But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated the rule in 2008 because certain states could purchase so many allowances they wouldn't have to cut their emissions at all, defeating the purpose of the Clean Air Act. The court allowed the rule to remain in place pending a stricter replacement.

That replacement arrived in 2010, when the EPA released a draft version of its new interstate pollution reg — the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. It still included Texas, but only in a seasonal ozone reduction program. It did, however, ask utilities and the TCEQ to comment on the potential inclusion of Texas in the sulfur dioxide program.

Sure enough, when the completed version of the rule was unveiled last July, Texas was among the states that would have to further curtail sulfur dioxide emissions. For cash-strapped Luminant, whose northeast Texas plants are responsible for nearly half of the state total, it was just another problem stacked atop a mountain.

In reality, what the rule accomplished was a level playing field. Generators like Luminant, which operated plants without the additional cost of modern pollution controls, would be forced to buy allowances from utilities that invested in cleaner plants, like Xcel Energy.

Luminant responded quickly. "Without fair notice and opportunity to comment, the EPA has mandated that Texas slash its [sulfur dioxide] by half and greatly reduce [nitrogen oxide] emissions in less than five months — an unprecedented and impossible compliance timetable. These requirements would seriously jeopardize the ability of the state's electric grid to supply power to Texas businesses and consumers and threaten the loss of hundreds of high-paying jobs."

This wasn't exactly true. The deadline for demonstrating compliance wasn't until March 2013 — at that point nearly two years away. According to an EPA statement, the 2012 date was intended to make sure pollution levels didn't spike between the lapsing of one rule and the enactment of the next. And the industry had, in fact, been given an opportunity to comment back in July 2010. The writing was already on the wall.

To expect that Texas wouldn't be included in the rule, according to one knowledgeable industry source, was "wishful thinking" at best, and shortsighted at worst.

"A lot of people put pollution controls on their plants, expecting there were going to be new environmental regulations and wanted to stay ahead of the curve," said the industry source. "Other people waited."

Nevertheless, the Texas GOP establishment registered outrage.

"The implementation of this rule will result in a loss of valuable jobs in the 4th District at Luminant, the largest power generator in Texas," said U.S. Representative Ralph Hall of Rockwall, chairman of the powerful House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. "The rule will also seriously jeopardize the ability of the state's electric grid to supply power to Texas businesses and consumers, and will have damaging effects on families and local communities whose economies depend on the success of Luminant's facilities."

The chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Bryan Shaw, laid out a doomsday scenario: "The rule will impose great costs on coal-fired power plants, causing some to shut down or curtail operations, threatening the state's electrical capacity reserve margins needed to avoid power disruptions during times of peak demand. Such a scenario could lead to blackouts, which create serious health risks for Texans dependent on reliable energy."

But not everyone in the industry was so pessimistic. David Knox, spokesperson for Texas wholesale power generator NRG, said, "When it comes time to meet these requirements, we will be able to meet them, and the most important thing for our employees is we don't plan any plant closures or layoffs to do that."

In fact, analyses from the financial sector and ERCOT raised doubt about claims the pollution rule would imperil the Texas grid.

Financial analysts at Bernstein Research said Luminant could meet the requirements by purchasing $15 million a year in pollution allowances. That wasn't chump change, sure, but it was a drop in the bucket compared with its debt. The truth was, during times of peak demand, Luminant wasn't running its smokestack scrubbers, installed to remove sulfur dioxide. The reason was obvious: Generators make more money during peak demand, and running scrubbers reduces the amount of power the unit produces. If Luminant left its scrubbers on all the time, Bernstein calculated, it could meet the new EPA regs without idling Monticello. In fact, Luminant would receive more allowances from the EPA in part because the agency had assumed it was running its scrubbers at full capacity in its initial calculations.

But the real question was, would it make good business sense to spend as much as $500 million on a plant Luminant said was worth only $411 million? (Luminant, for its part, says it intends to spend $1.5 billion on pollution controls by 2020, accounting for other emissions rules coming down the regulatory pike.)

Said John Rowe, chairman and CEO of Exelon Corp., one of the largest utilities in the country, to an audience at an American Enterprise Institute conference: "These regulations will not kill coal. ... In fact, modeling done on the impacts of these rules shows that up to 50 percent of retirements are due to the current economics of the plant due to natural gas and coal prices."

