Analysis

By Rich Heidorn Jr.

WASHINGTON — The coal industry has been advertising the notion of “Clean Coal” for years. Now that the EPA has issued rules limiting carbon emissions from new coal generators, however, the industry says “Clean Coal” is neither feasible nor economical.

And they’re right.

In announcing the new greenhouse gas rules at the National Press Club here Friday, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was effusive in her enthusiasm for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) — the technology coal will need to build new plants.

“It’s been demonstrated to be effective,” McCarthy said. “It’s being constructed on real facilities today.”

That’s true. But McCarthy will be long gone from EPA by the time CCS becomes inexpensive enough to make coal a viable alternative to natural gas. And it may never happen.

This matters.  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA base its pollution standards on the “best system of emission reduction” with technology that has been “adequately demonstrated.”

How those terms are decided will determine whether the GHG rules survive the certain court challenge to come.

EPA’s proposal limits new large natural gas-fired turbines to 1,000 pounds of CO₂ per MWh, easily achievable with current technology. New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds per MWh, far below the emission levels of the most efficient coal plants without CCS, which range from 1,700 to 1,900 lbs./MWh.

The American Public Power Association, which represents 2,000 not-for-profit electric utilities, said EPA’s identification of CCS as the technology required for new coal generation is “unrealistic” and does not comply with the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) requirements under the Clean Air Act.

The group said neither of the two CCS demonstration projects cited by EPA — Plant Ratcliffe in Kemper County, Miss., and the SaskPower plant in Canada — has demonstrated the commercially viability of the technology.

Both sites plan to inject CO₂ into nearby oil fields, and both received government subsidies. “For a project to become commercially viable, it must be financed on its own and given the high risk of financing such unproven technology, it is extremely unclear where the funding would come from,” the group said in a statement.

A recently-released report funded by the Department of Energy concluded that, even if CCS becomes economical, the higher capital costs of coal generators means CCS “may be first deployed on natural gas plants before coal-fired plants, if natural gas prices remain low.”

“… Incentives to support coal mining and encourage the use of coal face an uphill battle in contending with these challenges,” the report said. (See DOE Study: Carbon Capture No Salvation for Coal )

Joseph Stanko, head of government relations for law firm Hunton & Williams, said the standard should be overturned  by the appellate courts because EPA’s reliance on the two projects “doesn’t ‘adequately demonstrate’ technology for normal use.”

“NASA sent men to the moon with federal funds,” he told The Washington Post. “That doesn’t mean municipalities and companies can do it.”

McCarthy insisted in Friday’s briefing that the rule was “clearly not” an effective ban on new coal plants. “CCS is a technology that is feasible and it’s available today,” she insisted. “I believe this proposal sets out a certain path forward … Over time, you’ll be able to see there’s a reasonable, cost-effective strategy to keep coal in the energy mix.”