Springfield News Leader: Missouri’s path to carbon cuts not a clear one
WASHINGTON – How hard will it be for Missouri to meet the Obama administration’s proposed requirement for reducing carbon emissions, outlined earlier this month by top environmental officials?
It depends on who you ask.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., says it would be very difficult for the Show-Me State to comply, with potentially devastating consequences for the state’s economy and for Missouri consumers struggling to pay electricity bills.
Some Missouri environmentalists say the rule’s targets are definitely doable — and the state could even go further in cutting carbon pollution without too much trouble. Other clean-energy advocates say there are some incremental steps that Missouri could take to reduce its emissions and some policies already in place that will help the state meet the goal.
But it’s not clear how hard it will be for Missouri to make it all the way to EPA’s finish line.
“It’s hard to have a definitive answer to that question right now,” said Gabe Pacyniak, a policy analyst at the Georgetown Climate Center, a nonprofit that promotes policies to fight climate change.
The rule gives states “a lot of flexibility” in how they meet the goal, he said, so there are still many unknowns.
Environmental Protection Agency officials said each state’s rate reductions were set based on what’s feasible given its current energy mix. Under the proposal, Missouri — which generates 83 percent of its energy from coal-fired power plants — would have to achieve a 21-percent reduction in carbon emissions per megawatt hour of electricity by 2030.
That’s a smaller percentage than other states, which are less reliant on coal. For example, New York, which generated only 3 percent of its energy from coal in 2012, would have to reduce its carbon emissions rate 43 percent. EPA gave lower targets to states that might have a harder time switching from coal to natural gas or other less carbon-intensive fuels.
But those numbers don’t necessarily indicate how easy or tough it will be for states to comply. In the draft rule, EPA outlined a possible path for each state to meet the target.
For Missouri, the EPA estimates it could achieve the biggest reduction in the rate of carbon emissions — 40 percent of the overall cut through greater use of energy-efficiency programs. The state could cut another 27 percent of the total reduction in emissions by making coal plants more efficient, and about 25.5 percent by switching coal-burning plants to natural gas, according to the EPA.
The smallest slice of the reduction — 7 percent — could be achieved by increasing Missouri’s reliance on nuclear and renewable energy sources, the EPA figures show.
Once the rule is finalized, states will have a year to decide how to meet the target. States can have an extra year if they want to join multi-state programs, the option the EPA says is the most cost-effective way to comply.
With all those options on the table, Missouri’s 21-percent reduction requirement is “a very reasonable and attainable goal,” said Heather Brouillet Navarro, executive director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, a St. Louis-based advocacy group.
“If we were to really invest in energy efficiency and wean ourselves off coal and take advantage of the renewable opportunities we have with solar and wind, I think we could move beyond that 21 percent,” she said.
Others were more cautious but said there were some steps Missouri could take to reduce its emissions without too much cost or disruption to the state’s network of coal-fired power plants.
Irl Scissors, executive director of Missourians for a Balanced Energy Future, noted that in 2008, Missourians passed a renewable energy standard that requires the state’s investor-owned utilities to get 15 percent of their energy portfolio from renewable sources by 2021. Missourians for a Balanced Energy Future is a nonpartisan coalition of businesses, labor unions, and consumers who advocate for clean energy development.
That policy, he said, “will partially meet these (EPA) goals.”
Scissors said that making coal-fired power plants more efficient could be very expensive, with the cost likely passed on to ratepayers. But there are smaller steps — like replacing “century-old substations” — that would greatly boost efficiency, Scissors argued.
Pacyniak noted that Missouri has shifted some of its electricity generation from coal to natural gas in recent years. But he said the state’s natural gas plants don’t run as often as they could, so there is “significant potential to run those units more and reduce emissions.”
But Blunt said there is still not much natural gas capacity in the state. And he discounted the impact of other steps, such as increasing energy efficiency. Supporters say that is one of the best ways to cut carbon pollution, because it reduces demand and lowers electricity bills.
Blunt said Missouri families would probably “love” to have better insulation, new windows, and high-efficiency water heaters, but it’s not realistic to think they can afford such things.
He said the EPA rule will inevitably force coal-fired plants to close — and that will jack up electricity bills for Missourians. Power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., generating about 38 percent of heat-trapping gases.
And since Missouri is so reliant on coal for its electricity, the state will almost certainly have make coal plants more efficient or switch from coal burning facilities to natural gas ones. Both of those will be expensive, said Blunt.
“When you build a new plant . . . (before the existing one is obsolete), people’s utility bills go up,” Blunt said. “The worst impact will be on poor families and middle-class families who are struggling now.”
Trey Davis, president of Missouri Energy, an association of utility companies, said his members are still analyzing the EPA proposal and trying to determine what the impact would be on their facilities and on the rates they charge customers.
“There seems to be some flexibly built into the rule, but that’s going to have to be fleshed out to see what the impact is,” he said. “We’re very cautious right now . . . Stay tuned.”
Reporter Deirdre Shesgreen writes about Missouri lawmakers and issues from Gannett’s offices in Washington, D.C.