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
16 comments
Sclm087
Sclm087

While I have no love for the power company, the EPA is out of control. They are costing us billions in fines that companies have to pass on to us and the EPA is responsible for the loss of many jobs. They are power hungry and full of themselves....like putting real bullets in Barney Fife's revolver.

TexasElectricityRatings
TexasElectricityRatings

1.) Any notion of blaming the deregulated electricity market as it stands, or on investment guys for the problems plaguing Energy Future Holdings (at this point) as a problem that threatens blackouts and generation shortages is just folly. TXU was a mess beforehand, and they have been a mess since from the top down based on management, bad decisions, poor understanding the market, etc. The debt issue is huge, and one that I don't see how they'll ever be able to get out of successfully, although there is a very real possibility that they'll be seen as "too big to fail" on some level. That being said, as another poster pointed out, if/when they go belly up someone else will come in and buy their assets cheap and likely run them better anyway. So it's hardly a fear that this is going to cause us to lose generation or be without power.

2.) 2.) The EPA guidelines being passed down are complete garbage, and I don't think they were as obvious as this article would have you believe. For every "industry insider" that said they should have known what was coming, I could probably find 3 that were shocked, and not just people at Energy Future Holdings, but also at NRG, Xcel, etc. They're a real issue. But no, they aren't to blame for Texas's power problems.

3.) 3.) I'm sick of the myth that these people keep throwing out that Texans are paying some of the highest electricity rates in the country, as well as how deregulated rates compare with the regulated areas of Texas as well. If people in deregulated are paying high rates, it is THEIR choice and because they haven't leveraged the market or shopped for competitive rates. I've debunked this repeatedly. 50% of the people in deregulated areas are still with their incumbent providers paying absurdly high prices and won't flex the options the market provides them. The data used in this article is from the EIA and is horribly flawed, as it only measures state by state, and doesn't take into account people who pay more when they don't. The rates available in deregulated areas of Texas are the 3rd cheapest int he United States right now.

4.)4.) The BIGGEST issue here, barely covered in this article until the end, is the power generation assets and the discussion of raising the market cap to lure in new investment. I wrote a big piece on this on Wednesday. This is where people should be furious. The Texas generation issues are very real, and anyone paying attention saw them coming around 2005 when the population of Texas starting exploding and no new generation was being built...even when Natural Gas prices were favorable. And now they're extremely inhibitive. This is the problem that people have been sitting on their hands and ignoring, and this is the real problem...not the EPA or Energy Future Holding's problems. There's been no problems encouraging the generation of wind plants using subsidies and money. Of course, wind generation doesn't blow consistently or when Texas actually needs it, such as the sweltering summer. Deregulation has worked wonders for THAT kind of inconsistent generation, so pointing the finger at the same system as being at fault for a lack of natural gas generation plants is silly and hypocritical. The problems, as always, stem from political issues.

The discussion of raising the market cap should be a huge topic right now, but it's being ignored. Raising the cap from $3k to $4500 this summer, and eventually to $7500 doesn't guarantee new generation, it just might encourage it. What is does guarantee is that EVERYONE will be paying more. And doing it this summer feels like another POLITICAL move by the PUC Commissioners to cover their own backsides.

Tyler Nicholson
Tyler Nicholson

Like the article, very enlighting, and the artwork is just great!

Mister_Mean
Mister_Mean

Luminant remindes me of the Greek goverment bond debt.

Wutaboutu
Wutaboutu

Very well written article. And very informative. Thank you, Brantley, for this article.

Sa
Sa

I live in Garland. We had *one* - count 'em, one - rolling blackout at my house during the Feb 2011 freeze. Hurray for Garland Power and Light!

No, I don't work for them.

bassnabber
bassnabber

A few observations.

One reason municipally owned and other public utilities are bringing generation online is to avoid the prospect of their service areas transitioning to open access. What wasn't stated is that they are able to sell excess electricity into the grid and reap the benefits of the ERCOT generation bid stack.

The statement, "Deregulation, we were told, would open the market up to competition, driving down prices for the ratepayer. That didn't happen. In fact, prices rose. Dallasites and Houstonians, in particular, have paid some of the highest electricity bills in the country." is inherently incorrect. Electricity prices are the lowest they have ever been and research will bear that statement out regardless how you want to spin it. What has increased are the distribution provider costs which is monitored and approved by the PUCT.

