Email
Recent op-eds by environmental groups discuss various topics of alleged destruction of our air, water and the future of our children by New Mexico’s energy industries. The problem is they are incomplete at best and sometimes incorrect.
The N.M. Environmental Improvement Board recently repealed two emission rules that were pushed through at the end of the Richardson administration. Richardson’s EIB appointees were hand-picked to create regulation that the state Legislature refused to pass.
Legislators understood those regulations would hinder industry while driving up prices, costing jobs and accomplishing little in the way of reducing global carbon emissions.
Gov. Susana Martinez appointed an unbiased EIB panel to objectively review these rules. When they did, they found that the Richardson rules violated New Mexico law by imposing regulations that were more stringent than federal requirements. The rules were also found to be unjustified for the very reasons they never passed the state Legislature.
The environmental groups, focusing on a barrage of scare tactics, could significantly hamper New Mexico’s economy and accomplish very little in regard to changing our air or water.
If we were to shut down every coal-burning plant in the state, which is their ultimate goal, China would negate any pollution savings. According to the New York Times, May 10, 2009, “China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.”
This makes U.S. regulation of carbon emissions almost as futile as strict regulation within a single state.
The owners of San Juan Generating Plant completed $320 million in environmental improvements in 2010. That investment led to significant reductions in four primary emissions, and San Juan is already outperforming a new EPA mercury rule. But according to the EPA, that’s not enough. The plant, which is the source of our most affordable electricity, must now be retrofitted with equipment to increase visibility.
The choice is between a state-approved plan that would cost about $70 million and the EPA plan that is estimated at $750 million or more. Computer-generated models of each retrofit show no significant difference in visibility between them.
Either way, ratepayers will cover the cost.
In addition, the N.M. Public Regulation Commission is creating a new standard for calculating the “reasonable” cost of procuring renewable energy as well as determining rate impact. In other words, they are determining how much ratepayers will see their bills increase to cover the cost of renewable energy on the system.
It’s not likely that renewable energy will replace other forms of electricity production. According to Renewable Energy World.com, as of June 2011, U.S. wind produced 3.24 percent and solar 0.04 percent of our total electrical generation.
Energy efficiency reduces overall energy usage on the system but comes with a cost. Ratepayers are currently paying for, among other things, low income homes to be weatherized and old refrigerators and incandescent light bulbs to be replaced. While weatherization and replacement may not occur in your home, you’re still paying the bill.
To make sense, all of these measures – renewable energy, energy efficiency and coal plant regulation – must be balanced with reasonable costs to ratepayers that don’t drive business away and deprive our people of jobs.
And the next time you experience shock in reviewing your electric bill, remember that many of the charges are due to environmental initiatives – not the choice of your local electric company.
If we truly care about the future of our children, we will stop demonizing the industries that support this state by producing electricity, extracting minerals and providing high-paying jobs. We should pursue renewable energy, energy efficiency and electricity production in a cost-effective way that allows us to build our economy – not destroy it.
The New Mexico Business Coalition is a nonpartisan, pro-business, social welfare organization.
