iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Coal-Fired Power Plants Closing: FirstEnergy Shutting Down 6 Sites In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland

01/26/12 07:48 PM ET  AP

AKRON, Ohio — FirstEnergy Corp. said Thursday that new environmental regulations led to a decision to shut down six older, coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, affecting more than 500 employees.

The plants, which are in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio, Adrian, Pa. and Williamsport, Md., will be retired by Sept. 1. They have generated about 10 percent of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the last three years, the company said.

In a statement James Lash, head of the company's generation unit, indicated that a review of the company's coal-fired plants determined it would not be cost-effective to get the older ones into compliance with environmental regulations the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in December.

The new standards are designed to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. An Associated Press survey found that the changes were likely to result in the mothballing of dozens of units in the Midwest and in the coal belt – Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia.

The Obama administration was under court order to issue a new rule, after a court threw out an attempt by the Bush administration to exempt power plants from controls for toxic air pollution.

Two factors have made it easier for utilities to shut old coal plants in recent years. Power demand has been weakening in recent years because of the slow economy and energy efficiency programs. And natural gas prices, which have fallen to decade-low levels in recent weeks, have allowed utilities to switch from coal to natural gas without impacting customer bills. Meanwhile, demand from China and elsewhere has driven up the price of coal.

FirstEnergy said its decision would directly affect 529 employees. Some of them could end up transferring to other FirstEnergy facilities and work sites, while others could take advantage of a retirement benefit being offered to employees 55 years and older, the company said.

FirstEnergy has a total of 17 coal power plants, including those that will close by September.

The plants targeted to shut down have been producing less power over the last few years, mainly during times of peak demand, the company said.

Eastlake, a community of about 18,500 people and located alongside Lake Erie northeast of Cleveland, will lose $590,000 a year in taxes, or about 4.5 percent of its regular budget, Mayor Ted Andrzejewski said.

With about 100 good-paying jobs, the plant was among the top employers in the community, according to the mayor.

Most communities weren't caught off guard by the decision to shutter the plants.

"This wasn't much of a surprise," said Michael Beazley, city administrator in the Toledo suburb of Oregon where about 80 people will lose their positions.

A message requesting comment from the Utility Workers Union of America in Cleveland was not immediately returned on Thursday.

The announcement marks a big day for the people of Ohio and the fish of Lake Erie, said Henry Henderson, the Midwest program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been working to shut down two of the plants.

"Make no mistake, these plants were operating well-beyond their intended lifespan for a reason: it has been cheap to be dirty," he wrote on a Council website. "And utilities have taken advantage." He noted that he was encouraged by the company's efforts to help impacted workers and said the company's investments in clean energy "will ultimately create more jobs in Ohio and the region."

FirstEnergy's electric system has 6 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. Coal and nuclear power plants generate about 80 percent of the company's output. The company employs about 17,000 people.

The new EPA rules include setting standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants that billow out of smokestacks and reducing air pollution in states downwind from the power plants.

FirstEnergy has taken steps at several of its coal-burning plants to make them cleaner for the environment. It said that once the closings are completed, nearly all of its power will come from low emission sources.

Last month, an Associated Press survey found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of the new federal air pollution regulations.

Together, those plants produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found.

_______

Energy reporter Jon Fahey in New York contributed to this report.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Chris Gentilviso  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 180
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:43 PM on 01/29/2012
Great news, close these dinosaurs, and spend the money on rooftop solar, efficiency, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels.
12:36 AM on 01/30/2012
You mean totally waste it on on rooftop solar, efficiency­, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels producing no net energy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
08:00 AM on 02/02/2012
Keep grinding that ax - you'll need it for the regressive future your working so hard to create...
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
12:53 AM on 01/30/2012
They will be replaced with natural gas.
12:14 PM on 03/12/2012
Great, we are still going to mine the coal and send it to China, where they will burn it, convert it to CO2. The equation is set... Regardless of location of its use, all obtainable fossil fuels will be mined, drilled or pumped and then delivered for use and conversion into CO2. All of the pricey environmental schemes to avoid an annual increase of CO2 are futile. Unless you think you can outlaw the mining and distribution of fossil fuels such as coal and oil humans will use every drop to power the modern lifestyle.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:09 PM on 01/29/2012
Yea - We environmentalist should be proud putting workers of dirty energy out of work. Let their familise starve for the pollution they caused the planet. And now everyone will be paying more for power giving the poor a greater incentive to buy $20 light bulbs instead of food which they don't need because they're all fat. Yea.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
June25
09:34 PM on 01/29/2012
Will you tell that to your neighbors when the power is shut down?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:44 PM on 01/29/2012
Right, because we should have been proud of working them to death in the coal mines.