The statement, "And when gas prices fell as the Barnett Shale glutted the market, rates paid by Texans living outside of deregulated areas fell by twice as much as those inside." is also incorrect. I know because I receive service from a Coop and my prices right now are approximately 30% higher than what I could get if I were to have access to open access market.

In relation to generation capacity, what you are witnessing is the generation sector holding the market at ransom via the legislature and PUCT until they receive some form of capacity payments (i.e. subsidies) because they dislike an energy only market. Known as ICAP in the eastern markets, not one generation plant has been built, though consumers have shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars for the sake of perceived system reliability. Ask for a written guarantee that if price signals are reached that each generator will build a new plant and see what kind of response you receive.

Perhaps a little more research would benefit the overall picture of what is really going on behind the scenes.

Robert
Robert

The fact your COOP is 30% higher than the market price is indicative they are burning has purchases made before the dramatic fall of natural gas prices between 2007 and now. Many Municipal operated utilities and COOP's made the mistake of buying a full service contract for unusually long terms (5-10 years or more in some cases) at gas prices that were off the peak high of $13-$14 per MMBTU in 2007, but significantly higher than today. Bottom line, natural gas drives the price of energy in Texas. That price is crazy low at the moment due to a variety of market forces, and when that price goes up again, so will the cost of energy in Texas. Deregulation hasn't accomplished what it said it would. It isn't because the principles of a free market are wrong, it is because the folks making the money have no incentive to provide the lowest price, just a price low enough to beat the next highest retail energy producer. In otherwords the pricing is now cost + the highest profit I can make, rather than the previous model of cost + a set return. There are times when a deregulated market will produce cheaper energy than a regulated market, but more often than not, a regulated market is cheaper when it comes to consumable commodities.

Commando
Commando

Before de-regulation, when TXU was an'integrated' utility, residential rates were around 8-8.5%......in the 70's and 80's rates at 7.5% were not unheard of....so, tell me again, how is de-regulation supposed to help me.....all Wilder did was destroy a once pround and respected Electric Company that had consistent AAA ratings and provide good returns for their investors

bassnabber
bassnabber

Comparing back 30 to 40 years ago is not really comparing apples to apples to today's environment, however even with today's operating cost you can today sign up for electric service for 12 months at 7.5 cents / kWh all in which means the electric portion of that rate is actually around 4.5 cents / kWh. If one were to look around a little more you could, today, actually get an all in price of 6.2 or approximately 3.2 cents / kWh for the electric portion of the charge. Its all about choice and options. Based on my experience the prices of the 70's & 80's normally didn't reflect the all in value so in the examples you provided I'd suggest that you are seeing roughly a 40% savings in price / cost to you for the 12 month offer and roughly 57% for the other offer I reference for just the electricity portion of a like bill. Hope that helps shed some light on the general subject of electric prices. If it helps I received my Coop bill today and my average price came in at 10.06 cents / kWh. Which means that sense I do not have choice I'm paying roughly 34% more in cost than what I could get if I had choice.

Mister_Mean
Mister_Mean

Looks like gross miss management fueled by greed egged on by our politicians here in Texas. I would gripe to my elected officials but they are the foxes guarding the hen house.

One would think that Enron would have been a warning on this not a business model. KKR-can you say “claw back”? To our politicians can you say long prison terms?

Lights Out
Lights Out

Everybody involved in this needs to go to jail for a long time. You can bet your ass all the TXU meter readers and linemen are about to lose their retirement and their health care while the New York jerks at KKR are toasting themselves at three martini lunches. Kirk and Baker can go fuck themselves for this bullshit.

RebeccaW
RebeccaW

what a load of crap. Just fix your outdated and broken plants/equipment instead of driving around a jalopy like the rest of us non-corporation 'people' have to do. You shouldn't blame the EPA for your issues any more than I should blame Texas when and if I fail my yearly vehicular inspection. Energy companies are not exempt from 'cost of living' expenses and that includes maint., compliance and repairs. And by the way, if companies were worried about polluting the environment as much as they should be, we wouldn't need to waste money on imposing and enforcing EPA regulations. The EPA is awesome.

james
james

excuses are like assholes and everybody's got one. these greedy lazy lyin' worthless assholes have been takin' lotsa money from us for not doin' their jobs.

 
Loading...