Supreme Court Restricts EPA's Ability to Regulate Toxic Emissions From Power Plants
There's been a lot to celebrate as the U.S. Supreme Court has announced its final decisions for this session. People with subsidies under the Affordable Care Act will still receive them. Same sex couples can now be married in all 50 states. Independent redistricting panels established to address gerrymandering are still legal.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
But those living near coal plants won't be breathing easier. Environmentalists won't be cheering another decision announced this morning which puts roadblocks on the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate health-damaging pollutants from power plants. The court said today in a 5-4 decision that the U.S. EPA must take into account the costs to the industry of a cap on mercury emissions and other pollutants that contain neurotoxins harmful to the health of vulnerable populations, especially children and pregnant women. Most mercury air pollution is produced by coal-fired power plants, which emit about 33 tons of mercury pollution annually.
“Congress decided more than two decades ago that no child should be born with brain damage or other neurological harm, simply because industrial polluters refuse to pay for pollution controls," said Sanjay Narayan, Sierra Club's managing attorney on mercury and air toxics. "But today, five justices of the Supreme Court have decided to make an exception for Big Coal—the industry responsible for the majority of mercury, arsenic and acid gas pollution in the United States. The court chose to give industry’s lobbyists another chance to weaken the rule, requiring EPA to address industry’s costs—even though the agency already did so—and even though we know that these standards were a tremendous bargain for the American public.”
In late 2011, the EPA established the first such regulations ever limiting these pollutants after receiving more than 800,00o comments in favor of doing so. It estimated the cost of removing the pollutants from emissions could cost the industry close to $10 billion a year. The regulations started to take effect in April, but were challenged by 21 states and industry groups such as the National Mining Association who said the EPA overstepped its authority in forcing them to do something that has, what they said, an exorbitant price tag.
The rules were supported by a range of environmental, medical and community groups, drawing a clear line between public and industry interests. They include such groups as the NAACP, American Lung Association, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Sierra Club, American Academy of Pediatrics, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Waterkeeper Alliance, among others.
"I would think it’s classic arbitrary and capricious agency action for an agency to command something that is outrageously expensive and in which the expense vastly exceeds whatever public benefit can be achieved," said Justice Antonin Scalia who voted with the majority.
In fact, the price tag is relatively small. By comparison, the $9.6 billion is less than 10 percent of the state of California's annual budget. But the coal industry is increasingly concerned about competition from other energy sources whose costs are dropping, including natural gas, wind and solar.
And it's dwarfed by the annual costs of the detrimental health impacts and other negative effects of burning coal. A 2011 Harvard study, Full Cost Accouting for the Life Cycle of Coal, found that the total cost to the country of burning coal—including cleaning up streams, property depreciation and health care—could be as much as $500 billion.
The study said, "Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion—generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and thus are often considered as 'externalities.' We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar and other forms of non-fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive."
The decision, while a reversal of previous court decisions holding that the EPA could consider cost but wasn't required to do so, does not mean that no such rules will be allowed, only that the EPA must go back and rewrite the rules factoring in the cost.
“The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the importance of EPA’s role in protecting our families and communities from toxic air pollution," Lisa Garcia, Earthjustice’s vice president of Litigation for Healthy Communities, pointed out. "The court gave EPA the ability to finalize these critical public health protections once and for all. Now EPA must act quickly. Thousands of lives are at stake. Further delay is not an option.”
Mary Anne Hitt of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign suggested that the litigants in this case were fighting a last-ditch effort.
“Practically speaking, today’s decision won’t revive the fortunes of Big Coal or slow down our nation’s transition to clean energy," she said. "Most utilities have long since made decisions about how to meet the standard. Only a few dozen coal plants are still operating today with no pollution controls for mercury and air toxics and no clear plans to install them."
— Mary Anne Hitt (@maryannehitt) June 29, 2015
Environmental groups attacked today's decision as shortsighted and damaging but vowed to continue the fight.
"The court's decision to let polluters off the hook is a huge setback for our kids' health," said Environment America's Anna Aurillo. "But we'll keep fighting for clean air and a healthier future. Polluters' days of dumping unlimited deadly toxins into our air are numbered."
"The council is disappointed by the court's decision not to uphold this rule, which would bring many of the country's oldest and dirtiest power plants in line with modern standards and allow citizens to breathe cleaner, safer air," said Joseph O. Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council. "It is clear that the benefits to public health and the environment this rule would provide dwarf the costs of implementing it, no matter when in the determination those costs are considered. We hope EPA will work quickly to address the court's concerns and issue a revised rule that implements these protections."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
A "trash tsunami" has washed ashore on the beaches of Honduras, endangering both wildlife and the local economy.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
More long-finned pilot whales were found stranded today on beaches in Tasmania, Australia. About 500 whales have become stranded, including at least 380 that have died, the AP reported. It is the largest mass stranding in Australia's recorded history.
