CPV stalls global warming bill

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

But the bill may still have legs. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. said the Senate would attempt to reconsider the vote today. ‘‘It will be a close vote,” he said.

The bill failed 25 to 21, following lengthy and even heated debate Monday night, over how money raised through carbon auctions is spent. Under the proposal, proceeds would have gone largely to energy efficiency and clean energy programs, which are the chief goals of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that Maryland joined last April.

If it fails, millions of dollars would go into the renewable energy fund that reimburses ratepayers who have been hit with skyrocketing electricity bills.

‘‘Populists often prevail and the Senate made a valid argument that they’d rather have it go into ratepayers’ pockets,” said Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George’s) about the bill.

CPV, based in Silver Spring, announced in July plans to build the $400 million generating station on the same 77-acre site as the aborted Kelson Ridge power plant project, which collapsed in the wake of the 2001 Enron corporate accounting scandal.

CPV’s lobbyist John A. Andryszak told the Senate Finance Committee last week that RGGI regulations would cost the company an additional $150 million over 20 years, a cost that threatened the financial viability of CPV St. Charles.

‘‘It is true that the RGGI regulations would add a severe additional burden to finance what would be one of the cleanest natural gas plants in the country,” said Sharon K. Segner, project director for CPV St. Charles. ‘‘It raises real concerns and we’re working with leadership to find a solution.”

Construction on CPV St. Charles is slated to begin next year and be completed as early as summer 2011, she said.

The company had been working with the Maryland Public Service Commission to draft an amendment that would have provided emissions credits when energy reliability is at risk. Those efforts will continue, regardless of the bill’s outcome, Segner said, through a spokesman.

Even if senators don’t reverse Tuesday’s vote, a key delegate said it may not be a goner.

House Economic Matters Committee Chairman Dereck E. Davis (D-Prince George’s) was surprised at the Senate’s vote and said his chamber might pursue the bill anyway. ‘‘I understand the immediate attractiveness of providing some kinds of immediate rate relief to consumers,” but the legislature has to be mindful of the state’s long-term goals to reduce energy consumption and promote efficiency.

Time, however, is winding down, as the General Assembly adjourns at midnight April 7.

The greenhouse gas initiative is a compact among participating Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states requiring industrial plants to sharply reduce the toxic emissions that cause global warming, which leads to climate change.

Member states have developed a regional strategy for controlling pollutants, but because Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia have not signed on to RGGI, projects in Maryland are at a competitive disadvantage with those in neighboring states that don’t have the additional expense of being RGGI compliant.

Before the vote, lawmakers said they were willing to work with CPV to ensure the plant moves forward, but stopped short of guaranteeing an exemption that the company sought.

‘‘I can’t blame them for trying to reduce their costs, but if you’re going to exempt them you’re going to have to exempt others,” said Sen. Thomas ‘‘Mac” Middleton (D-Charles), who chairs the Finance Committee. ‘‘It’s a fairness issue.”

Offering exceptions would have significantly weakened the bill and created a precedent for other companies to seek immunity, critics said.

By seeking the exemption, CPV is reneging on its pledge to comply with environmental requirements, said Johanna E. Neumann, state director of MARYPIRG, a pro-environment advocacy group.

‘‘They proposed the project when RGGI was coming down the pike and now they’re trying to backtrack and get carved out,” she said. ‘‘It’s an empty threat.”

Tuesday’s vote was a disappointing outcome that resulted from misinformation and misunderstanding among lawmakers who mistakenly believed it would increase residential electricity bills, Neumann said.

‘‘The best way to help consumers is to help them invest in energy efficiency,” she said, noting that every $1 invested in energy conservation produces $4 in savings.

There has been a strong push in Annapolis this year for energy conservation measures. The state faces an electricity shortfall that could cause brownouts by 2011, which has lawmakers careful not to impede new generation projects.

CPV St. Charles remains very significant to Charles County and the state, and it requires that lawmakers take a hard look at any legislation that could affect that plant, said Del. Sally Y. Jameson (D-Charles).

‘‘It’s really an important project that will have great value financially to Charles County, so we can’t just ignore their concerns,” she said.

A PSC report issued in December stated that 2011 and 2012 are critical reliability years for the state, lending credence to the importance of the project.

CPV testified in February that the plant could further strain an already taxed water system in Charles County. It has not yet decided whether to install a water-cooling system for the twin gas turbines or a dry fan-based system.

Even if the plant uses recycled water for cooling, it would still require 130,000 to 230,000 gallons of potable water from the county’s water system for daily operation, depending on the level of electricity demand. That amount is consumed by between 370 to 650 homes per day.

Staff writer Sean R. Sedam contributed to this report.

abrody@somdnews.com