Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Defending dirty air

Fighting the president’s Clean Power Plan does not reflect Colorado values

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman said Friday that she would be adding this state’s name to a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. It is a move that puts her at odds with Colorado values, the tide of history and the good of the nation.

The Clean Power Plan aims to cut the carbon emissions of coal-burning power plants by 32 percent from their 2005 levels by 2030. It is an ambitious goal in a worthy effort to combat climate change and improve air quality.

The Clean Power Plan is not only a good idea, it is an imperative. Climate change is an increasingly well recognized threat, and pollution from coal-fired power plants is obvious. Moreover, with advances in renewable energy technology – combined with the nationwide boom in natural gas – doing something about it is clearly possible.

Why that is controversial, let alone objectionable, has to do with several factors. One, of course, is simply that it is Obama’s plan. That in itself is enough to generate opposition.

Another factor is the coal industry, which stands to suffer if generating electric power depends less on burning coal. Leading that charge are people like the Koch brothers and groups such as the Heartland Institute, which seemingly exists to promote climate change denial.

The lawsuit is also supported by the Colorado Mining Association. In a statement issued Saturday, it said, “Coffman seeks to protect Colorado consumers from skyrocketing electricity prices ... ” and “The EPA regulations ... threaten the reliability of the electrical grid.”

Plus, there is the general opposition to the Environment Protection Agency and its authority to control pollution – typically characterized as “regulatory overreach” – which is where Coffman comes in. The problem with that is the objections to the Clean Power Plan consist of the same arguments that have been made against every environmental rule ever proposed.

Speaking to the Denver Post, Coffman said, “I think it has the potential to cost jobs. I think it will impact the rates that we pay for our electricity. And I think it impacts the rights of our state government to make these decisions about how electricity is delivered.”

It will cost jobs. But then it will also create jobs. Whether that will be a net loss, a gain or a wash is hard to say, but those new jobs and their surroundings will definitely be cleaner and more sustainable.

Notions of “skyrocketing” electric rates as threats to the grid are laughable. Natural gas is cheap and the easiest way to move away from coal. In the long run, renewable sources will also be cost-competitive with coal. And if coal’s real cost is counted, factoring in its health and economic effects such as the mercury in local lakes, they may well be already. As to the structure of the grid, that has nothing to do with what energy source produces the electric power.

The irony to Coffman’s move is that Colorado is well positioned to work within the Clean Power Plan. Under the state’s Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act, passed in 2010, utilities are already required to come up with plans to cut pollution. With that, under the Clean Power Plan the state is required to cut emissions by a lower percentage than the national standard, not because it is allowed to be dirtier, but because it is already on the way.

Fighting the Clean Power Plan is not in Colorado’s best interest. On the contrary, from a Southwest Colorado point of view, Attorney General Coffman would do better using her influence to ensure that New Mexico and Arizona comply with it.



Reader Comments