Did you read the article last week about Constellation Energy wanting tighter coal power plant emission rules?

It is unfair, the Baltimore utility says, that it has invested heavily in complying with anticipated federal rules toughening standards on sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Those rules, expected to begin this year, are on hold as a result of a court stay granted in response to requests by sister coal burning utilities and others.

Unfair, says Constellation, which has spend close to $1 billion to cut emissions at two coal-burning plants that can be seen from downtown Baltimore.

The important footnote – the investments were necessary under Maryland law.

Just running the emissions equipment sucks up 40 megawatts of power, so it has been a huge commitment.

The court says it plans to hold hearings on the issue in April.

Meanwhile, Constellation says it was able to step up and clean up its act in three years – and other coal-burning utilities should do the same.

Not so fast, says American Electric Power and others. How can we invest in expensive equipment – and expect regulators to bless that investment – complying with rules not in force?

It is an interesting flare-up in the politics of energy in today’s charged political environment.

And it is hugely disruptive to energy companies.

Which is the smarter course – moving early to comply with tighter restrictions on emissions many view as inevitable? Our waiting until forced to act – when the exact requirements of the new standards are known. Or the proposals are scrapped after the reins of the White House get turned over to a Republican?

Such questions complicate utility strategic and financial planning. How can utilities best harness such disruption? That is the theme of the upcoming EnergyBiz Leadership Forum in Washington, March 19-21. Review full conference details here.