...It sounds great, but I don't wanna get my hopes up.

Is there any way that the bushy can block or overturn this decision before he leaves office?

Any power or priveledge he can use to make the appeal mute?

...it really depends.  There's no precedent for what BACT might be for CO2 from coal-fired power plants, as the only control is increased efficiency... so the next move might depend on who tries to permit a power plant in what state.

Ideally the uncertainty surrounding how such a permit would play out would be enough of a disincentive to the utility to building a new coal plant -- but maybe not.

I assume the reason EPA was issuing this permit is that it's on tribal land where the tribe doesn't have its own permitting authority -- otherwise states issue the permits.

Some state could issue a permit defining BACT in a relatively minimal way -- of course it'd get challenged legally...

The mind reels at all the legal permutations.  We'll just have to see.

Nevertheless, this is really good news.

Were the new govt to uphold this decision, and were no further coal without CCS built,
the consequences would remain unclear.

The rust-out of old coal-fired plants means either : that reduced supply will be available -
or that massively costly CCS must be developed in extreme haste for all new plants,
or that still greater reliance must be invested in exorbitant new nuclear plants,
or that unprecedented govt. funds must be printed for a crash program of non-fossil energy deployments.

Sadly none of the above seems electorally benign.

Personally I doubt that the US fixation on Wind & Solar would be as helpful globally
as other simpler technologies.

=Personally I doubt that the US fixation on Wind & Solar would be as helpful globally as other simpler technologies.=

Well, we need electric power for USA, India, and China.

All three countries have large deserts.

Solar Thermal Baseload, sounds like it could do the trick. That or EGS Geothermal.

And for Transportation, all three countries seem to have their eyes on Electric transportation.

_

All you got left after that is basically Deforestation and Agriculture.

-David Ahlport

The big picture looks very good but there are lots of details to be worked out.

The Bush administration doesn't really have the time to do anything about this ruling, even delay is not option because the decision was handed down so close to the end. Those opposed to the decision can appeal it in federal court but this again will just delay it.

If the EPA says CO2 is a pollutant the states have to follow because the EPA has the ultimate authority on air pollution permits, even when the EPA has granted a state authority to do the permitting themselves.

The wildcard is the BACT. Best Available Control Technology has a list of sub-categories and it gets deep into legal and engineering details. I think the most to be expected right now is increased efficiency. Carbon capture techniques might be mandated in the future.

Like GreenMom says, there ain't no BACT for CO2 right now, so EPA would probably take a year or two to figure about what that was and how to implement it. Perhaps the merits of the case need to be further examined.  

Onward through the fog

Is shakin'!  Of course those old coal plants will keep on spewing.  But yes, really great news!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Threatened tightening supplies of electricity in the future will cause anticipated price increases.

Increased prices will make it more attractive to spend money on conservation and will bring more renewable power to market.

I can see that working for the environment....

Grey Flcn

Solar thermal baseload - is an oxymoron, as you well know.

Utterly vast energy storage capacity would be required for it to get near supplying conventional amounts of power while the sun is too low to be effective.

That storage capacity raises costs yet further.

Geothermal is an entirely different prospect, and shows far better relevance worldwide.

Solar thermal baseload may be possible with molten salt energy storage to shift the power availability the few hours from noon until peak demand in the evening hours.  Naysayers who dis renewables for baseload supplies are ignoring the likely economies of scale and further advances as the technologies continue to mature.

This is a good day for making progress toward sustainability for climate CO2 control using existing (Clean Air Act and BACT), and forthcoming (cap and trade, Carbon tax and rebate) legal mechanisms.

Here's another wonder: this AP story was totally overlooked by today's (11/14/08) Columbus (OH) Dispatch.  Another sign that my local newspaper (old media) has become irrelevant in their control by the coal fired power ideologies.  The Dogpatch remains out to lunch-- as if their endorsement of McCain/Palin (without mentioning Palin) wasn't enough evidence. My subscription to the daily paper here was cancelled, and I'm now even more committed to GRIST as a source of my relevant current news.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

It is ridiculous to say that preventing the construction of a new coal fired facility is a victory. This country needs to shut down old plants which would require the construction of new plants.

Or else we could have 2 out of 3 people report to the disintegration chambers to lower demand. If we could tax the emission carbon dioxide, in order to fund renewable, clean energy, then we could make real gains.

It is nice that everyone is concerned about the global climate. However, these older coal fired plants cause problems with the meso-scale climate in their vicinity that are not necessarily caused by carbon dioxide. They can be terrible contributors to acid rain, particulates and other pollutants that destroy people's health and damage the environment locally.

2Wheeler -
sorry to have posted so as to lead you to read me as a "naysayer" --- I ain't one of those.

There are of course options, and lab hypotheses, for energy storage of intermittent power supplies,
but the costs of applying them on the scale needed erodes the whole package's affordability for developing countries, without whose co-operation we're finished.

Therefore we need to focus first on the PoD options (Power on Demand) such as coppice forestry, geothermal, etc;
then on the schedule intermittents, such as tidal currents;
and only then on minimal intermittents, such as wave energy, solar thermal, etc.

Highly intermittent sources, such as Onshore Wind, should have minimum priority.

Here's another wonder: this AP story was totally overlooked by today's (11/14/08) Columbus (OH) Dispatch.

This story was overlooked by almost everyone so far.

I've seen only a few of the major papers are carryin' it, and I've yet to see it on either the Yahoo, Google, or AOL news pages.  It's not even in the top headlines under the Sciences and Environment News section.

Ya almost haveta keyword search just to find it.

Either few media realize the just far this ruling could reach in scale, or they're all waitin' on more concrete consensus of possible results before they make too much fuss 'bout it.