I saw an advertisement from American Electric Power (AEP) in Forbes. It was contained in a special advertising section for utility companies, where they touted their concern for the environment. The ad notes that AEP is one of the nation's largest utilities, which owns "more than 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S." The ad also notes that AEP "owns the nation's largest electricity transmission system...." AEP describes itself as a leader in the industry given its development of "the world's largest coal-fired generating units." The ad moreover claims that AEP will continue to be a leader by building the "first large-scale [IGCC] clean coal plants in the U.S."

As someone who has written to AEP and actually received a response from Dennis Welch, who heads its environmental division, I am somewhat cynical of any claims that AEP is an innovator in environmentally-friendly energy production. I was actually glad that a main focus of the ad was on what AEP truly is: a large scale coal-burning company--and it has the pollution problems to boot. When I received a letter from Mr. Welch, the general theme seemed to be that because AEP has such large power plants and generates a tremendous amount of power, there is only so much it can do to improve its environmental performance. Mr. Welch did say that AEP has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1998-2001 levels. AEP also participates in reforestation efforts to help offset carbon dioxide emissions. Aside from this, Mr. Welch mentioned the IGCC investments and general information about how AEP will be affected by more stringent federal air pollution regulations with respect to sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

All of the above sounded okay on the surface, but when I look at the plume of smoke emanating from AEP's Rockport, Indiana power plant--only 30 miles or so from where I live--I need something more concrete to deal with. Accordingly, I asked specifically about this plant in my letter to AEP and Mr. Welch didn't exactly sidestep it. Yet, I was not exactly blown away by the progress reached at this plant. In his letter, Mr. Welch stated that the Rockport plant is one of AEP's largest and that this size alone meant more air emissions. In terms of sulfur dioxide, Mr. Welch stated that Rockport's emissions are equal to or below those of new sources WHEN the plant was first built about 25 years ago. Meanwhile, with respect to nitrogen oxide emissions, Rockport's emissions have been reduced by 38% since 1995. With regard to mercury, Mr. Welch stated that there are no proven technologies to effectively reduce these emissions from the type of low sulfur coal used at Rockport.

While I appreciated Mr. Welch writing a three-page letter to me, I was rather discouraged that the "innovation" as he describes it at Rockport, was as minimal as it appears to be. I don't see how having the same sulfur dioxide emissions that were the norm in the 1980s is an acceptable benchmark today. In addition, lowering nitrogen oxide emissions by close to 40% sounds pretty respectable until one considers the enormous emissions that are still coming out of that plant. Further, with all of the talk in different states about limiting mercury emissions from power plants by 90%, I don't see how AEP is claiming that this can't be achieved at Rockport. I acknowledge that this would be no easy feat at a plant as big as Rockport (and would be costly), but to say it can't be done currently sounds a bit disingenous to me. If other states are going to require their plants to reduce levels of mercury in a drastic fashion, a highly lucrative company like AEP can make it happen, as well.