« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

EPA Regulations Wreak Havoc on Ohio Coal, Electric Companies

Supported by Obama & Brown, Utility MACT Takes a Toll

The Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are taking a toll on Ohio’s coal industry and are expected to increase citizens’ electricity costs. Utility MACT, a series of bureaucratic regulations created under the Clean Air Act with the support of President Obama and U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), has already caused coal-fired plant closures and layoffs.

Even as natural gas production ramps up in the state, the fact that 82 percent of Ohio’s electricity is generated using coal suggests Utility MACT will also increase energy costs statewide. Natural gas prices paid by utility companies hit a 10-year low of under $2 per million British thermal units in April 2012, but Reuters reported on October 24 that prices have risen substantially as national production has flattened and an expected cold winter approaches.

American Electric Power, which is headquartered in Columbus and has 5 million customers in Ohio, announced in June 2011 that it planned to shutter plants in response to Utility MACT. “Among the sites that would close is the Picway plant south of Columbus; plants in Conesville and Beverly would partially close. The net job loss for the state would be 157,” The Columbus Dispatch reported.

The Dispatch quoted a statement from the EPA which read, “These reasonable steps taken under the Clean Air Act will reduce harmful air pollution, including mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution, and as a result protect our families, particularly children.” Refer to Ohio Watchdog for a detailed explanation of EPA’s bizarre rationale for the rules included in Utility MACT.

Duke Energy announced on July 15, 2011 that it would close the W.C. Beckjord plant near Cincinnati by January 1, 2015 due to Utility MACT. A company release indicated some workers may be relocated to other Duke Energy plants, but up to 120 jobs will be lost when the coal-fired plant closes.

On January 6, 2012, the Dayton Daily News reported that a Dayton Power & Light plant with 50 employees may close as a result of the new regulations, depending on the outcome of a study into the feasibility of converting the facility for natural gas.

“Ohio utilities are facing the dilemma of closing plants versus refitting them following EPA rules issued in December,” reporter Steve Bennish added. “With an estimated $9.6 billion price tag, the rules rank among the most expensive in the EPA’s history. Utilities have until 2015 to 2016 to comply.”

“Lacking an energy bill from Congress, the Obama administration plans to attack climate change and boost the emerging renewable energy industry with stepped-up regulations,” Bennish wrote in a Springfield News-Sun story published two weeks later.

At the end of January, the Akron Beacon Journal reported that Utility MACT would cause Akron-based FirstEnergy to partially or completely shut down operations at four Ohio plants by September 1, 2012, resulting in as many as 529 layoffs.

The Beacon Journal reported in May that FirstEnergy had delayed most of the closings until 2015 after the company managing the region’s high-voltage grid warned, “FirstEnergy’s initial closure plan would cause major voltage inadequacies and equipment problems affecting the multistate regional grid.”

A February 2 Associated Press story opined that there was a silver lining to the EPA regulations – at least from the perspective of FirstEnergy and other electrical plant operators. “With the closure of four plants in Ohio, there will be less power available to meet demand. That is expected to drive prices for capacity higher,” Jonathan Fahey wrote.

In February 2012, GenOn Energy announced several pending coal-fired power plant closures in Ohio and Pennsylvania. A plant in Niles, Ohio employing 40 workers would close in June, prompting Niles Mayor Ralph Infante to tell the local Tribune Chronicle, “It’s a shame. Everyone feels the impact from the EPA mandates.”

The Tribune Chronicle also reported that the city had increased electricity rates two years earlier after EPA regulations prompted to closure of another nearby plant, adding that surrounding cities were still paying for the plant closed in June 2012.

A GenOn coal-fired plant in Avon Lake is scheduled to close in April 2015, taking nearly 80 jobs with it. “The Avon Lake plant was determined to be the county’s biggest greenhouse gas polluter in 2010, when it emitted about 2.4 million metric tons of greenhouse gas, mostly carbon dioxide, according to the federal EPA,” The Chronicle-Telegram in Elyria reported.

Citing a combination of increased competition from natural gas and the burden of EPA regulations, a subsidiary of Murray Energy laid off 29 employees of a Belmont County coal mine in July 2012.

In neighboring West Virginia, where mine layoffs have been more pervasive, the unintended consequences of Utility MACT are already creating a ripple effect among Appalachian small businesses reliant on miners’ patronage to stay afloat.

Cross-posted from Media Trackers Ohio.

