, or funded by groups or organizations not affiliated with any group with a financial interest in the results. Also, the scientists that support the greenhouse gas/global warming point of view aren’t all chemists or environmentalists. Some are archeologists, oceanographers, and geologists, working off of soil, ice, and sea floor core samples. If global warming is a farce, please explain the rise in sea levels and world temperatures that have been tracked over the past half century.

    In fact, CHINA considers it to be a harmful gas. To the extent that they are either retrofitting coal-fired power plants to burn cleaner, and in some instances, to capture and sequester the carbon they produce, or just closing them. You may have read that they have invested more in solar energy production last year than we did in almost the past decade. Most of China considers it to be problematic. Of course, when you can see and taste the air you breathe, there’s a problem.

    You might want to look up carbon capture and sequestration technology. Check out the article below and the references listed at the bottom for more info. It makes more sense than the other options. Compressing and sequestering the CO2 allows it to be reclaimed for other purposes, if the producers can determine an economically feasible method of doing so. Dry ice is nothing more than CO2. Soda and beer carbonation is nothing more than flavored water super-saturated with CO2. CSS has been shown to trap and clean as much as 90% of the CO2 output of a coal-fired power plant, so, why don’t we work on finding a way for those plant operators to make money off of the CO2 they are able to sequester from their plant flue streams?

    How has the EPA lost all credibility? All of their powers are congressionally-conferred, so how is it they shouldn’t have them? Congress and the Supreme Court have taken numerous looks at the scope of the powers that EPA wields over the years. Those powers have always been confirmed.


    • I breath CO2 everyday. It is necessary for life and plays a key roll in photosynthesis.
      The EPA lost credibility for accepting false science as truthful to comply with the Kyoto Protocols.
      Not seeing that you are actually learning anything. Mike, Are you sure you are teachable?

      • Yes, you breathe approximately 10% CO2 by volume with every breath. Try this: Blow up a large balloon, manually. With your lungs. Then try and breathe that. My guess is you’d be vomiting after the second breath, and probably passing out around the fifth or sixth breath, as long as all you inhale is what you exhaled into the balloon.

        Yes, it plays a key role in photosynthesis.

        I’m teachable when the “information/subject” being taught is being taught truthfully and is worth learning. Knowing the schools I went to and the grades I earned at those schools, along with the fact that I’ve taught math, electronics, and blueprint-reading at the junior college level tells me I’m eminently teachable. My 145+ IQ, proves it. But, since I don’t agree with you, I MUST be un-teachable.

        Where is the false science? WHAT is the false science? Are you saying that the World Coal Alliance is incorrect in saying that CO2 emissions need to be brought under control? You must agree that the WCA is a group that is seriously involved with many of the industrial producers of CO2. THEIR scientists consider CO2, at current and projected levels, to be harmful.

        You also can’t refute that rainforests are being clearcut in huge swaths, globally. Less trees living mean less trees to clean the atmosphere of CO2 though photosynthesis. Or do you think that the remaining trees take up the slack? Try this little experiment: Pour a little water on your kitchen table. Now put a napkin on that puddle. Then, pour a little more water on the table. Did that single napkin soak it all up? Completely? Same EXACT type of situation. Especially if you cut the napkin in half prior to putting it on the spill and before adding to the spill.

  2. Ok, so what, exactly, is the problem you have with this? We have judicial precedent. We have review, independent and agency-sponsored. We have legislative process being followed. In other words, the letter, and spirit, of the law are being strictly adhered to. So, again, what exactly, is your issue with this announcement?

    • We know know there needs to be regulations but the EPA has lost all credibility yet maintains power they should not have. I do not agree that CO2 is a poisonous gas that needs to be contained, sold on the stock exchange, and taxed… Do you? Based on what science? There has been CREDIBLE scientific proof that CO2 does not cause Global warming. See the video series we posted on that. Don’t think because something is posted that that means we have a “problem” with it. We may be just passing along information. Thank you Mike.

Do you have a question comment or information please reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: