The federal energy bill shows that Congress remains wedded to polluting fossil fuels and won’t commit seriously to renewable resources.
Against this backdrop, Rocky Mountain states face the prospect of housing 26 new coal plants – facilities that will foul our air, diminish vistas in our national parks and add to global warming concerns. Since federal officials are shirking their duty to create a sustainable energy future, states must pick up the slack.
We believe global warming is the most serious environmental issue of our time and that the world should reduce the use of fossil fuels. The question is how best to do so. We think it’s wiser to make some reasonable progress now, by requiring electric utilities to ramp up efficiency and renewable energy, rather than push for a perfect clean-energy scenario that may not materialize.
The old way of challenging the energy industry – litigation – may no longer produce the desired results, because the Bush administration and Congress are undermining the rules. Even longtime standards (such as making power plants install modern pollution controls when doing major upgrades) are in flux, so it’s unclear how courts would rule. To make some progress on key issues, environmentalists must try new approaches.
Late last year, prominent environmental groups negotiated a progressive agreement with Xcel Energy that allows Colorado’s largest utility to build a 750-megawatt addition to its coal-fired power plant near Pueblo. In exchange, Xcel committed to environmental clean-up, expanded efficiency and more renewable-energy use. We doubt environmentalists could have won as much if they had challenged Xcel in court. In return for agreeing to the environmental steps, Xcel cut a smooth path through the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
The negotiations should be a model for how energy policy in the West can be shaped: less conflict, more problem solving, cleaner air and a recognition that global warming is a serious issue.
But recently, other environmentalists told Xcel they intend to sue over the deal. They seem serious, but will have to make good on the threat in the next few days to meet legal deadlines. It should be noted that these critics chose not to join the negotiations. Their excuse, that the PUC didn’t give them “standing,” doesn’t wash – the Sierra Club didn’t have standing either, but signed the settlement. Other mainstream environmental groups that supported the Xcel settlement included Western Resource Advocates and the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.
Ironically, it will be harder to protect the West’s air if Boulder-based Clean Energy Future makes good on its threat. Utilities won’t negotiate similar progressive deals if they believe that they will be sued no matter what.
Clean Energy Future complains that Xcel long ago should have had to clean up pollution at two existing coal-fired units at Pueblo. That’s true – but the claim underscores another reason the deal is important: It commits Xcel to undertaking an overdue responsibility.
The group also says Xcel’s new unit will worsen the haze over Great Sand Dunes National Park and wouldn’t pass muster if its approval hadn’t been linked to cleaning up the two older units. Perhaps. But the haze results from many pollution sources, so litigation could be more time-consuming than negotiating clean-ups at all the pollution sources.
Critics further say Xcel should have had to use more efficiency and renewable energy (whose costs are falling) rather than coal (whose prices are rising). A ballot measure Colorado voters passed last year requires utilities to get 10 percent of their power from sources such as wind and solar by 2010. The deal Xcel inked calls for the company to either buy or generate more than that amount. The settlement also for the first time commits Xcel to implement more energy efficiency than the law demands. It’s absurd to think that a court would force Xcel to do more than the law requires, so the settlement will encourage more efficiency and renewable energy use than a lawsuit could achieve.
Clean Energy Future gripes that the settlement is imperfect. True. But in an era when basic environmental protections are under assault, the pact provides achievable clean air goals for the near future. That’s better than a costly gamble posed by years of litigation.
Clean Energy Action vows to fight every proposed coal plant in the West, but the group lacks money or staff to back up its words. It will have to pick its battles.
It has plenty to choose from. There are big fights in Montana over a coal plant that could foul the air in Yellowstone National Park; on the Navajo reservation over a plant the tribal government supports and a native environmental group opposes; and in Western Colorado over Tri-State Generation’s plans to build another coal-fired plant. If Clean Energy Future seriously wants to reduce coal use in the West, it should challenge the proposals where utilities refuse to even consider efficiency or clean energy.
