More

Coal-Fired Power Plant Closures To Cost Jobs, Clean Up Environment

Coal Plant Closures

By VICKI SMITH and LARRY O'DELL   12/20/11 06:38 AM ET   AP

-- For more than 90 years, the coal-fired power plant in Glen Lyn, Va., has been churning out electricity and contributing to local prosperity. Of late, it has generated nearly a quarter of the revenue for the $1 million budget of the town.

Yet when the plant ultimately shuts down to comply with new federal air pollution regulations by the end of 2014, says Town Manager Howard Spencer, so too might the community of 200.

"If the town lost all of that revenue," he says, "we would struggle to even continue to be incorporated."

An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.

No lights will go dark. But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts – enough power for more than 11 million households – will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect. One rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. Another sets first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from smokestacks.

The effect is greatest in the Midwest and in coal belt states such as Virginia and West Virginia, where dozens of units are likely to shut down.

Take Giles County, where American Electric Power's Glen Lyn plant is located, and where 44 jobs are on the line.

County Administrator Chris McKlarney worries about the $600,000 tax-revenue hit his $40 million budget will take. But that's just one concern involving a plant and workers whose community contribution is "hard to quantify."

"They've done so much donation-wise for local causes ... And they're really good people working there," he said. "They're coaches in Little League sports, involved in the Parent-Teacher Organization – you lose those kind of people, it's tough."

And they're good jobs – stable, well-paying positions with good benefits in places where such things can be hard to find.

The closures, though, have long been anticipated. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.

Many plants, such as the one in Glen Lyn, began ramping down production more than a year ago, firing up only when demand surged. Many workers have transferred to more modern plants or are making plans to retire.

To be sure, there will be pain. The smaller the community, the deeper it's likely to be felt. Tax revenues will drop, and communities will struggle to make up the difference.

In Rivesville, W.Va., where Ohio-based FirstEnergy is closing an old plant, the slow death began long ago. Mayor Jim Hershman, who worked at the plant for 25 years before retiring, says it had about 40 employees until a year ago when most transferred out.

Few of the 10 left even live in the north-central West Virginia community of 1,200, Hershman says. The town stands to lose $40,000 in utility tax revenue – one-fifth of its total budget.

On the surface, the loss of 60 jobs at AEP's Kammer Plant near Moundsville, W.Va., may also seem small, said City Manager Allen Hendershot. The plant is outside the limits of the city of 9,000, so it has no direct impact on the budget. Yet there's a trickle-down effect on companies that supply materials and services for its day-to-day operation.

"It's hard to put an exact number on it," Hendershot says. "It's the coal mine jobs, the trucking jobs, the maintenance jobs."

Utility bills are certain to rise as plants go offline and others are retrofitted to meet the new regulations.

But the lights will stay on.

"It won't be like you're just pulling a plug out of the wall at those plants and they'll instantly shut down," said Brian Bretsch, a spokesman for St. Louis-based Ameren Corp.

That company, for instance, plans to finish mothballing plants near Hutsonville in eastern Illinois and Meredosia on the other side of the state by next spring.

Most of the 90 Ameren employees affected have already agreed to relocate, Bretsch said, and many others are retiring.

Roger Eddy, superintendent of the Hutsonville district schools and a Republican legislator, said he expects to recoup at least some lost revenue from the state. Farmland, commercial or residential property owners might face higher taxes, too.

"When this came out, people here were really like, `This is going to kill the school district.' It won't," Eddy said.

"I don't see any destitution coming from this," agreed Hutsonville Township supervisor Mike Gray.

Ameren still owns the property, and it will continue to generate property tax revenue for the community of 1,800. At least, he said, until someone challenges that.

In Hammond, Ind., where the State Line Power Station on Lake Michigan near Chicago is scheduled to close March 31, Mayor Tom McDermott Jr. has mixed feelings.

Like other community leaders, he worries about job losses, the effect on vendors and higher electric bills for people who can barely afford to keep their heat and lights on now.

But State Line is one of the dirtiest coal plants in the United States, "and it's in our backyard," he said. "I understand we need to move forward and we need to clean up our environment."

___

Online:

___

O'Dell reported from Richmond, Va., and Smith from Morgantown, W.Va. Also contributing were Tom Coyne in South Bend, Ind., and Jim Suhr in St. Louis, Mo.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

