Ruling restricts regulation of coal plants

Jul. 9—A narrow plume of exhaust rises slowly from the Lake Road generating plant, eventually disappearing into the cloudy sky above St. Joseph.

The power plant opened in 1934 and has become such a fixture that it's easy to overlook amid the other heavy industries that dominate the South Side skyline. But this type of coal-burning plant attracted the notice of environmental activists and industry groups who took a battle over carbon regulation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court's ruling, which may have been overlooked amid high-profile decisions on gun control, school prayer and abortion, curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

"I can't sugarcoat it," said Andres Restrepo of the Sierra Club. "This was definitely a blow."

Restrepo was the Sierra Club's lead attorney in the case, West Virginia v. EPA, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. The significance of the court's ruling is as much a matter of debate as President Obama's Clean Power Plan, which established targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The court didn't necessarily say the EPA couldn't regulate greenhouse gas emissions at power plants, Restrepo said. It determined that the agency couldn't do so in the way outlined in the Obama-era rule, with power companies substituting coal for renewable energy to meet carbon-reduction goals.

"They can't require those plants to run less often, and renewable plants to run more," Restrepo said. "The EPA can consider technologies, engineering and practices that can be integrated into individual coal plants."

That means looking at plant upgrades, emissions controls or emerging technologies like carbon capture, which can be costly for power companies to implement.

"The court's decision took off the table the most effective, efficient and lowest-cost tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants," Restrepo said.

For power companies, the ruling might not change anything. Gina Penzig, external communications manager for Evergy in western Missouri and eastern Kansas, said the power company remains committed to becoming net-carbon neutral by 2045.

"We expect to stay the course with our sustainability plan," she said. "The industry right now is moving toward renewable energy. It really is the future of the electric utility industry."

The question becomes how fast to move forward. Industry groups argue that renewable energy is unreliable and some coal or natural gas will be needed to keep the lights on.

In Missouri, an omnibus energy bill passed in the legislature with a provision that allows power companies to collect a rate-based return on old coal-powered plants that are kept on standby to provide electricity when needed. The Sierra Club opposed that provision, saying the plants should be retired and the focus turned to renewables and energy storage.

Traditionally, coal plants have been used to supply a utility's base power needs, with natural gas and renewables added to the mix when demand for extra electricity spikes. The Missouri legislation suggests that the opposite may be true.

"Right now our coal operates like a battery backup," Penzig said. "While they remain online they don't operate as much as they did."

As a retired electrical engineer, Charles Wright said he understands the potential and the shortcomings of alternative energy. He has solar arrays at his house in Cosby, Missouri.

"I have nothing against alternative energy," he said. "You have to treat it as such. Every time the sun goes down, it makes no energy."

Wright believes government targets won't change the reality that at least some of our power will need to come from fossil fuels.

"The best thing the government can do is get out of the way," he said "The government doesn't invent anything. All they do is regulate it and make it harder."

Restrepo said the industry has made progress in the transition to alternative energy. The Obama administration's Clean Energy Plan never took effect, but the power industry achieved the carbon-reduction targets 11 years earlier than called for in the regulations.

For him, the question is whether the court's ruling will make it harder to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

"The thing that needs to happen to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and to address public health problems from air pollution is going to be hindered by this decision," he said. "We need to go a lot faster than the market has moved."

Greg Kozol can be reached at greg.kozol@newspressnow.com. Follow him on Twitter: @NPNowKozol.