Go online for an interactive that shows all the major carbon emitters in Georgia. Only on MyAJC.com.
Georgia has sharply reduced its reliance on coal-burning power plants in recent years, but local utilities will have to significantly slice carbon pollution more to comply with federal proposals announced Monday aimed at battling climate change.
In fact, Georgia will have to cut more than all but six states in the nation, according to an analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency numbers by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The state could get credit for reductions with some work already in progress, such as the major nuclear expansion underway at Plant Vogtle near August.
The impact on consumers’ monthly power bills is unclear. Georgia Power, the state’s biggest energy producer, declined to predict costs or what steps it might have to take. The company said it is still studying the proposal.
In an emailed statement, the company said that while it is committed to working with regulators to develop standards, the proposed changes “appear to be based on reduction measures that extend well beyond Clean Air Act requirements and infringe upon states’ authority to determine the best approach for their own generating sources.”
Gov. Nathan Deal said Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division director is reviewing the changes and that he’ll deliver a report within about a week.
“I’m told that since the utility companies in Georgia have been very proactive, they’ve probably already taken many of the steps that the new regulations require,” the governor said. “I’m hopeful that’s the case, and if it is, it should have a minimal impact.”
Georgia has seen carbon emissions fall by about one-third since 2005. Behind that decline is Georgia Power’s reduced reliance on burning coal. Instead, the company has taken advantage of less-expensive natural gas, which tends to produce significantly less carbon emission from power company smokestacks.
As recently as 2011, Georgia got more than 60 percent of its energy from coal. By last year, coal had fallen to 35 percent of Georgia Power’s energy supply. And more reductions are on the way with company plans announced last year to eliminate 10 more coal-burning units in the state.
The rules proposed Monday by the EPA are not final. The agency plans to hold four hearings seeking public input, including one July 29 in downtown Atlanta. States would have time to devise plans for meeting the new targets.
Ultimately, the cuts are expected to reduce by 30 percent power plant emissions nationwide by 2030 compared with 2005. But each state has been given different reduction targets, based on their current and expected energy situation. By 2030, Georgia would have to reduce by 44 percent its latest ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to electricity produced.
“We have a lot more carbon to cut than most states’ do,” said Seth Gunning of the Sierra Club. “We are catching up to where the rest of the nation already is.”
Georgia Power’s parent, the Southern Co., is the nation’s third-largest power producer. Its fleet includes the nation’s biggest carbon polluter in the energy industry: Plant Scherer, a larger plant near Macon, pumps out more than 21 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
Nationally, most of the cost of limiting carbon emissions ultimately will be borne by ratepayers rather than regulated power companies, predicts Andy Pusateri, an analyst with Edward Jones. But while closing coal plants could lead to higher prices, many utilities have lots of reserve capacity, limiting the likelihood for price increases, Pusateri wrote to investors.
Georgia has several options to meet the proposed limits. It could close additional aging coal-burning plants. It could increase use of alternative energy such as solar power, which is already on the rise, but makes up less than 1 percent of the state’s energy mix. Georgia Power will get more carbon-free power with its nuclear expansion underway at Plant Vogtle and with additional use of natural gas. The company could enter into cap-and-trade systems that essentially allow it to pay more money rather than directly cut its own emissions.
And the company could boost its programs to encourage energy efficiency by its customers.
“There is a lot of room for improvement” in the range and number of programs Georgia Power offers compared with some of its peers nationally, said Stephen Smith, the executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “It is one of the most cost-effective ways to meet compliance.”
A report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, found Georgia has the sixth-lowest budget in the nation for electricity efficiency programs and had far less in efficiency savings than the national average.
This year, Georgia Power is slated to spend about $543 million on construction projects for environmental projects, a piece of the company’s overall $2.5 billion construction program for the year, according to its parent company’s filings with securities regulators.
A statement from U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican, said President Barack Obama “is once again punishing energy providers with rules that will result in lost jobs, higher energy costs, and a less reliable energy grid — burdens that will have an immediate and real-world effect on American families.”
Stan Wise, who sits on the Georgia Public Service Commission, a utility regulator, said that as a result of the proposed rule “we will continue to be forced to make changes and upgrades to existing plants or we will have to close those plants.”
But Wise said he doesn’t know what the costs of the changes will be. He also said he is certain there will be positive economic impact from reducing carbon dioxide levels in the state, but he said he doesn’t know how to quantify that either.
About the Author