COMMENTS

  • joepilot

    I’m sorry, but as a worker in the natural gas production industry, I fail to see why converting from coal is such a big bad. These coal plants have had years upon years to make the decision to either clean up to meet the new regs, or convert to gas, but now at the eleventh hour they are deciding to take their ball and go home, punishing the workers for their own petulant refusal to take seriously legislation that was passed and made law long before the regulations were to take effect. I want cheaper energy too, but it seems to me that the Coal Industry is the one working in bad faith here….

    Edit: To clarify, I’m NOT saying the emission standards are right, only that they were passed and made law. Coal operators lobbied for the deadline for implementation to be pushed so far back in order to give them ample time to come into compliance. Those same operators didn’t even try to address the looming deadline, thinking that by threatening to close plants and lay off workers they can continue to thumb their noses at it, and get the deadline further extended. It’s a political game of chicken, and it’s not the way this country is supposed to run.

    • rnorris68

      I totally agree with you Joe.
      They have been dragging their feet.
      I grew up next to one of these coal plants, the
      way they operate is immoral and i’ve seen
      the destrution of Gods wilderness (mountain topping).
      I too work in natural gas.

      • jasonahart

        It’s understandable that employees of the natural gas industry (eg., a competitor to coal) might want coal-fired electrical plants to be put out of business by the federal government, but that’s hardly a principled position.

        I see no absolutely no problem with electrical plants converting to natgas… provided the decision is driven by the marketplace instead of Washington bureaucrats. Although driving up Ohioans’ electrical costs may be a win for Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, I’m hardly convinced that makes Utility MACT sound policy.

        • joepilot

          Whether or not MACT is sound policy is irrelevant at this point – it is THE LAW, and has been for years. If we’re talking about overturning the law, great, let’s do that, but we’re not – the article seems to bemoan that a law that has been on the books is finally (GASP) being enforced. Choosing to knowingly fail to prepare for impending standards deadlines is dishonest, irresponsible, and completely intentional on the part of the coal industry. It is, and has been their MO in combating legislation aimed at them. The Article title should read “Ohio Coal, Electric Companies caught flat-footed in bluff against the enforcement of 2 decade old EPA regulation.” The regs suck, but if they’re never enforced, then the consequences are never felt and there’s never any motivation to overturn them.

          As for NatGas being a competitor to coal, well, in theory, sure. But we’re not fighting for the same jobs – miners aren’t drillers, and vice versa. I have no desire to see coal go anywhere, except to come into compliance with regulations just like other industries have to.

          • rnorris68

            you said it all brother:)
            i need not add at all
            good job:)

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            “it is THE LAW, and has been for years”
            It is a regulatory interpretation of the law and can be revoked by the executive branch.

          • jimmyg

            RMJ

            I think you are wrong as to the ability of a presidents power to repeal an administrative regulation;

            “Regulations, or administrative rules, are primary authority and exist on both the federal and state levels. They are delegated legislation since Congress or the state legislature delegate rulemaking and/or adjudication authority in a statute to executive agencies to implement the statute. Regulations have the force of law when an administrative agency properly promulgates them”.http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw

            As to a future presidents ability to revoke administrative rules;

            “When Congress passed various agency enabling acts, it did not condition the exercise of agency rulemaking authority on full-blown, affirmative approval by both houses of some future Congress. The President cannot impose this major new limitation on agency discretion without fundamentally rewriting an agency’s enabling act, which he cannot do”.https://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2012/06/29-murphy-romney-step.html

            In order to repeal an administrative rule, Congress must act according to the enabling statute of that administrative agency. A president cannot repeal a regulation by executive fiat;

            “Repeal is the removal or reversal of a law, and is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is having negative consequences.

            Although regulations may be repealed or amended and new rules and regulations adopted, the changes must be made in conformity with prescribed statutory procedures.[i] However, an administrative rule may not be modified, revised, amended, or rewritten, under the guise of interpretation.[ii] Federal agencies possess the authority to clarify or set aside existing rules, when the authority to clarify or reconsider a rule arises directly from a statute or pursuant to agency rule-making authority.”[http://administrativelaw.uslegal.com/administrative-agency-rulemaking/amendment-and-repeal-of-rules/

          • brojohn2

            Tell that to our current President, who has negated immigration law by executive fiat just for starters. Please the executive is the ultimate authority over the executive branch. If he can nullify law by executive order then the EPA answers to him.

          • davesinsanantonio

            Suppose those same bureaucrats passed a regulation similar to MACT that said you had to cut off your arm. Would you begin to saw away, or would you fight it? If you answer honestly, then get off your liberal soapbox concerning coal fired plants. If you will not answer honestly, then find somewhere else to spew your liberal hogwash.