Sad.

Let them work in the light on rooftop solar, efficiency, offshore wind and waste bio fuels.
pistol13
Don't sweat the guard dog, worry about the Smith&W
03:31 PM on 01/29/2012
It takes 500 windmills each producing 2 megawatts of energy to generate 1000 MW's of energy if operating at full capacity(which we know they don't). This would require 75 to 100 sq. miles of land. Take a look a the Altamont Pass in California and tell me you want to see that in areas where you live. There are also environmentalist who complain about the danger to the birds. Better be careful what you wish for,you might get it.
Let's see. More jobs lost. Can't replace the jobs or energy with drilling in the Gulf or Alaska (but we will give Venezuela 2 billion dollars to drill where we can't and "be their best customer"), no fracking to get natural gas, no XL pipeline that will be 400 feet UNDERGROUND and has had 3 years of study. We are well on our way to the higher gas prices that Obama wants. Remember? "In my plan the cost of energy will necesarily skyrocket."
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:46 PM on 01/29/2012
First of all, onshore wind uses only 1% of the land it needs to produce the values you states.

Second of all: offshore wind uses zero land.

as do rooftop solar, efficiency and waste bio char.

but don't let the facts changes your rant......
12:40 AM on 01/30/2012
Actually you and facts have yet to become acquainted. The land underneath in some places may have other uses. In any case nearly all the energy from wind rooftop solar come from gas backup and efficiency and waste bio char could maybe produce enough energy to run the nations fish plants.
05:41 PM on 01/28/2012
The cost of oil and coal are rising due to increasing demand from China and India.

Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future. It is time to replace the obsolete coal fired plants that have been kept running past their useful life and replace them with cleaner and more efficient plants.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kazzim Zongo
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
05:47 PM on 01/28/2012
Just curious: do you think the former employees of these plants and their families would agree with you?
06:03 PM on 01/28/2012
Everything has a useful life expectancy. Do you still drive your 1970's car? These operators have known about the end of these plants for a long time and should already have built replacements. Energy use is not declining so if these plant close the energy production will be made up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeff Bunting
02:02 PM on 01/29/2012
when they are destroying the environment I really don't care.
09:37 PM on 01/28/2012
Yup and the only alternative by chance is also the by far the cheapest and cleanest - nuclear power.
02:24 PM on 01/29/2012
Nuclear energy is too costly and too dangerous.

