+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Utilities and Environmentalists Haggle Over Climate Bill
2010-07-19 15:31:51.201 GMT
By FELICITY BARRINGER
July 19 (New York Times) -- Utility executives plan to head
to Washington this week to weigh in on the latest iterations of
legislation to control carbon dioxide emissions. Among them are
Michael G. Morris, president and chief executive of American
Electric Power, and James Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy.
Intense negotiations have been unfolding over the possible
architecture of a Senate energy bill pulled together by the
chamber's majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to control those
emissions, beginning with coal-fired power plants. Lobbyists from
environmental groups and from publicly owned utilities have been
meeting to see if they can find some common ground.
More of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions come from
coal-fired power plants than any other source. A climate and
energy bill passed last year by the House called for an
economy-wide cap, but that seems unlikely to prevail in the
Senate, so discussion has turned to winning approval of a limit
that embraces the utility sector.
The waltz of negotiations, closely watched by Politico,
involves moderate forces in the two camps. Groups like the
Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense
Fund, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Bipartisan
Policy Center are arrayed on one side, and investor-owned
utilities like Duke Energy, Exelon, PNM and Pacific Gas &
Electric on the other.
Mr. Rogers caused a stir last week when he proposed linking
carbon dioxide limits to proposed and pending regulations on
other toxic or harmful emissions, like sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen and mercury. As Thomas Williams, a company spokesman
said, "It's intuitive that these regulations affect the same
equipment, so why not be comprehensive and do it all at once?"
Most of the company's large coal-fired power plants, the
bedrock of electrical supply in their regions, already have the
expensive equipment to scrub mercury or sulfur dioxide from the
gases emerging from their boilers, Mr. Williams said. Those that
lack the equipment tend to be the oldest, smallest and least
efficient units, he said, adding that his utility and others
would probably choose to shutter such facilities rather than
invest tens of millions of dollars in new controls.
Environmental groups balked at the linkage.
"Coal plant lobbyists are threatening to hold climate
legislation hostage unless senators agree to give them more time
to keep spewing more deadly smog, soot and toxic pollution," said
John Walke, the clean air director for the Natural Resources
Defense Council. "Senators should just say no because the public
won't accept swapping one unacceptable pollution problem for
another."
By week's end the focus of the talks had moved to details
like how baseline emissions would be calculated and whether the
trading allowances for carbon dioxide emissions would be awarded
free to utilities or auctioned off, or distributed in some
combination of the two.
"These discussions have gone very well," said Fred Krupp,
president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "There is a sense of
momentum and progress."
Yet while contact between some of these utilities and
environmental groups go back a ways -- Mr. Rogers and Eileen
Claussen of the Pew Center recently co-authored a call for
climate action -- the negotiations have stirred some skepticism
in Washington.
"How many votes do they command?" one Senate staffer asked
in a deadpan voice.
Mr. Krupp said, "Hopefully, we'll get to the point where we
can answer that question in a real-world setting."
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
-0- Jul/19/2010 15:39 GMT
