Xcel 'studying' Supreme Court air pollution ruling

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld an Environmental Protection Agency rule on cross-state air pollution will have minimal immediate impacts in Minnesota, state officials and the state's largest utility said Tuesday.

The rule was designed to protect downwind states from power plant pollution produced in 27 Midwestern and Appalachian states. But several upwind states and power companies had sued, arguing they should have a chance to determine how much they were contributing to pollution in other states.

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling and upheld the EPA's rule. Xcel Energy officials said they were still studying the ruling and were evaluating their options.

Xcel had sued the EPA in separate action in 2011 over the rule, arguing that the agency didn't give the utility enough credit for emissions reductions already made at some of its power plants.

Political Coverage Powered by You

Your gift today creates a more connected Minnesota. MPR News is your trusted resource for election coverage, reporting and breaking news. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.

That lawsuit is still pending, but Frank Prager, Xcel's vice president for policy and strategy, said the rule is less concerning than it had been.

"We do not anticipate that, if we are ultimately required to comply with [the rule], the cost or impact of compliance will be as great as we estimated in 2011," he said in a written statement.

Xcel had been concerned about having enough time to comply with the rule, Prager said, adding that customers in Texas would have had to cover the additional costs for emission controls. Xcel has reduced emissions since the rule was finalized and will "watch developments at the court and EPA carefully," he said.

A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency official said Tuesday that the state has been more aggressive than some others in reducing air pollution, so the rule will likely have minimal impacts.

"Minnesota is in a good position to be able to comply with the cross-state air pollution rule," said Frank Kohlasch, air assessment section manager at the MPCA. "Utilities have been getting ahead of these kinds of regulations."

Had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, however, Kohlasch said the state's haze rule concerning the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness would have needed a redo, because it relied on the EPA's cross-state air pollution rule.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.