Just ask the people of Fukishima and Chernobyl.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:49 PM on 01/29/2012
Nukes ain't clean. wake up. million year waste, 100's of thousands dead from cancers and trillion dollar disasters. Oh, and proliferation to end all human life on the planet, and it's more expensive the rooftop solar at 16 cents per KWH. wind and waste half that, and efficiency half that again. wake up.
10:38 AM on 01/28/2012
What I find funny is these plants were past their life cycle, and the utility companies were forced to keep them running because every time they tried to build a new coal power plant, the environmentalists and regulators , for the most part, stopped the progress. If they were allowed to build a NEW coal power plant with the latest and greatest emission controls, they could have closed these plants years ago.
New designs = reduced emissions = better efficiencies = cleaner air.
These 6 plants of dirty power could have been replaced with 1 or 2 cleaner plants which would have reduced emissions (under current emission regulation) greater than 90% . Maximum Achievable Control Technology
03:06 PM on 01/28/2012
Actually far better and cheaper to have replaced them with nuclear plants.
08:53 PM on 01/28/2012
Nuclear is probably the best option, but expensive. Its Clean"ish" the fuel factor is more BTU compared to coal (pounds v.s. hundreds of tons) A refueling can last up to 2 years, but we cant recklessly just put a nuke anywhere and everywhere. and besides, we live in a "not in my back yard society" The general public is not informed enough, thanks to how they were portrayed in a popular 1970's movie. There is not a PERFECT solution! nor is this a perfect world, "Cold fusion" form the 90's IGCC's of the 2000's nano technology of today all offer SOMETHING, maybe expensive NOW, but were never really given a chance. If an "idea" takes too long to perfect, then the mentality is "its not worth investing in".
05:36 PM on 01/28/2012
Actually they would be better off with a combination wind, solar and natural gas plant.
08:53 PM on 01/28/2012
Wind is a good solution, but not as a replacement. Where I live, windmills are popping up everywhere and are actually reducing the demand for coal (WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT) reduced demand for coal = reduced emissions. Solar as an individual solution makes sense, but the cost is still too high. As a power plant? not so much. it takes 10's of 100's of square miles to make up the load, maybe an idea out west, but here in the north east. They are effectively using natural gas power plants to supply base load, but is a great source for peak load, however, the natural gas industry is currently being attacked by these "interest groups" so our politicians are trying to regulate the industry to death, which in turn will raise the price of natural gas. Natural gas plants are interesting. They are simply jet engines that burn fuel to produce power. These engines can burn just about any gaseous or liquid fuel (ie.. gas, bio diesel, oil..etc) Versatile!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
03:54 AM on 01/28/2012
Sure, you could only pay attention to how AOLpo manipulates and selectively presents information, to lead people to the wrong conclusions, based on the above article, or you could cheer up and read this: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/02/new-geothermal-power-plant-shows-what-the-u-s-can-do-about-climate-change/

One door closes and another opens.
09:45 PM on 01/28/2012
Large scale geothermal is massively polluting with sulfur emissions, causing earthquakes,and dependent on not yet invented technology.

Your car will be powered by Mr Fusion first.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
03:43 AM on 01/28/2012
Oh no!!! How will we operate ourTVs??!!! Meanwhile, implimentation of sustainable energy is trending upwards in this state: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/07/rooftop-solar-and-distributed-generation-dominate-browns-ucla-energy-confab.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IPredictARiot
US Military = largest socialist entity on earth
01:28 AM on 01/28/2012
The headline is wrong. It should read:

..."FirstEnergy Shutting Down 6 Sites...and building replacement power plants"

People, as long as there is demand for electricity, we will have power plants. The jobs will probably be in a different power plant, maybe even a (gasp!) different TYPE of power plant, but people need electricity, so we will employ power plant workers. Period.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
03:46 AM on 01/28/2012
Sure it's informative, but that's not the main point of AOLpo anymore. Just like AOLpo shies away from mentioning sustainable energy being built up in most states.
07:52 PM on 01/27/2012
These plants are set to close by September 1st. Has anyone given any thought on how we are going to replace the energy that will be lost due to the closure of these coal fired plants?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IPredictARiot
US Military = largest socialist entity on earth
01:31 AM on 01/28/2012
First off, no, they won't close September 1.

As for your question: Yes. The power grid operators knew this was coming waaaaay back in 1990 when the Clean Air Act added Mercury emissions. The grid operators and other power producers already know this is happening and, ohmigod, are meeting demand. It's almost like there's this...invisible...hand...like...thing...telling them to fulfill a demand for power...

These plants are all over 40 years old, and all are at least 10 years past their retirement date already.
09:09 AM on 01/28/2012
How do you know they won't close Sept. 1?