-- For more than 90 years, the coal-fired power plant in Glen Lyn, Va., has been churning out electricity and contributing to local prosperity. Of late, it has generated nearly a quarter of the reven...
-- For more than 90 years, the coal-fired power plant in Glen Lyn, Va., has been churning out electricity and contributing to local prosperity. Of late, it has generated nearly a quarter of the reven...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 96
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
08:05 AM on 01/05/2012
An incredible breakthrough development in clean, free energy is the Johnson motor/generator. It uses permanent magnets to generate more energy than it uses. It has been patented and many people are now using it to save 75% on home electrical costs. Think of how one magnet can push another magnet. Now put these magnets in a circle with a rotor in the center. Clean, cheap, simple. It is now in development stages for use in cars. The plans for this motor are available on line. http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Howard_Johnson_Motor/
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:06 PM on 01/09/2012
sorry, free magnetic energy is one of the older scams. Think about a rock. a rock will push down from gravity. You can get energy till it hits the ground. Same for the push from magnets.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
10:37 PM on 12/31/2011
Green energy jobs will more than make up for it.
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
02:50 AM on 12/26/2011
Change to clean energy and stop whining about job loss. What good is a community if everyone is sick?
banana republican
Provoking Progressives with unwelcome perspectives
08:10 PM on 12/26/2011
They're breathing the cleanest air in 30 years. Why would they get sick? http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html#comparison
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
09:36 PM on 12/26/2011
What about their ground water.
05:12 PM on 12/21/2011
As careful as we are to create and implement regulations, we need to be ever more careful about when, how and why we create or use them and how beneficial they are. While I don’t believe anyone would argue for real Deregulation because of the harm it poses, there are some regulations that could either wait to be one of the many rules that companies comply with. Right now, regulations like these costs numerous jobs in numerous places. And while it may not be the big layoffs that we all think of, there are still smaller cuts of employees and other resources due to compliance cost or not being able to keep up with new standards (http://eng.am/tCBrc9). Perhaps it would be in our best interest to be careful on both sides of this equation rather than always seeking out what seems to be the safer side at the cost of economic livelihood. But what do you guys think? Should all regulation we impose just stand as they are?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Josh Steinhauer
Ex-Patriot, Europe
05:27 AM on 12/21/2011
In the end this is a good thing, these older plants are not very environmentally friendly and frankly are not able to produce the amounts of needed electricity while still complying with EPA rules and standards.

This plant was built with 1950s technology. I would like to think that our scientist and engineers have advanced a little bit in the last 60 years and come up with ways of making coal burning plants a lot safer and less harmful to the environment. I know a lot of people hate coal but face it; we need it for the time being until we can develop additional green technologies that can provide the amount of electricity these plants produce and at a cost that people can afford. We certainly a lot closer to that point now than we were 50 years ago and I am sure that over the next couple of decades we will be there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
There's still time to change the road you're on...
05:00 AM on 12/21/2011
Nowhere in the article does it state how many people will live a much longer, healthier life without toxic pollution due to the burning of coal. Or how many miner's will live longer. Health for the whole community is more important than money for a few.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:00 AM on 12/21/2011
We owe these Fellow Americans a BIG THANK YOU for contributing to the high
standard of living Americans have known all of our lives, most of the rest of the world
still envies and strives to attain. The very least there should be a formula for persons
threatened with facing loss of livelihood a safety net providing access to a respectable
retirement for the ones with a certain amount of years worked and age. The younger
workers should be eligible for training and job placement in growing industries with
the cleaner modern technologies.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/

“These include the tailings of ancient tin mines, rare earth mine tailings, phosphate mine tailings and uranium mine tailings. In addition to the thorium present in mine tailings and in surface monazite sands, burning coal at the average 1GWe power plant produces about 13 tons of thorium per year. That thorium is recoverable from the power plant’s waste ash pile.
One ton of thorium will produce nearly 1 GW of electricity for a year in an efficient thorium cycle reactor. Thus thorium cycle reactor. Thus CURRENT COAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY THROWS
AWAY OVER TEN TIMES THE ENERGY IT PRODUCES AS ELECTRICITY. This is not the result of poor thermodynamic efficiency; it is the result of a failure to recognize and use the energy value of thorium. The amount of thorium present in surface mining coal waste is enormous and would provide all the power we need...”
photo
Alethea
Have the courage to use reason.
07:30 PM on 12/20/2011
I feel sorry for the workers definitely. There's nothing worse than losing your job in a recession.

On the other hand, the EPA did do the right thing by upping the enviro standards. The damage that was being caused was significant and widespread. If the only way these companies can operate is by poisoning everyone in a 1,000 mile radius, then frankly, they shouldn't exist.

The beauty of a free market is that some company will eventually fill in the gaps, and more importantly, they will find a way to do so according to the new enviro standards. After all, if there's profit to be made, someone will find it even if they have to innovate their way into it.
02:34 PM on 12/20/2011
Replacing the coal plants with 8 clean and green zero environmental footprint zero carbon zero ghg nuke plants would produce far more jobs than were lost at least over the 5 years or so it takes to build them. Sticking an ultra clean nuke plant of the same type already built elsewhere on the site of a filthy coal plant is a no brainer requiring no environmental study whatsoever.

Using a highly efficient public power corporation like TVA that can borrow at 3 percent to build the new nukes at a quarter the cost of private power capital is another no brainer that is unlikely to get past our oh so corrupt politicians.

