Alabama Power fighting EPA rule

ENERGY
Alabama
Power
fighting
EPA rule

By SARA FOSS
BIRMINGHAM POST-HERALD

Back in the 1970s, when the first clean air laws were written, it was believed the older, coal-fired power plants already in operation would be replaced soon.

As a result, the older plants were not subjected to the tougher standards of the 1977 Clean Air Act. But a funny thing happened.

The older plants lasted much longer than expected. "For many reasons, the industry managed to keep those facilities running longer than anticipated," said Ron Gore, head of the air division for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

Two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that Southern Co., which owns Alabama Power; the Tennessee Valley Authority; and other power companies had made substantial improvements to their older power plants without obtaining permits and installing state-of-the-art equipment. This resulted in the EPA filing a lawsuit against those utilities. It contends that those older plants should meet new pollution standards.

In May, a coalition of about a dozen utilities including Southern Co. and the Tennessee Valley Authority banded together to fight the Clinton administration's interpretation of New Source Review, a component of the Clean Air Act. The group is called the National Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.

The council has hired former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour to help fight the tougher air pollution requirements on power plants.

The New Source Review policy

requires utilities to upgrade pollution control equipment whenever an aging power plant is renovated. New facilities are required to have the latest and best air pollution technology.

Darya Braggs, a spokeswoman for Alabama Power, said it is unfair for the EPA to suddenly begin applying New Source Review to older plants that until recently had been considered exempt from the policy.

"We've been in compliance with the regulations for the past 20 years," Braggs said. "For the EPA to change the intention of the rules and apply them retroactively is unfair."

"The EPA set those standards, and now they're saying that their own standards aren't acceptable."

Steve Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Knoxville, said the utilities have poured a lot of money into their older plants to keep them operating. In the process, they've improved the older plants, he said.

"Alabama Power has the most significant number of cases pending with New Source Review," Smith said. "The state of Alabama probably has the most at stake here. If Southern Co. is successful at opposing New Source Review, that's going to decrease the incentive to clean up the air."

Braggs said maintenance at the older plants has been routine. "These are basic things we've done to keep the plants running," she said.

Gore said the EPA and the utilities disagree on what it means to "significantly modify" an existing power plant. The majority of the EPA's complaints about power plants in Alabama regard maintenance work the utilities did not report to ADEM because they considered it routine, he said. "The bottom line is what is routine replacement and repair, vs. an operational enhancement designed to increase emissions."

The EPA's 1999 lawsuit listed five power plants in Alabama that the agency claimed had been renovated without needed upgrades being done.

The dispute is now in litigation and could soon fall under review by the Justice Department. In his energy plan released in May, President Bush ordered the department to review the EPA ruling.

Environmental groups criticized the council formed by the utilities. The older power-plants, environmentalists said, emit significantly more pollution than the new plants that comply with clean air laws.

"The bottom line is that (New Source Review) is a good policy because it's a good policy for our health," said Kirsten Bryant, executive director of the Alabama Environmental Council. "Scientific data shows that breathing polluted air is bad for our health."

Both Bryant and Smith said the utilities should use the money they're spending to fight clean air laws to upgrade their plants. Smith said Barbour's firm is receiving $130,000 to $140,000 a month from the National Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.

Barbour is a prominent Washington lobbyist whose clients include Philip Morris, Microsoft and BellSouth. He also was named chief fund-raiser for Senate Republicans last week.

"I think people need to be aware that their utility company is out there throwing this kind of money around in Washington in order to undermine protections that are good for Alabama," Smith said.

Braggs said Southern Co. has done a lot to cut down on pollution. "We feel confident we have complied with the spirit and the letter of environmental law," she said. The company has invested over $4 million in environmental control systems and worked closely with ADEM to address air quality issues, she said.

Between 1990 and 2000, Braggs said, Southern has increased electricity generation in Alabama by 55 percent, while reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 40 percent per megawatt hour. Since 1992, sulphur dioxide emissions per megawatt hour dropped 28 percent, she said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.