So what you're really saying is that you have no idea how they are going to replace the lost production?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
03:47 AM on 01/28/2012
You rely on AOLpo too much. You won't get the answer from them.
04:06 PM on 01/27/2012
idiots.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
03:38 PM on 01/27/2012
Coal-Fired Power Plants: Understanding the Health Costs of a Dirty Energy Source

"...Dirty Power, Dirty Air
–
Pollution from Coal-Fired Power

Coal-fired power plants supply roughly 50 percent of the nationÂ’s electricity,1 but produce a disproportionate share of electric utility-related air pollution. In fact, coal plants emit approximately 87 percent of total utility-related nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution, 94 percent of utilityrelated sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution and 98 percent of all utility-related mercury pollution...


...After mercury is released to the air, it is deposited in bodies of water where it is converted to methylmercury (an organicform) that accumulates in fish tissues. Humans are exposed to mercury primarily through the consumption of contaminated fish. MethlymercuryÂ’s neurotoxic effects are particularly threatening to fetal and child development. Fetal exposure via the placenta can cause mental retardation and brain damage, while continued exposure in early childhood
can result in learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders. Approximately one in six women of childbearing age now have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood and it is estimated that between 300,000 and 600,000 children are at serious risk of severe neurological and developmental impairment from mercury exposure each year. Though mercury poses the greatest threat to children, research shows that mercury exposure may increase the risk of coronary heart disease among men."

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-fired-power-plants.pdf
satyrday
If my micro-bio is way too long, will it be trunca
02:55 PM on 01/27/2012
The headline spouts off about regulation, but the body of the article said something else.

Coal costs rising.
Declining usage.
Natural gas costs lowering.

Sounds to me like the reasons are more market driven, than regulations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
blurredmolly
Ipswich, Mass. 1641
03:56 PM on 01/27/2012
it's a good thing either way
09:08 PM on 01/27/2012
Why is the cost of coal rising?

Could it be due to new EPA regulations?

Could it be due in part to rising fuel prices?

This is part of the Obama plan, increase the cost of fossil fuels to be comparable to renewables.
satyrday
If my micro-bio is way too long, will it be trunca
09:36 PM on 01/27/2012
Read the article. Higher demand from China and other countries.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IPredictARiot
US Military = largest socialist entity on earth
01:33 AM on 01/28/2012
EPA doesn't regulate the cost of coal, nor do they regulate much of anything on extraction (states regulate water pollution from mining). In fact, if EPA is regulating coal so harshly and unfairly, why wouldn't the price of it drop as fewer plants use it. Less demand = lower price.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ted Glass
11:56 AM on 01/27/2012
This will be used by the Republicans as proof that government regulations do indeed kill jobs. Nobody will dig deeper than the predictable sound bite that Boehner and company will surely produce. Lost will be the facts about demand for power being lower, coal prices getting higher, and that energy companies are preparing to move past these outdated plants for more efficient solutions regardless of regulations. ALL closures will be directly connected to "Obama's actions" for the purpose of political punditry.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ted Glass
11:50 AM on 01/27/2012
"The Obama administration was under court order to issue a new rule, after a court threw out an attempt by the Bush administration to exempt power plants from controls for toxic air pollution."

Why in the world would you exempt power plants from controls for toxic air pollution? Power plants are exactly what such controls are meant for. Why have controls at all if you are going to just ignore them?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wanderland
Generic white guy
12:24 PM on 01/27/2012
Big Coal has a lot of money, and isn't afraid to use an army of lobbyists to achieve their goals.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ms Disbelef
06:48 AM on 01/30/2012
Or try to overturn them like Bush did. In the area of clean air and clean water, he learned nothing from the father he supposedly idolizes.
photo
4everright
My heart went boom
10:12 AM on 01/27/2012
Will obama count these lost jobs in his created and saved numbers?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pmoschetta
Where are the Jobs, Speaker Boehner?
10:40 AM on 01/27/2012
Did Bush count the 3000 that died in the 9-11 terrorist attacks as jobs lost?
11:21 AM on 01/27/2012
Nice use of 911 as a political jab. You are pathetic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
03:59 AM on 01/28/2012
W didn't do any employment/unemployment tallies. He had other people for that.

Hint: more than one person in the government.