WASHINGTON, D.C. — The federal EPA issued its final rule for carbon capture and sequestration Thursday.

“Carbon capture and sequestration technology can help us reduce carbon pollution and move us toward a cleaner, more stable environment,” Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, said in a prepared statement. “Today’s rule provides regulatory clarity to help facilitate the implementation of this technology in a safe and responsible way.”

The EPA said the rule clarifies how carbon dioxide captured from coal-fired power plants and large industrial operations is to be stored.

bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • JoeP

    Carbon sequestration is the biggest scam ever concocted. The success rate would be equivalent to peeing in the ocean and expecting to raise the water level.

  • TCeer

    I work for a company that tried a carbon sequestration project. It didn't work.....besides has the EPA even considered the effect that storing carbon dioxide underground would have long term on the environment? This whole organization is staffed by kooks.

  • Kelly

    Per below, the Obama administration now has it's sites in the generic drug industry, which could have a huge impact on Mylan in Morgantown. Heard no mention of this from Manchin. I believe his daughter is CEO there.

    PHARMA & HEALTHCARE | 12/19/2013 @ 8:13AM |7,897 views
    Obama White House Sides With Trial Bar At Costly Expense of Generic Drug Makers

    The FDA has issued a new regulation that could open generic drug makers to the same sort of product liability suits that plague branded pharmaceutical companies.
    It’s part of a political effort by the Obama team to find a regulatory end run around its failed bids to attain the same result in the courts and on Capitol Hill.
    But the new rule will jeopardize the business model that has given the U.S. the world’s most vibrant, and low cost market for generic medicines.
    At issue is whether generic drug makers can be sued for the “failure to warn” patients that a drug has certain risks that weren’t disclosed in its FDA mandated label. The question has been the subject of intense political lobbying by trial lawyers who argue that generic drug makers shouldn’t be immune to these suits.
    The trial bar seems to have won the debate.
    These “failure to warn” lawsuits are the backbone of modern drug torts and a booming legal industry. Lawyers troll for patients on TV commercials. In 2005 alone, 17,000 lawsuits were filed against the multi-national drug companies. This is more than the litigation filed against the next five most sued industries combined.
    In a typical case, a branded drug company will be accused of failing to warn consumers of a risk that didn’t appear on the drug’s FDA-approved labeling.
    Even though FDA maintains tight control over what can be included in the label, trial lawyers will typically argue that the branded drug makers have some latitude to unilaterally update labels without FDA’s prior permission, to reflect new warnings.
    There are good legal and practical reasons why generics have been largely absolved from this same sort of litigation.
    Under the 1984 law that created the modern generic drug approval process, named Hatch-Waxman after the bill’s principal sponsors, generic drugs have to largely reproduce the labels of the branded drugs that they’re copied from.
    Because the generics aren’t free to insert their own safety warnings, they contend that they are pre-empted from state torts that seek to second-guess the contents of warnings.
    The Supreme Court agreed in a landmark 2011 ruling. In a separate but related generic drug case decided last summer, the Supreme Court solidified this precedent.
    In the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, Pliva v. Mensing, President Obama’s Solicitor General tried to argue that generic drug makers could be held liable in state torts, with the creative reasoning that generic labels only needed to conform to branded drugs at the time of approval, but generics were free to change their labels later. (Pliva is now a part of Teva NYSE:TEVA)
    The Supreme Court disputed that reasoning. It held, among other things, that the generic drug laws clearly stated that the generic firms didn’t have freedom to adapt their labels at will. Moreover, the court argued that the law charged FDA with tightly controlling the warnings that got included in those generic labels.
    The Obama Administration’s new effort is aimed at thwarting this precedent.
    FDA’s draft regulation will obligate generic drug makers to update their labels without waiting first for FDA’s permission, or for a drug’s predicate drug label to get updated. This new rule may well conflict with not only the courts, but also the existing law.
    The effort is of a piece with an administration that liberally pursues through regulatory fiat what it has fails to achieve through the courts, or in legislation. A bill to change the drug laws to make generics responsible for updating safety labeling was introduced in the Senate last year, but pulled when it didn’t garner any support. Politicians realized that there were costly implications to such a measure.
    If the goal is making sure that the generic labels are kept up to date with modern safety warnings, the Obama scheme is a clumsy solution.
    If the FDA rule is finalized, generic drug companies will have to grow up the same costly “pharmacovigilance” groups that branded companies already maintain, largely as a way for the generics to fashion new warning labels and blunt the effects of litigation. The new rule would likely eliminate the preemption from failure-to-warn claims that the generics enjoyed, exposing them to liability for drug label warnings that state courts find insufficient.
    We have to decide if we want generic drugs that are cheap and a business that’s highly competitive. Or we want the industry to subsidize product liability torts.
    Ultimately, the cost of litigation will get baked into generic drug prices.
    It will raise the cost of developing these medicines, creating additional barriers to market entry. This will reduce the number of generic entrants that typically copy each individual drug, and then compete to lower prices.

  • CaptainQ

    Of course, the EPA doesn't care about the fact that, by it's own admission, carbon sequestration technology will not exist for at least another 12 years.

    By then, most coal burning power plants will be shut down due to EPA regulations and most of America will probably be experiencing the same 'rolling blackouts' that are routine in third-world nations. THANKS EPA!!!!

  • Derek Hart

    That's great news... At least they will no longer be enforcing a law that had no definitions... Any information on what the ruling states and if it is even possible for coal powered power plants to meet these expectations?

    • Coalwiz

      Staff just took the press release from the EPA.

      Take a look at some of the new phrases for 2014:

      The Merriam-Webster "Climate Change" Dictionary:

      PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

      SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

      DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

      CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’ It's the new "Global Warming"....the name may have changed, but the hoax is still the same.

      NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

      DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

      CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

      JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.