This is a framing issue that doesn't relate specifically to coal-fired power, but statements of this basic form crop up all the time from various entities who's profitability or continued existence require ecosystem rape:

"Effective climate policy must balance the benefits to the environment against the potential for significant damage to the economy in the Midwest and throughout the nation," said CEO Gary Rainwater.

It occurs to me that what he's really saying is: "We need to balance the harm might do to our immediate interests against the harm we will certainly do to our children."

Granted that these sorts of statements are usually specious and wrong to begin with.  And the typical green response is to attack the validity of the assertion.  But I wonder if it might be more effective in some contexts to accept the assertion as a given, and simply re-cast it in terms of harm-to-the-present vs. harm-to-the-future.

There will certainly be some people who will either not care about the future, or assume that the people of the future can solve any number of problems we create for them because they will have High Technology(TM).  Still, I think it's a framing that will resonate with many people, including some conservatives.

It is somewhat incongruous for PSCI to argue as to the best interests of Frankfort. It, nonetheless has helped to make a persuasive showing that that community might be injured by the rate disparity ... While our decision potentially lowering the rates charged to Frankfort is not what PSCI has requested, it should at least assuage its concerns about Frankfort's citizenry.

ROTFLMAO!

Yeah, but the issue isn't today's harm vs. tomorrow's harm as I see it.  It's the presumption that greenhouse gas mitigation is incompatible with economic growth.  Even if that was ever true (it ain't), it really begs credulity to argue that in a world of skyrocketing fossil fuel prices, there is no economic argument to be made for lowering our consumption/combustion of same.  

I don't think Rainwater is saying that he wants to balance shareholder harm against his childrens'.  What he's really saying is that his business is based on selling expensive fossil fuel, and reducing demand for his product is bad for his business.  Fine - let him lose, I say.  But let's stop framing this as a economy vs. the environment trade-off - and let's also stop accepting on face value that the interests of utility shareholders are congruent with those of their customers.

...that they say that it would double the electric rates over the next few decades.  And yet, why do I gt the feelin' that the rates would double anyway, even without the carbon caps?

rolls eyes

Yes, I agree entirely Sean.  The issue -- the real issue -- is just what you said.

My point was simply to suggest another possible response when confronting the same old environment-vs-economy line.  It is most correct, but it is not necessarily most rhetorically effective, to try to explode the myth that there is an inherent conflict between environmental and economic goods.

I firmly and deeply believe that this is a myth, and that it needs to be countered.  But different audiences respond to different arguments, etc.

It may well be the wrong way to respond in this particular case.  But it was a something that occurred to me that hadn't occurred before, so I decided to share it.  Like I said, it was a bit off topic.

I was once an Ameren customer and the idea that they care in the least about their customers is laughable.  If they're so worried about energy costs then they wouldn't have tripled their rates as soon as Illinois lifted the rate freeze.  I wish they spent as much on environmental improvements and customer service as they spend on political campaign contributions and public propaganda campaigns.

Every major storm results in tens of thousands of Ameren customers without power for days or weeks because they don't maintain the lines.  Then there's the dam disaster in Missouri that could have been easily avoided and the monkey business they pulled to obstruct the investigation.

They're only recently doing anything serious about energy efficiency programs in Illinois because the state is forcing them too.

Ameren is a corrupt organization and their customers would be much better off if they were put out of business.