Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Will new EPA rules help Florida?
allegations fail under scrutiny.
The facts are that states, working with utilities, will have several years to design compliance plans that maximize value for consumers, and, if done right, many families will see reductions in their utility bills. The proposed rule gives credit to utilities for investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives outside the fence of power plants. Utilities financing investments in household and business energy efficiency can help their customers use less energy and save money.
Florida bears the brunt of the impacts of climate change, but also holds the key for solutions. Florida may see around 3 inches of sea-level rise by 2030, and several feet of storm surge, threatening billions of dollars’worth of coastline property. The EPA’s proposed rule by itself can’t stop climate change, but rather can help get China, India and other polluters to agree to an internationally-binding global emissions-reduction deal.
While Florida is precariously at risk to the damages of climate change, the state also holds promise of opportunities. Florida ranks third in terms of potential to generate energy from solar power, but blocks that potential from getting to the market. Why is this important? Because the city of Austin, Texas, just signed a 20-year power purchase agreement for 150 megawatts of solar photovoltaic energy for 4.9 cents per kilowatt hour— a price less than prevailing fossil fuels. Communities across Florida should have the ability to sign such deals to help slash our reliance on coal, but the state’s utilities are preventing their freedom to do so.
Coal served this nation for 100 years because itwas inexpensive andwe didn’t understand or care about its environmental costs. But coal has been eclipsed by superior, competing technologies that can supply consumers’ needs without risks to worsening climate change.
The EPA’s proposed rule is needed because consumers will be better off with a clean-energy roadmap that properly incentivizes affordable renewable energy and energy efficiency. to significantly reduce their carbon emissions, leaving these facilities with the difficult choice to either upgrade or shut down. Both options mean higher electricity prices for Florida consumers.
Essentially, the EPA is handing the states an unfunded mandate and targeting coal, an energy source that accounts for nearly a quarter of Florida’s electricity generation. But, if coal-fired utilities close prematurely, howwill Florida meet its growing consumer energy demands?
Instead of eliminating energy sources for Floridians, we need to have all options on the table— including nuclear, natural gas, renewables and coal— to ensure that utilities and electric cooperatives can deliver affordable and reliable electricity.
Unfortunately, the level of cuts in coalbased generation and the timelines for implementation that are proposed will cause substantial reliability concerns and ensure higher electricity prices across the board. Right nowthere are no clear answers, and such a predicamentwould put Florida— whose annual per capita electricity expenditures are 40 percent higher than theU.S. average— in a very precarious energy and economic position.
Ultimately, the prospect of carbon regulation under EPA’s proposed rules should create much concern across Florida. They demand close attention from both our policymakers and every Florida energy consumer, whether you’re a farmer, small business owner, manufacturer or senior.
For all of these reasons, the Consumer Energy Alliance encourages Floridians and our elected leaders to support policies that protect the environment, but have a balanced approach that protects our energy and economic security aswell.
During this exciting time of growth for Florida, supporting an all-of-the-above approach will prove itself as a successful path for the future, allowing energy supplies to be more secure and more affordable for our citizens. That means all energy sources— nuclear, natural gas, renewable electricity and, yes, coal— must remain strongly in the equation.