      • papabear

        Interesting how you and joepilot started a tag team of commenting with all comments coming today.

        HMMM …

        BTW, I noticed that you don’t really appear to be that conservative. Are you sure that Redstate is really a good fit for your outlook??

        • joepilot

          Well, I consider myself to be very conservative. That doesn’t mean that I can’t still think for myself and form my own opinions. In this instance, I happen to believe that industries need to follow the government regulations that they are subject to, and when the chips fall where they may, if the consequences are as dire as projected, people will see the error of those regulations and only then demand that they be removed. I feel the same way re Obamacare. Same for any policy that we disagree with. Rather than muddy the waters with implementation deadlines, exemptions, et al, let’s just get some damn stuff done, move on down the road, and when it breaks, we’ll know who’s to blame and we’ll fix it, instead of this duct-tapped, jury-rigged jalopy we’re sputtering along in now.

          I have noticed that the comments section of this site does appear somewhat of an echo chamber, so if that’s what you’re aiming for, my apologies. I’ll take off, and you can rest easy knowing that your views haven’t been challenged in any meaningful way, and we can all gnash our teeth in a week when Barry Hussein is re-elected because you’ve all managed to whittle down the party, alienating anyone who isn’t as staunchly conservative as you are, and who doesn’t agree with you in all respects on all issues. Brilliant plan.

          • Jack_Savage

            Worked in 2010.

          • joepilot

            Yes, yes it did. We’ll see.

          • papabear

            @redstate-9db38b23271a164cac22d26fe8ab0c3b:disqus I was replying to rnorris68. Perhaps you forgot your Login ID …

            Here are some choice quotes of his

            “But combined they do especially when Romney wins. Be carefull who you put in charge. I’m a conservative but completely believe in seperation of church and state.”

            and

            ” I do not want religion telling me what to do or government. It’s up to the individual right? if you don’t want abortions then supply birth control.”

          • joepilot

            My mistake. I’m new to this commenting thing .

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      You’re not actually sorry, but you are factually incorrect.

      ” I fail to see why converting from coal is such a big bad”

      Because it is impossible to do so in a timely manner. 30MKW of power generation will be lost nationwide by 2015. It’s a big bad, if it’s your rectum that freezes some cold, dark February.

      “..only that they were passed and made law”

      They were regulated by the executive branch (USEPA) and have the force of interpretation, but not law. Meaning an Obama defeat in five days gives a new administrationt he opportunity to strike them from the Federal Register. If they were law, a new Congress would have to submit legislation specifically revoking MACT.

      “Those same operators didn’t even try to address the looming deadline”
      The cost of doing so would have been $1.75 Tr nationwide. There is no private industry in existance that could generate an ROI doing anything (even selling hookers and blow to Sen. Menedez) that would justify that level of capital investment. It was either fight MACT or die. There was no financially feasible way to comply with the MACT regulation.

      • joepilot

        Well, I disagree with your cost analysis simply because those projections came from the very companies charged with implementing the renovations on themselves – it is in their best interest to portray the changes as impossible to meet, and likely calculated the highest values possible.

        Even if they didn’t, we can’t know one way or another, because none of them even tried. They refused to comply with a regulation, and now they have to shut down. In what other industry is that kind of behavior acceptable? And should we really be approving of such a precedent, even if we agree with the principle behind it?

        • justperhaps45

          joepilot, The companies are required to do an accurate “cost benefit analysis” as part of their legal fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders before such a large expenditure. Bureaucrats have no such constraint.

        • brojohn2

          Here is a copy of the FAQ from eia (US Gov’t) clearly shows that Coal is cost effective. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=3 Add in the cost of conversion and you will see why it doesn’t make sense to destroy an entire industry just to please radical environmental liberals (democrats).

          How much coal, natural gas, or petroleum is used to generate a kilowatt-hour of electricity?

          The amount of fuel used to generate electricity depends on the efficiency or heat rate of the generator (or power plant) and the heat content
          of the fuel. Power plant efficiencies (heat rates) vary by types of
          generators, power plant emission controls, and other factors. Fuel heat
          contents also vary.

