By Kip Averitt
Special to the Star-Telegram
The final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency this summer will require 27 states, including Texas, to reduce power plant emissions that cross into neighboring states. The goal of the new rule is to dramatically cut our emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO {-2}) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
According to the EPA, which eased the rules just last week to allow more time for compliance, companies will have until January 2014 to find effective ways to reduce SO
{-2} and NOx emissions -- ingredients in smog and ground-level ozone -- or face federal sanctions.
Simply stated, the new rule will improve air quality throughout the state. The emission reductions will significantly increase public health benefits for thousands of Texans suffering from heart disease, acute bronchitis, aggravated asthma and other chronic respiratory ailments. This will help keep kids in school and workers on the job rather than in doctor's offices and hospital emergency rooms.
Moreover, as older, less-efficient electric generators are retired, new alternative sources of electric power from clean-burning natural gas, wind, solar and biomass spring to life, attracting investment capital and creating jobs.
So, if the benefits of the new rule are clear, why then is it so controversial?
In the states' deregulated electric market, the generation owner bears all of the risk of investment and decides when and where to build new generation, and whether to retire or mothball existing generation, based on market conditions.
Many of the states' utility operators, including NRG, Entergy and Calpine, stepped up to the plate as soon as they saw the rule coming years ago. They made necessary investments in their plants because they realized the value of being good stewards in their communities and wanted to guarantee a good return for their shareholders.
However, a few utilities, including Dallas-based Luminant, still continue to drag their feet, going so far as to issue dire warnings that the new regulations will force utilities to limit or shut down coal plant operations, which would lead to higher utility costs and a possible shortage of generation capacity.
Even the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages 85 percent of the states' electric load and the flow of electric power to 23 million Texas customers, has weighed in, claiming the truncated timeline for compliance will have a significant effect on coal generation. At the same time, the grid operator acknowledges that it has not yet fully analyzed the impact on utility operations statewide.
The question this brings to mind is whether these warnings are real or simply designed to divert attention from the fact that Wall Street investment firms made a poor investment and now want Texas ratepayers to pick up their losses. The Public Utility Commission and ERCOT should not be allowed to raise rates for Texas ratepayers to bail out Wall Street bankers who made a poor decision.
With the EPA agreeing to ease the rule and allowing companies until January 2014 to comply, Luminant has plenty of time to make the necessary investments like other utilities in Texas have done.
I'm confident that Texas utilities can achieve compliance with EPA's air pollution rules and create jobs without forcing Texans to choose between clean air and affordable and reliable electricity.
Kip Averitt, former state senator from Waco and chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, is chairman of the Texas Clean Energy Coalition.www.texascleanenergy.org
Looking for comments?