- Annual Whale Slaughter Still a Tradition on the Faroe Islands ... ›
- Hundreds of Pilot Whales Die in Devastating Mass Stranding in New ... ›
- Green Group Tests Facebook With Ad Claiming Conservatives Back ... ›
- Illegal Wildlife Trade Thrives on Facebook, Internet Forums ... ›
- Facebook Loophole Allows Climate Deniers to Spread Misinformation ›
- Facebook Hires Koch-Funded Climate Deniers for 'Fact-Checking ... ›
By Harry Kretchmer
By 2030, almost a third of all the energy consumed in the European Union must come from renewable sources, according to binding targets agreed in 2018. Sweden is helping lead the way.
Sweden is a world leader in renewable energy consumption. Swedish Institute/World Bank
Naturally Warm<p>54% of Sweden's power comes from renewables, and is helped by its geography. With plenty of moving water and 63% forest cover, it's no surprise the <a href="https://sweden.se/nature/energy-use-in-sweden/#" target="_blank">two largest renewable power sources</a> are hydropower and biomass. And that biomass is helping support a local energy boom.</p><p>Heating is a key use of energy in a cold country like Sweden. In recent decades, as fuel oil taxes have increased, the country's power companies have turned to renewables, like biomass, to fuel local 'district heating' plants.</p><p>In Sweden these trace their <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217304140#fig3" target="_blank">origins back to 1948</a>, when a power station's excess heat was first used to heat nearby buildings: steam is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/district-heating-system" target="_blank">forced along a network of pipes</a> to wherever it's needed. Today, there are around 500 district heating systems across the country, from major cities to small villages, providing heat to homes and businesses.</p><p>District heating used to be fueled mainly from the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217304140" target="_blank">by-products of power plants</a>, waste-to-energy plants and industrial processes. These days, however, Sweden is bringing more renewable sources into the mix. And as a result of competition, this localized form of power is now the country's<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217304140#fig3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> home-heating market leader.</a></p>
Sweden is using smart grids to turn buildings into energy producers. Huang et al/Elsevier
Energy ‘Prosumers’<p>But Sweden doesn't stop at village-level heating solutions. Its new breed of energy-generation takes hyper-local to the next level.</p><p>One example is in the city of Ludivika where 1970s flats <a href="https://www.buildup.eu/sites/default/files/content/transforming-a-residential-building-cluster-into-electricity-prosumers-in-sweden.pdf" target="_blank">have recently been retrofitted with the latest smart energy technology</a>.</p><p>48 family apartments spread across 3 buildings have been given photovoltaic solar panels, thermal energy storage and heat pump systems. A micro energy grid connects it all, and helps charge electric cars overnight.</p><p>The result is a cluster of 'prosumer' buildings, producing rather than consuming enough power for 77% of residents' needs. With <a href="http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1232060/FULLTEXT01.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">high levels of smart meter usage</a>, it's a model that looks set to spread across Sweden.</p>
<div id="d7bf9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8757b138d5570bec9d6aad18074a429a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1273556364263071744" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Read more about Western Harbour and book a visit: https://t.co/ujSmVs9rNK 🏡🌳🌊 https://t.co/C5PuPziqIM</div> — Smart City Sweden (@Smart City Sweden)<a href="https://twitter.com/SmartCitySweden/statuses/1273556364263071744">1592474473.0</a></blockquote></div>
Scaling Up<p>A recent development by E.ON in Hyllie, a district on the outskirts of Malmö, southern Sweden, <a href="https://www.eonenergy.com/blog/2019/February/sweden-smart-city" target="_blank">has scaled up the smart grid principle</a>. Energy generation comes from local wind, solar, biomass and waste sources.</p><p>Smart grids then balance the power, react to the weather, deploying extra power when it's colder or putting excess into battery storage when it's warm. The system is not only more efficient, but bills have fallen.</p><p>Smart energy developments like those in Hyllie, Ludivika, and renewable-driven district heating, offer a radical alternative to the centralized energy systems many countries rely on today.</p><p>The EU's leaders have a challenge: how to generate 32% of energy from renewables by 2030. Sweden offers a vision of how technology and local solutions can turn a goal into a reality.</p>
- Sweden to Become One of World's First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation s ... ›
- These Countries Are Leading the Transition to Sustainable Energy ... ›
- Sweden Shuts Down Its Last Coal Plant Two Years Early - EcoWatch ›
By Jessica Corbett
In another win for climate campaigners, leaders of 12 major cities around the world — collectively home to about 36 million people — committed Tuesday to divesting from fossil fuel companies and investing in a green, just recovery from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
- Oxford Endowment Ditches Fossil Fuels in 'Historic' Decision ... ›
- Fossil Fuel Divestment Debates on Campus Spotlight Societal Role ... ›
- London and New York Mayors Call on Other World Cities to Divest ... ›