MITCHELL SCHNURMAN
It has become fashionable for opponents to disagree on even simple facts, but there shouldn't be room for debate on the deadline for a new air pollution rule.
That's what emerged last week during a congressional hearing in Washington, when a Jan. 1 due date suddenly became March 2013. The shift is a bad sign for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is already backpedaling on its tough stance in Texas.
If the EPA is playing games with the deadline, what about its more important assertions: that the new emission standards won't lead to shuttered plants in Texas, laid-off workers and rolling blackouts?
Much of the outrage over the so-called cross-border air pollution rule centers on the timing. Texas learned that it would be included in the rule in July, with the lower emissions to take effect in January.
That deadline comes so soon that several power companies say they can't adjust in time, and the state's power grid operator warned that electric reliability would be compromised. Luminant, the state's largest generator, said it will close two coal plants and three lignite mines, and eliminate 500 jobs, rather than risk big fines and penalties for exceeding the pollution limits.
But EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy insisted that closures were not necessary. Addressing a House panel in Washington last week, she said the state has enough options and enough equipment to meet the lower pollution limits, if all devices were maximized all the time. She also said the compliance deadline is March 2013, not Jan. 1.
The 2013 date made big headlines, with one environmentalist saying it showed that Luminant was blowing smoke about closing plants. But that's just the date that the emissions are tallied and accounted for with the government -- not when the lower standards take effect.
As an analogy, consider how income taxes are paid. They're withheld throughout the year, with the bill calculated and paid in full the following April. In the same way, Luminant must cut its sulfur dioxide emissions by almost two-thirds, beginning in January, but the bill comes due in 2013.
If it fell short of the required emission cuts, Luminant would have to buy credits from other companies, if they were available and regardless of the price. Or it would face fines of $27,500 a day after topping the limit, plus a 2-for-1 reduction in pollution allowances for the following year.
"The EPA is playing a game here, trying to divert attention," said Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "The March 2013 date has nothing to do with how you're going to run your business. It's almost meaningless."
It does indicate that the EPA is on the defensive. Early this month, the agency had to pull back a proposal for ozone restrictions, after the president said it was more important to not derail the economy during a shaky recovery.
The air pollution rule poses a similar threat, especially in Texas, because the state has little time to respond. EPA officials have insisted that jobs won't have to be lost and costs won't be excessive, but Texas players don't buy it.
Regulators have asked for delays, better data and a chance to formally argue for the state's unique issues. The deregulated electric market, for instance, could be damaged by the uncertainty over the standards, Shaw said.
Lawsuits are piling up. And in a sign of unusual bipartisanship, all but one congressman signed a letter to Washington, asking for relief. When's the last time that Eddie Bernice Johnson and Joe Barton were on the same page on the environment?
All the pushback appears to be softening up the EPA. Initially, it insisted that Luminant and the Texas power grid could handle the new rules. More recently, it emphasized a willingness to work with officials and explore options.
In a Sept. 11 letter, an EPA executive offered to make technical adjustments and give Texas and Luminant "thousands of additional tons of pollution allowances." Four days later, in written testimony, McCarthy said the EPA was "initiating a process to increase the emissions 'budget' for Texas by tens of thousands of additional tons."
From thousands to tens of thousands is an indicator that the EPA is moving in the right direction. But Shaw is worried about making an accommodation for one player, even the biggest in the state.
"The EPA can't make this go away with a technical correction," said Shaw, who also testified in Washington last week. "That's papering over the ill effects, and there's too much at stake for that."
If Luminant gets an extra break now, Shaw said, that could discourage other companies from adding generation, because they'll fear more flip-flops down the road. Shaw and other regulators also questioned the EPA's data and modeling assumptions.
They argued that the state deserves a chance to vet those details in a formal way, just as other environmental laws are worked out.
Six other states were later added to the air pollution rule, and they each participated in a supplemental rulemaking process. That allowed for a coordinated review, with input from both sides.
McCarthy said Texas stakeholders commented on the cross-state air rule and even contributed data that influenced the EPA's decisions. While agency officials are meeting with Luminant and exploring its options, she said it wouldn't receive unique treatment.
"No special favors here," McCarthy said.
The corollary should hold true, too. Texas shouldn't be treated any differently from other states.
No comments:
Post a Comment