          Two formulas for calculating the amount of fuel used to generate a unit of electricity:

          Amount of fuel used per kilowatt-hour (kWh) = Heat Rate (in Btu per kWh) / Fuel Heat Content (in Btu per physical unit)

          KWh generated per unit of fuel used = Fuel Heat Content (in Btu per physical unit) / Heat Rate (in Btu per kWh)

          Calculation examples using these two formulas and the Assumptions below:

          Amount of fuel used to generate one kilowatt-hour (kWh):

          Coal = 0.00052 Short Tons or 1.03 Pounds

          Natural Gas = 0.01003 Mcf (1,000 cubic feet)

          Residual Fuel Oil = 0.0016 Barrels

          KWh generated per unit of fuel used:

          1,942 kWh per Ton of Coal or 0.97 kWh per Pound of Coal

          100 kWh per Mcf (1,000 cubic feet) of Natural Gas

          610 kWh per Barrel of Residual Fuel Oil, or 14.5 kWh per Gallon

          Assumptions:

          Power plant heat rate = 10,300 Btu/kWh

          Fuel heat contents

          Coal = 20,000,000 Btu per Short Ton (2,000 lbs) Note: heat contents of coal vary widely by types of coal.

          Natural Gas = 1,027,000 Btu per 1,000 Cubic Feet (Mcf)

          Residual Fuel Oil = 6,287,000 per Barrel (42 gallons)

          Last updated: July 16, 2012

    • ohiohistorian

      Several comments for you:

      The standards were not made law. They were set administratively using poor to no science as the basis. Sherrod Brown refused to vote for the bill that would have put Congress back into these MACT standards. They also were phased in over a year. You don’t build controls on a “maybe” standard. If you do, and they don’t come through, PUCO will not allow them into the rate base, which means the owner eats the cost of trying to comply with a standard that either never came to pass, needs retrofitting, or similar.

      Enjoy paying for the equipment change over to natural gas, which will be in the billions of dollars, all in your electric bill.

      Enjoy paying premium electrical costs (deregulated now, you know) due to shortages while this new gas service is built.

      Enjoy your NG job while it exists. If the fracing rules come about in the EPA like the MACT rules did, you can then tell us that YOUR employer had years to comply and that you don’t see why it is a big deal that your job is eliminated.

  • norris

    The EPA needs to be striped of all power except to offer recommendations to congress to write bills that must be voted on . With setup the EPA has now they have no real opposition . EPA must make more and more regulations to justify their existence . The job loss is much greater than just the power plant workers , miners ,truckers ,barge s ,and all the suppliers for these workers. Natural gas will be next with distilled water as the only permissible discharge because CO2 causes global warming.

    • rnorris68

      I agree they get carried away sometimes but they do protect.
      giving that power to congress is giving it to special interest.
      like i said earlier, i grow up next to a coal power plant.
      And like Joe said they have had yrs to get ready.

      • Jack_Savage

        Years to get ready for what? A set of regulations that can be doubled at the whim of some communist?

        You and your sock puppet are making our point – the regulations are pushing coal plants out of business. Lots of real people are going to suffer when the plants shut down. Lots of them. Period.

        Better head to the clear cuts and gather that firewood, bucky.

        • joepilot

          I know your comment wasn’t addressed to me, but since you mentioned me in it I thought I’d take a crack at it:

          First of all, like I said above, while I’m new to commenting, I am nobody’s sock puppet. However I have lurked around redstate long enough to know that dissenting opinion from TWO commentators on the same post is almost unheard of around here, so I guess your paranoia is understandable.

          But here’s the thing: When you dismiss criticism, call names and brush off regulations that haven’t been “doubled at the whim” (they’ve actually been set for quite a few years now), you’re acting no better than the commentators of liberal agenda websites, shouting to yourself in a vacuum and refusing to even entertain the notion that this isn’t the result of some communist plot. It’s an EPA regulation, the same people who reduced acid rain, who cut down significantly on the smog that used to be a big part of our industrial city centers, and made it illegal to use blatantly unsafe materials. My granddad died from asbestosis as a result from working during a time when the EPA didn’t exist.

          Yes, some coal plants look like they will have to shut down. But it is their own damn fault for not even trying to come into compliance with the rules they knew they would have to follow. Yes, “real” people (whatever the hell that means) will lose their jobs, so that the stock and profit margins of the “real” people who lead their company, and who made the decision to ignore the EPA, doesn’t go down a few points. Now I ask you, is that the fault of the EPA, or the fault of the officers who made the cold calculation that it was better to continue their status quo and close plants when the clock runs out, rather than bite the bullet and try to stay open?

