Both the industry and the EPA need to consider the full range of regulatory proposals in context to ensure the most efficient and effective approach to the timing and implementation of multiple and overlapping requirements. We support the Clean Air Act and understand the EPA’s role as rule maker and enforcer. As we develop our transition plan for the future, our commitment is compliance.

When we analyze the rules together, we see one outcome; when the EPA analyzes the rules one by one, they see something entirely different. We are trying to persuade the EPA that, in our experience, we cannot achieve compliance on the prescribed timetables and that we must consider the rules in concert. We know we can comply if we have more time.

We are asking that the timeline for the proposed changes reflect a balanced consideration of public health, customer impacts and financial constraints. We feel that, on occasion, EPA views companies’ access to capital as infinite. It is not.

We will continue to work closely with the EPA and our stakeholders to achieve the favored outcomes. But if the implementation schedules are too aggressive, the technology to comply is not available or the costs are too high, or compliance with one regulation creates noncompliance with another, we will not be able to support the proposals. 

If this is done right, we are confident that we can protect the fragile recovery of local economies, create sustainable job growth, spread out the costs to customers over a longer timeframe and preserve the reliability of the grid, while achieving the desired environmental benefits.

As we continue to talk with the EPA and to pursue a legislative solution, AEP has prepared a plan to comply with the proposed regulations. Read more about this plan.

Water intake screens like these at the Cardinal Plant in Brilliant, Ohio, are the target of the U.S. EPA’s proposed rule regarding cooling water intake structures at power plants.