Government is once again throwing a fit over coal.
Of course, this is nothing new. As early as 1272, England's King Edward I banned the burning of what was then known as sea-coal. This was in response to complaints from nobility about the smoky air it caused. Though anyone caught burning or selling coal was to be punished or even executed, the king's decree deterred very few. Most ordinary citizens could not afford the alternative – wood, much of which was kept off limits to the public in the royal forests.
Today, local governments in Texas are attempting to increase consumers' electric bills by requiring new coal-fired power plants be built using more expensive clean-air technologies. This time, the impetus behind these regulations is the clean air nobility in various environmental groups and the federal government. They continue to demand expensive, draconian measures to control emissions despite the fact overall air quality has vastly improved in the last forty years.
For instance, the past three years have seen the nation's lowest levels of ozone smog since monitoring began in the early 1970s. Yes, there are improvements to be made, but we are at a level of air quality today where we can afford to give greater weight to cost of environmental regulations to consumers.
It would not surprise a lot of people to know we are facing the Catch-22 of choosing between clean air and consumers' pocketbooks because of a history of poorly thought out environmental regulations.
The heavy reliance on natural gas to produce electricity in Texas was driven in part by the lower emissions from these plants that would help the state achieve compliance with federal clean air regulations. This was fine as long as natural gas prices were low. But as they have risen, this has created a situation where we must rely too heavily on an expensive energy source.
However, it wasn't that long ago natural gas was out of favor with regulators. In fact, the 1978 Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act forbade the use of natural gas as a primary boiler fuel in new power plants and required all existing gas-fired plants to convert to an alternate fuel by 1990. This was because in the 1970s environmental activists and regulators were convinced that we had to conserve oil and natural gas because supplies were in danger of running out.
What were the alternatives? Coal and nuclear power. We know that coal is no longer in vogue; the same thing happened to nuclear power. While much of Europe was turning toward this zero emission technology, regulations and lawsuits were driving up the cost of nuclear construction in America to the point it no longer became viable – and those plants which were built increased, rather than decreased, consumers' electric bills.
The latest attempt to direct our use to alternative fuels – in this case, renewable energy – means yet another rate increase for taxpayers. Windmills and biomass fuels just don't provide the efficiency and reliability to provide electricity at competitive prices. Yet consumer subsidies to encourage renewable energy in Texas will eventually run over $500 million a year.
Though Texans shouldn't have to choose between their planet and their pocketbooks, this is exactly what we have to do given the current edicts of government regulators.
The solution to this problem is to get government planners out of the way and let the free market work. Unlike the current regulatory regime, the marketplace has long proven its ability to provide better products, including the generation of electricity compatible with cleaner air, at lower prices. That is the choice that Texans deserve.
Bill Peacock is the director for the Center for Economic Freedom with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based research institute. He may be reached at [email protected].