EPA creating more CO2?
The Environmental Protection Agency head is under fire for a new coal-fired power plant, after a Supreme Court decision on the EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Sarah Gardner reports.
Exhaust rises from the main chimneys of a coal-fired power plant. (Sean Gallup / Getty Images)
More on Sustainability, Politics
TEXT OF STORY
Doug Krizner: The head of the Environmental Protection Agency faces scrutiny today from a House oversight committee. Democratic chair Henry Waxman wants EPA chief Stephen Johnson to explain why his agency approved a new coal-fired power plant in Utah -- the first such permit since a landmark Supreme Court ruling on greenhouses gases. Sarah Gardner reports from the Marketplace Sustainability Desk.
Sarah Gardner: Waxman has chastised the EPA for approving a small coal-fired plant in northeast Utah this past summer. He says the Supreme Court ruled in April the agency can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and the agency is ignoring the threat of global warming by approving CO2-spewing power plants.
David Doniger, at the Natural Resources Defense Council, agrees:
David Doniger: The power plants that are built now will be around for 50 or 60 years. It really matters what technology they choose to use.
A spokeswoman for EPA chief Stephen Johnson wouldn't comment on his upcoming testimony. She said the agency is still weighing a decision whether to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants.
Waxman is asking the EPA for a moratorium on permits for coal-fired plants until the agency takes CO2 emissions into account.
I'm Sarah Gardner for Marketplace.
