Conflicting demands for complying with EPA’s MATS rule favor a single control technology to deal with multiple types of power plant emissions.
Kevin Crapsey is vice president of corporate strategy and development at Eco Power Solutions.
MATS compliance now, with flexibility for the future.
When Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays led an attack on the federal Springfield Armory in January 1787—the spark that ignited the federalist movement—he scarcely could’ve guessed that now, 225 years later, his spiritual descendants would still be fighting that very same battle.
The jurisdictional battle rages on, with FERC and EPA squaring off against the states.
The Republican nominee’s energy plan doesn’t say much about electricity or natural gas. But what it does say should sound familiar to anyone who’s followed energy policy for more than four years.
Michael T. Burr is Fortnightly’s editor-in-chief. Email him at email@example.com
Bold plan for independence, or more partisan overreach?
New environmental requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA) will add to the already complex burden of compliance for power plants. As the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward with cooling water and effluent standards, utilities and generators will have to deal with overlapping rules and conflicting policy goals.
Miranda Yost is an attorney in Hunton & Williams LLP’s Richmond office. Her practice focuses on environmental law and regulation.
EPA’s new water, waste, and air regulations complicate power plant compliance.
A state supreme court ruled last fall that damage resulting from climate change allegedly caused by power plant emissions was “reasonably foreseeable,” and therefore litigation expenses were not covered under a general liability insurance policy. The ruling creates an unworkable standard and raises questions about insurance coverage for climate-change liabilities.