          • davesinsanantonio

            It isn’t just the jobs. It is the people who will freeze this winter because there isn’t enough power generation to keep the heaters going, the lights on, the refrigerators running. And, even if those regs haven’t been “doubled at a whim”, they could be. Because the enabling law says “the Secretary will determine”. So, bad law is bad law. And, bad regulations that have the weight of law are also bad law. What you don’t understand is that the government is supposed to be our servant, not the other way around. We fought the Revolution against tyranny. Read the Declaration carefully sometime. Especially the part that says “when a long train of abuses and usurpation evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.”!!!!! We have an obligation to fight bad laws. To the point of rebellion if necessary. Or, don’t you believe in liberty?

      • davesinsanantonio

        The EPA itself is a special interest now. And, they are in bed with the enviro-nazis that are also a special interest. And, gas fired power plants are also a special interest. So what if you grew up next to a coal fired plant? So what if they had years to prepare? Bad law is bad law! And, bad law should not be enforced or obeyed! Or haven’t you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Or maybe the other tax riots in the colonies? Or the lunch counter sit-ins, or Rosa Parks? She had years to prepare to sit in the back of the bus! Maybe you are just a shill for gas. Or, maybe just a liberal troll.

      • gs425

        Years to get ready for what? More unnecessary rules and regs implemented to do one thing and one thing only….control. I call bullshit.

  • greyeagle

    Obama is supposed to release a report regarding pending regulations. However, he has missed the deadline twice and it is obvious he does not intend to release the report until after the election. Obviously the regulations are horrific and it would impact his ability to be re-elected.

  • brojohn2

    The article states that “unintended consequences of Utility MACT” these were not unintended, this is a deliberate act to cause havoc in our economy. This administration wants to destroy the energy industry, and bebuild it under the guise of “clean” energy which costs 3 times more than our existing energy.

  • rightlane1111

    I’ll cross post. People in New York/New Jersey might not get power for two weeks. Why…THEY TURNED AWAY help from other states that have NON UNION WORKERS. Now…by THEY…I am not sure that is the State or Obama…see Drudge today.

  • gmat

    Much ado about nothing. The rule only applies to new power plants.

    “…as the EPA points out (and as CEOs in the utility sector confirm) — there are no
    new coal-fired power plants in the pipeline that this rule might cover
    and no prospect of the same unless natural gas prices hit at least $9.60
    per million BTU (in 2007 dollars) on a sustained basis. Moreover,
    almost all of the gas-fired power plants that will be built will meet
    these standards without any additional costs.”

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/president-obamas-alleged-war-coal-climate-change-edition

  • Pingback: » EPA Regulations Wreak Havoc on Ohio Coal, Electric Companies

  • dutchletter

    From January 2008 in an interview with The San Francisco Chronical:

    “Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

    What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

    I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

    So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

    That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

    The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.”

    (He goes on to describe the same potential approach to Nuclear due to the hazards of the waste. He states regulating the system to force the market to come up with solutions to the regulations is the direction he intends to go.)

    - Barack Obama

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw&feature=autoplay&list=PLD21DF6A860A75975&playnext=4

  • Pingback: Britany Heisser

  • Pingback: Erick Alouf

  • Pingback: Les Ferruso

  • Pingback: Hisako Willes

  • Pingback: Newton Taulman

  • Pingback: Deandra Youst

  • Pingback: Antony Lickteig

  • Pingback: Thanh Bleich

  • Pingback: Wallace Sesser

  • Pingback: Lilia Dudas

  • Pingback: how to get edu backlinks

  • Pingback: http://palsra.info/article.php?id=15011

  • Pingback: Irwin Cucufate

  • Pingback: Emory Stasny

  • Pingback: Suzanna Woznicki

  • Pingback: Terrell Schlick

  • Pingback: Free Money

  • Pingback: Reed Majeske

  • Pingback: Post Free Classifieds

  • Pingback: Julie Quiroz

  • Pingback: Jim Dannatt

  • Pingback: Shayne Sargetakis

  • Pingback: Gil Croslin

  • Pingback: Dennis Letsche

  • Pingback: Mason Vititoe

  • Pingback: Owen Mccallough

  • Pingback: Call of Duty Black Ops 2 Player's Guide

  • Pingback: William Ruffins

  • Pingback: Samatha Embelton

  • Pingback: Isidra Khare

  • Pingback: Linwood Hassett

  • Pingback: Hipolito Casteel

  • Pingback: Eugenia Hasgill

  • Pingback: Alba Amezaga

  • Pingback: Arla Steenken

  • Pingback: Miles Mctaggart

  • Pingback: Olin Thomassen

  • Pingback: Carri String