The measure will force facilities to institute carbon-capture technology.

As existing plants are already being modified to meet other EPA mandates for emissions, they will not be part of the CAA planned standard.

Additionally, power facilities with building permits in place, or with plans to commence construction within a year of the effective date of any resulting regulations, also will be exempt, along with non-continental US territories and Hawaii.

The EPA said the proposal was “a path forward for new technologies” that would allow them to be deployed at future facilities to burn coal with less carbon pollution.

“Today we’re taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy,” EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said.

“Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to put into our skies – and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue to grow.

“We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American-made technology to tackle a challenge that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids.”

Following a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2007, the EPA said two years later that greenhouse gas pollution was a threat to the health and welfare of Americans “by leading to long lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects on human health and the environment”.

No all-encompassing national limit for carbon pollution emissions levels exists.

The EPA said its proposed standards could be met by power facilities by burning different fossil fuels, including widespread-use of natural gas technologies, or coal with carbon reduction technologies in place.

“EPA does not project additional cost for industry to comply with this standard,” the agency said, a statement that goes against a growing trend of coal-fired power plant closures that will likely gather momentum with the announcement of the mandates.

Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, a 60-day comment period will begin. During that time officials will take additional input and information and hold public hearings on the plan.

Opposition to the announcement went into high gear within hours of the announcement on Tuesday. One of the first to comment was Earl Ray Tomblin, governor of coal-rich West Virginia, who called the move “an attack on coal”

“This move by the EPA can lead to only one conclusion – the Obama administration is trying to end the use of coal as we know it,” he said.

“This regulation will devastate West Virginia and our region by reducing jobs and unnecessarily increasing the cost of power for our citizens. I will not stand for it.”

He called the EPA’s decision another example of the agency’s “inappropriate use of … regulatory authority to set policy”, a power he argued resided with the Congress and not Jackson’s department.

“Even though a federal court last week told the EPA that it was acting beyond its power, the EPA continues to act beyond its authority and in a short-sighted manner that will hurt our economy and cost our country jobs,” Tomblin said.

“I will continue to vigorously defend our great state against the EPA’s over-reaching, ideologically-driven policies that threaten to kill coal. We should be working to make our country more energy independent and create jobs, not harm them.”

The United Mine Workers of America also expressed its deep concern for the impact the regulations will have on the industry.

“We believe that the proposed standards would eliminate the construction of new advanced coal generation, which should be a cornerstone of the President’s ‘all of the above’ energy policy,” president Cecil Roberts said.

“The proposed standards depart from more than 40 years of EPA regulation of fossil fuel emissions by lumping natural gas and coal plants into one category, subject to a single performance standard.”

He noted previous EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act had set separate performance standards for coal and natural gas, thereby recognizing the differences between the two.

“EPA knows very well that CCS technology has not been commercially demonstrated … but the rule it proposed would require the potential builders of new coal plants to commit to CCS at the time of their permit applications, despite the associated costs and uncertainties,” he said.

“In practice, it would not be possible to finance a new coal plant to meet the proposed EPA standards.”

Roberts said UMWA would work with Congress and the EPA to provide a “workable basis” for CCS deployment that does not hinder the use of coal.

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity president Steve Miller also spoke up.

“Unfortunately, the EPA continues to ignore the real impact their rules will have on American families and businesses by driving up energy prices and destroying jobs. This is another, in a series of new regulations, written by EPA to prevent the US from taking advantage of our vast coal resources that are responsible for providing affordable electricity for America’s families and businesses.”

He agreed the rule would make the construction of new coal-fired plants impossible, and it could also force the premature closure of many other plants that are in operation today.

“So far, other EPA regulations are responsible for the announced closure of more than 140 electricity generating units in 19 states,” Miller said.

“The regulation EPA proposed could raise the number of closures even higher and put more workers out of jobs.”