EPA rule raises questions about energy sources

New regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have many Missouri companies worrying about how they will reach a 21 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

The proposed rule change announced earlier this month gives states until June 2016 to draft plans for lowering emissions. They must meet the goal by 2030.

Missouri power plants released 87 million tons of carbon pollution in 2011, equal to the annual emissions of 18 million cars, according to the latest information from the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group says those emissions have contributed to the extreme weather the state has experienced in recent years, and reducing them could help prevent crop losses, flood damage and even deaths caused by natural disasters.

For many companies, meeting the standards will require closing plants or reducing output. But for Missouri's power companies, those aren't viable options.

"We could scale back, but then what do we do?" said Ed Throop, director for the Sikeston Board of Municipal Utilities. "We have to go out and buy [energy] at a higher price than we could produce it for? What kind of economics is that?"

The company provides electricity for Sikeston, Missouri, as well as five other cities, from its Sikeston-based power plant.

Throop said the new regulations were "pretty much a killer" for coal-fired plants like his, but Sikeston BMU is not alone in its concern. More than 80 percent of the state's energy is generated from coal power, leaving company leaders, legislators and consumers unhappy with the new mandates.

The EPA left it up to states to determine a plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but offered suggestions such as switching plants to natural gas, increasing energy efficiency standards to reduce demand for electricity and investing in renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power.

The conversion from coal power to natural gas would not be a cheap one, Throop warned. The new expenses likely wouldn't stop there either.

Shawn Seabaugh, communications specialist at the Citizens Electric Corp., said natural gas prices tend to increase in the winter when people are trying to heat their homes, then drop during warmer weather. But if demand is high for natural gas year-round, Seabaugh said he doubts prices would stay at current levels.

"We've got to find a reliable source of energy," he said.

The EPA might like to see power companies use more wind and solar power, but Seabaugh said he's not certain the public will be as welcoming to those power sources. Communities in the past have exhibited a "not in my backyard" attitude when suggested as locations for wind farms. The hesitancy is caused in part because the windmill blades pose a threat to birds and because the large constructions are considered an eyesore.

Another energy alternative is nuclear power, but Seabaugh said it's not very popular either.

"A lot of people are afraid of nuclear energy," he said. "You hear 'nuclear' and think 'Chernobyl.'"

Implementing the necessary technology for wind or solar power also would come with expensive startup costs and higher user fees. Throop said at Sikeston BMU, the cost for power is about $45 per megawatt hour. That rate goes up to $70 or more per megawatt hour for wind power and up to $100 for solar power.

The cost isn't his only concern with the alternative power sources.

"The wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time," Throop said. "It's good, clean energy, but it's not what you'd call baseload energy. You can't call on it anytime you need it."

Both men said increased user fees were among their biggest concerns with the new regulations.

Citizens Electric provides power for nearly 27,000 homes and businesses in four counties, including Perry and part of Cape Girardeau. The power is supplied by Wabash Valley Power, based in Indianapolis.

"We get our power from Wabash Valley and 80 cents of every dollar goes back just to the purchase of the electricity. We operate on only 20 cents of the dollar," Seabaugh said. "So that's a large amount of money to go straight back to the generation. If that goes up, there's not a lot of wiggle room to save rates at the price they're at. That has to be passed along to the consumer and that is something we don't want to do."

Ameren Missouri still is studying the proposed rule change to determine how it would affect customers, the environment and the local economy, says a statement from Michael Menne, vice president of environmental services.

"We will share our perspectives on the impact of this rule with key stakeholders once we complete our assessment. Ameren remains focused on transitioning to a cleaner, more diverse energy portfolio in a responsible fashion," the statement says.

The EPA will not finalize any regulations until next year and plans to seek public input in the meantime. Seabaugh said the best way to ensure reasonable regulations are implemented is by encouraging members of the public to become knowledgeable on the issue and to reach out to local legislators.

U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt and U.S. Rep. Jason Smith have been among the toughest critics of the proposed reductions. Blunt said he would like to see the EPA pursue "common sense policies."

"In 2012, nearly 40 million American households earning less than $30,000 a year spent almost 20 percent of their family budget on energy costs. If you double the utility bill, that 35 or 50 percent of your budget that would suddenly be going for electricity just doesn't make any sense," he said earlier this month in a conference call with reporters.

Smith said he considers the regulations a "war on rural America."

Seabaugh said his company and others across the state are worried about how they will achieve the 21 percent carbon dioxide reduction, but that doesn't mean they aren't concerned about the environment. A more reasonable solution could lie in teaching people to use less energy, either by turning off and unplugging products not in use or by switching to more energy efficient appliances.

"It's something that we want a responsible answer to," Seabaugh said of the efforts to reduce emissions. "I would be hesitant to have, instead of an 'all of the above,' have an 'all but one' energy plan, where they just totally take coal off the table."

srinehart@semissourian.com

388-3641

Pertinent address:

107 E. Malone Ave., Sikeston, Mo.

1500 Rand Ave., Perryville, Mo.