At 4 cents a kwh nukes are actually cheaper than continuing to run the coal plants or replacing the coal with deadly pollution spewing gas plant. Both SCANA and TVA power operators have confirmed this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
05:32 PM on 12/20/2011
Where does a power company only charge 4 cents per KWH for nuclear power? We have a nuclear generator right next to the coal generator at the HB Robinson plant in Hartsville, SC and pay 9.8 cents per KWH.
10:30 PM on 12/20/2011
That's wholesale cost to a public power company. CPL is a pirate operator which borrows money from wall street at 3 times what public power pays. As well they mark it up to whatever they can get. Gas cost about 4 cents a kwh too but just try to buy it for that price.
klwarner
Third wheel legend, always in the way
01:34 PM on 12/20/2011
We can create new jobs without destroying our lands and air. The people who would most likely be working at these plants are the same being slowly killed by the toxins in their air and water. We need to focus on sustainable jobs that will put middle america to work for the long term, and not destroy the clean water wild lands that cannot be recreated once they're gone.
photo
Alethea
Have the courage to use reason.
07:33 PM on 12/20/2011
What we really need to do is take a page from FDR's book and find ways to create jobs that PROTECT our lands and air. The Civilian Conservation Corps desperately need resurrection.
01:18 PM on 12/20/2011
All these posts about how those NOT wanting to close the coal fired plants do not care about "the people". It is more likely that they care about "the people" and do not want to see their electric bills skyrocket. This kind of increase will hurt the low income much more than the 1%.
BTW, while we can not make electricity in the mideast and ship it, we can and do get our oil from them. It would be much more cost effective and cleaner/greener to drill here. US environmental standards are far superior to any other country. Go to other countries and look at their refineries. They would be out of business because of EPA requirements and/or fines if they were located in the US. Those pollutants go not only into their environment but also ours. Oil spills off Brazil, Africa, etc make the gulf oil spill in the US pale in comparison.
Put a little broad, indepth thinking into this before posting and making inaccurate conclusion.
01:17 PM on 12/20/2011
But the EPA is ok with building extreme polluters like oil refineries on prime midwest agricultural land and pipe lines and fracking procedures. Gotta wonder. Does this secretly have anything to do with caving in to the new world order of carbon credits, the Kioto accord and a host of other international gimme gimme's
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
05:11 PM on 12/20/2011
I presume the chaos is located between your ears. Please let us know when the last new refinery was built in the U.S..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Errant
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
01:00 PM on 12/20/2011
Close permanently? Here's what you do, you hire all those people who worked for the plant to help dismantle the plant and recycle its materials. And then if you replace the plant with, I don't know, wind turbines, you hire whoever you can to build those and maintain them.
01:20 PM on 12/20/2011
"hire people to dismantle and recycle" I suppose you will be happy to pay their continued salaries,benefits, etc? If it was cost effective to dismantle, you can bet private industry would do it. The materials might be so old the recycle value is very little.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Errant
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
03:11 PM on 12/20/2011
Well, what do you propose then? Leave a rotting building that still represents an environmental hazard? You'd at least get jobs and something out of it instead of leaving it there.
12:09 PM on 12/20/2011
Just curious, but are most of these workers in a union?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
12:01 PM on 12/20/2011
One of the plants to be closed is the H B Robinson plant in Hartsville, SC--22 miles up the road from me. Per the 2010 census, Hartsville has a population of 7,764--150 of which will soon be out of a job. That is .196% of the total population. Applied to the US population as a whole it would be the equivalent of 729,000 people suddenly losing their jobs across the nation.

There are almost no jobs available in a 25 mile radius around Hartsville. One of those workers happens to be a tenant in an apartment I own. He and his wife (currently out of work) are planning to move in with his mother who already has his sister and her two children in residence.

Progress Energy has stated it will be petitioning to have its property taxes lowered. They will also be paying lower state taxes due to the loss of generation capacity, and it is only one of two plants to be closed in the state.

Everyone's electric bill is going up--again.

Has anyone applied a cost-benefit analysis to these plant closures? I realize the EPA is forbidden by law to consider the cost of any regulation it promotes, but certainly someone should have done this. Does anyone but me find it bizarre that an agency of the federal government is prohibited from estimating the actual cost of its regulations?
photo
Wanderland
Barbie arm candy
12:49 PM on 12/20/2011
"I realize the EPA is forbidden by law to consider the cost of any regulation it promotes..."

I believe you are mistaken.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
01:19 PM on 12/20/2011
In a letter to Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) dated 2-23-11 the EPA stated it was prohibited from considering costs when setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The letter was in response to one sent by a group of Republican House members.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-says-its-prohibited-considering-costs-when-issuing-air-quality-regulations
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SuperDW
Ask not what your country can do for you but WTF?
04:10 PM on 12/20/2011
I couldn't put an accurate dollar figure on a kid with asthma. I get that plant closures and job losses suck, but there's just one planet. We can always make new, cleaner, power plants and jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
04:35 PM on 12/20/2011
Could you perhaps put a price on an entire family now without any health insurance at all because they lost it when Dad lost his job? How about a family with a chronic health condition covered under their present policy which will forevermore become an uncovered pre-existing condition?
04:47 PM on 12/20/2011
A community is decimated just to say the air is "clean", and then the kid w asthma will have no home, food or insurance so what good did that do?