CAA

With the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) come many complex decisions for electric utilities. By now the majority of utilities have decided how they will comply with the clean air guidelines and acid rain program limits, at least for Phase I. But for those utilities that have selected coal switching as the preferred method of complying with the law, the task gets more complicated. Burn expensive low-sulfur coal and bank or sell allowances? Or burn just enough low-sulfur coal to meet the rules, and no more?

If anyone ever asks about what you read in this column, tell them you heard it somewhere else.

Of course, I don't really mean that. Let me put it another way: The FORTNIGHTLY gets invited here and there with the understanding that some things will end up in print, and others not. And while I never quote anyone if they were holding a fork or a glass, I do my best to bring back the inside story.

In his article, "Why Taxes Don't Distort Emissions Trading" (Dec. 1, 1994, p. 37), Michael Thomas suggests that utilities should flow through the proceeds of emission allowance sales to ratepayers in the year of sale. His idea is that utilities can eliminate any net effect on current income taxes by matching the increased revenue (emissions sales proceeds) against a revenue decrease (lower rates charged to customers). Slam dunk. End of story. Unfortunately, it's not so simple.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has vacated the Clean Air Act (CAA) compliance rules for reducing NOx emissions from coal-burning electric facilities (Alabama Power Co. v. EPA, No. 94-1170, 94-1329, Nov. 29, 1994). The ruling suspends any obligation to comply with the NOx standards pending further rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).