The Bush administration has offered no valid legal reason to not limit greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants, a federal environmental appeals board ruled Thursday.

A three-judge Environmental Appeals Board panel rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's refusal to require carbon dioxide control equipment on a new plant proposed in Utah.

But the ruling could have broad implications, and the judges suggested EPA consider dealing with the issue "in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding."

"Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being taken by cities, states and communities across the country," said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign, which challenged EPA's permit for Deseret Power's 110-megawatt Bonanza Plant along the Utah-Colorado border.

"Everyone has a role to play and it's time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric."

In West Virginia, the state Department of Environmental Protection approved the new Longview Power plant outside Morgantown without any carbon dioxide controls. And, the state Public Service Commission declined to require American Electric Power to include such controls in its plans for a new coal gasification plant proposed for Mason County.

Many climate scientists believe that the nation must swiftly cut carbon dioxide emissions, and ultimately reduce them by at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by mid-century to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

The Bush administration has offered no valid legal reason to not limit greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants, a federal environmental appeals board ruled Thursday.

A three-judge Environmental Appeals Board panel rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's refusal to require carbon dioxide control equipment on a new plant proposed in Utah.

But the ruling could have broad implications, and the judges suggested EPA consider dealing with the issue "in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding."

"Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being taken by cities, states and communities across the country," said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign, which challenged EPA's permit for Deseret Power's 110-megawatt Bonanza Plant along the Utah-Colorado border.

"Everyone has a role to play and it's time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric."

In West Virginia, the state Department of Environmental Protection approved the new Longview Power plant outside Morgantown without any carbon dioxide controls. And, the state Public Service Commission declined to require American Electric Power to include such controls in its plans for a new coal gasification plant proposed for Mason County.

Many climate scientists believe that the nation must swiftly cut carbon dioxide emissions, and ultimately reduce them by at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by mid-century to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Coal is the nation's largest source of global warming pollution, representing about a third of U.S. emissions, equal to the combined output of all cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats.

Technology to capture coal plant carbon dioxide emissions and bury them underground is riddled with problems and questions, making the prospects for limiting those emissions from existing plants unclear. But advocates for strong action on climate change argue that a firm first step is to ban new coal-fired plants that don't limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Across the country, the Sierra Club and other groups have challenged numerous plant proposals in state courts and federal appeals actions, on the groups that permits wrongly do not include carbon dioxide limits.

Thus far, decisions in those cases have been mixed. A state court in Georgia ruled that regulators there were required to impose carbon dioxide limits on a new plant. But in another Utah case that is being appealed, the decision not to mandate such limits was upheld.

In Thursday's decision, the EAB judges ruled that EPA regional officials offered no good reason for not imposing carbon dioxide "best available control technology" limits on the Deseret plant. The judges sent the permit back to EPA, with instructions that the agency "reconsider whether or not to impose" such a limit.

Rich Alonso, a lawyer with the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents power plant developers and utilities, downplayed the ruling as "a common act by the EAB."

"In context, the remand is really a procedural outcome that is silent as to any particular regulatory outcome," Alonso said.

But Joanne Spalding, a Sierra Club lawyer, said the decision "opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming."