The recent announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delay for further study its proposed emission standards for smog and toxic chemicals has been hailed by the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufactures and condemned by both environmental and health advocates.
But I suspect many utility executives are shaking their heads at the Administration for contributing to the same investment uncertainty the Chamber’s friends claim is hurting the economy.
A few years back, when I used to speak at/attend energy conferences, I was struck by the split among utility and energy industry executives on the prospects for new rules on global climate change gases. Their debate was about the need for investment certainty; they needed to know the rules, but Congress hadn’t decided.
To be sure, there were die-hard coal advocates and climate change deniers who adamantly opposed any limits that might force them to spend money on mitigation or replacements. But there were also many responsible executives who acknowledged the science and who realized that sooner or later they’d have to deal with it through some strategy other than denial or lying.
I’ve heard lots of utility reps and executives say that while they’d prefer not to be forced, the thing they most needed was certainty about what the rules would be. They know the science will eventually require mitigation, so what they needed to know from an investment perspective was what standards and goals they’d have to meet. They wanted flexibility in how to get there, not simply in how soon, but what they’re choices were. Tell them the rules, and they’d fight about the stringency or the timetable, but in the end, they’d figure out how to get there. They always have.
Only weeks ago, electric industry folks anticipating tougher EPA rules were telling us they had tentative plans to replace dozens of very dirty coal plants over the next decade or so. Even utilities that had been strongly coal-based in the past realized more stringent environmental and climate change rules were inevitable, because they can read the science and they’re not stupid.
They’d either have to retrofit those dirty old clunkers — at enormous expense and competitive risk — or replace them with more efficient, cleaner plants. And if they didn’t, independently-owned new natural gas-fired plants would eat their lunch, even if wind and other renewables didn’t come on fast enough. They needed to make a decision, and for that, they needed to know the rules.
Today, the neanderthals at the CofC and NAM are celebrating their ability to leverage the emergent GOP know-nothings and denialists to intimidate the EPA and the White House into delaying EPAs proposed standards. They’d already killed any meaningful climate change legislation and are pressuring EPA and the White House to stop further efforts to deal with climate change through emission standards. But the science is not going away. So all this does is increase investment uncertainty for those utilities and manufacturing executives who don’t live with their heads in the sand.
Does anyone in the White House get this? Next week, the White House will invite the CEOs of major US corporations to Blair House for a conference on how to improve business investment and spur the economy. The Administration reportedly wants corporations that are sitting on a trillion dollars or two in retained earnings to start investing that money to put people back to work.
It doesn’t make sense for consumer-oriented businesses to be investing billions now in new equipment when their existing plants can easily meet the current levels of depressed demand and the prospects for rapidly growing demand in the future are not good. Why should they risk investments now?
But the same argument doesn’t apply to utilities and independent power producers. Their typical investments take 5 to 10 years before coming on line (nukes will take longer, if they’re ever built here again), and they need to start replacing old, uncompetitive and very dirty plants now. Moreover, the cost of borrowing to make those investments are extremely low today; if they delay, it will only cost more. This is their moment.
Unfortunately, bowing to the CoC types, the Administration via EPA just made investment uncertainty worse by telling business that EPA won’t stick to their own schedules for what the investment rules will be. It’s like the right hand doesn’t even know what the other right hand is doing.
John Chandley



13 Comments

Of course, the technology is available for clean coal burning, but until it’s more expensive to burn dirty, it won’t be put into place. The EPA is discouraging job creation in the field of clean coal, in fact.
There should be taxes imposed that covers the difference in the cost hanging on to antiquated processes and adopting the new plus penalties for failure to complying to regulations meant to control pollution to the highest possible standards. They either go out of business or comply with regulations. There’s no excuse for delaying this any longer. Indiana is one of the dirtiest states in the country. Followed by Ohio. The southeast needs to clean up their acts, as well.
BO has caved yet again on an issue that is important to all Americans. Most of us have kids and we sure don’t want them to be breathing all those chemicals & soot particles released when burning coal. I know I grew up where coal was the main source of heating both the schools I went to and the project I grew up in…DIRTY DIRTY! W#as sure glad when they converted them to fuel oil… Still dirty but no where as bad…
This is another one of those bits of evidence that government passed the peak of sanity some time back.
BO is a caveman!
Here is what you get for renewable energy. The capital that would go offshore for oil will stay in the economy and multiply M3. Clean energy takes good paying jobs, wages that buy homes, pay mortgages and stuff we need now.
Hey BB how ya doing down there on the coast my friend?
As you know we went solar and continue to reap the benefits!!
Book Salon up with Billy ‘Wimsatt’s Please Don’t Bomb the Suburbs: A Midterm Report on My Generation and the Future of Our Super Movement hosted by Josh Bolotsky
As an example, I thought this was a compelling innovation: “Towers to Generate Solar Power in the Dark?” (link: http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-thermal/towers-to-generate-solar-power-in-the-dark ). The project is apparently opposed by the US Air Force (“Solar Project Meets Bigger Foe Than Cloudy Skies: The Air Force,” June 20, 2009, Washington Post, link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061903404.html ).
Here’s the current status on the regulatory side:
“The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Tonopah Solar Energy’s proposed Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project near Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada, is available for review. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) anticipates issuing a decision 30 days following the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on Nov. 19. The wait period will end Dec. 20.” (link: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/newsroom/2010/november/crescent_dunes_solar.html )
No updates have been posted to the Tonopah Solar website since September (link: http://www.tonopahsolar.com/news.html ). More about who owns Tonopah Solar here (link http://www.tonopahsolar.com/about_solarreserve.html ).
Heads up– some folks may be dropped into Dashboard instead of the Salon due to problems with the ISP Rayne reported last night. I am. You might want to give feedback to Rayne. Thanks!
“The EPA is discouraging job creation in the field of clean coal…”
That’s because they want you in the dark and the cold, not able to pay exorbitant rates for electricity and heat. You will be much easier to control than you are now.
The “uncertainty” claim is a Media Inc. favorite these days, but not so valid under scrutiny.
Recessions, and non-recessions, inherently carry “uncertainty” for businesses & everyone else. When you see demand for your product or service and need people to meet the demand, you will hire. Period.
You’re not going to not hire, in some kind of protest or subtraction to you from higher taxes, and not serve demand if you have it in front of you. If anything, you seize the new demand you see faster, because you need more earnings to stay even. And to keep your business growing and not going backwards.
GOP Propaganda, fail. Death panels, anyone…
– Balkingpoints / www
New!EPA Seeks New Timetable for Reducing Pollution from Boilers and Incinerators
Here are the details.
From what I know about the way government regulations are written, ending a comment period on August 23, 2010 and not being able to release the regulations on schedule. In the deposition before the court, EPA said that it received 4800 public comments during the comment period, which had to be extended. EPA presents two options to the court (1) timetable in which it does not repropose rules and needs until June 15, 2011 to make sure that its rewriting of the regulations takes into consideration all of the comments and the legal language can pass judicial review without being overturned. (2) timetable in which because of the passage of time it has to put the redrafted regulations out again for public review, which it says will take until April 13, 2012 for final regulation. And it request a further six months to complete rules for sewage sludge incinerators.
The court case was brought by Sierra Club, which not doubt will be monitoring this process closely.
Here is the regulation that was proposed for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. It is 68 pages long. It got 4800 public comments.
Realize that EPA must be careful to write the regulations within the current Clean Air Act provisions. That means a careful matching of rule to legislative authority, which is not a trivial exercise. In addition they have to rewrite the information for the Federal Register to explain why they followed or did not follow the issues raised in the public comments. Typically they will address groups of similar comments in one paragraph or section of this discussion.
And all this folderol is required under the law to provide transparency and evidence of response to the public. Having this stuff documented in the Federal Register was one of the progressive accomplishments of the 1960s and 1970s. The consequence is that it takes longer to write regulations.
There is no evidence of White House intervention in this process.