CLEAN AIR

2018 Year End Report

ELPC has been protecting the Midwest’s environment and natural heritage for 25 years. In 2018, we expanded our team of skilled public interest attorneys, policy advocates and communications specialists. We remain focused on the strategic legal, policy and advocacy work that has made ELPC so effective. This work has never been more important and we look forward to more successes in 2019.

To learn more about our 25 years of successful environmental advocacy, download our 2018 End of Year report or view below.

EPA’s Proposed Weakening of Mercury Pollution Reduction Standards (MATS) Threatens Children’s and Women’s Health, and Great Lakes Fisheries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Judith Nemes, 773-892-7494, JNemes@elpc.org

Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Weakening of Mercury Pollution Reduction Standards (MATS) Threatens Children’s and Women’s Health, and Great Lakes Fisheries

STATEMENT BY HOWARD A. LEARNER

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER

“The Trump EPA’s proposal to weaken mercury and air toxics pollution reduction standards threatens children’s health and the Great Lakes. State public health officials continue to issue ‘mercury advisories’ warning people, especially young children and pregnant women, to limit their intake of fish from most of the Great Lakes and inland lakes in the Midwest. Sadly, it’s not safe for many people to eat the fish that they catch in the Great Lakes.

The Trump EPA’s proposal undermines MATS by retroactively recalculating the costs and benefits of the rule, which most utilities have already fully implemented. The misguided proposed changes leave MATS legally vulnerable and foolishly make it harder to strengthen mercury pollution reduction standards in the future to better protect children’s and women’s health, and Great Lakes fisheries.

Mercury is a known neurotoxin that impairs fetal brain development when it gets into pregnant women’s bloodstreams and crosses the placental barrier. Most coal plants have already installed pollution control systems for mercury in response to the MATS rule that the U.S. EPA issued in 2011. The U.S. EPA should not reverse course and loosen the way co-benefits are analyzed in the future that could lead to softening future standards. Coal plants’ owners should continue to install and operate modern pollution control equipment to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution. These are common sense safeguards.

The Trump EPA’s rollback skews the regulatory benefit-cost analysis by excluding the important real world co-benefits of reducing pollutants that harm public health and the environment. This flies in the face of sound benefit-cost analysis, and it comes at the expense of our children’s health.

The Trump EPA should not lose sight of its core mission, which includes protecting the public’s health from mercury and other dangerous air toxics.”

# #  #

Energywire: Board Shuts Down Vistra Effort to Fast-Track Coal Plant Ruling

Board shuts down Vistra effort to fast-track coal plant ruling

November 5, 2018

By Jeffrey Tomich

The Illinois Pollution Control Board denied a request by Vistra Energy Corp. to expedite new rules that would let the company run its dirtier and more profitable coal plants in the state more frequently.

In an order last week, the five-member board said the Irving, Texas-based power producer’s claims of “economic harms” didn’t justify an expedited rulemaking.

“The board is not convinced that the need to address wholesale energy market issues should control the substance or timing of proposed amendments to a substantive environmental regulation,” the six-page order said.

The order comes a month after the board proposed modifications to Illinois’ Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) that includes pollution limits for Vistra’s 18 coal units representing more than 5,000 megawatts (Energywire, Oct. 5).

The Pollution Control Board’s proposal is a sort of compromise between the power producer’s effort to get relief from existing emissions rules and critics, including Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) and a coalition of environmental groups, which want to keep existing standards in place.

Vistra had asked the board to finalize the rule change by Feb. 1, after which it would be subject to review by a legislative committee before taking effect. Madigan and environmental advocates challenged the request.

Vistra CEO Curt Morgan told analysts during a Friday conference call that the board’s proposal is “reasonable and fair” and he now expects a final outcome in April or May, after which the company could make decisions related to the future of its Illinois coal fleet.

The power producer has suggested it may shutter coal units in southern Illinois based on what executives view as inadequate capacity payments — payments made to ensure power plants are ready to run during periods of peak demand.

Morgan said Vistra is continuing work to “optimize” its Illinois portfolio and believes it can achieve a “reasonably significant” improvement in earnings from its Illinois plants. The company will be ready to act on that plan as soon as it gets an outcome from the Pollution Control Board.

“We’re going to be in a position to execute immediately,” Morgan said. “If the deal goes through the way it is now, we know what we would do. It’s just a matter of timing. But we also have been contingency planning, so if something else happened, then we would be prepared for that, as well.”

A possible wild card in the administrative rulemaking process? Politics.

Illinois voters will elect a governor tomorrow, and polls point to Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker defeating incumbent Republican Bruce Rauner.

Pritzker earlier this year criticized the rule proposed at Vistra’s request by the Illinois EPA.

In response to a questionnaire sent to candidates by the Chicago Sun-Times, the Democrat said of the proposed MPS rule change: “I will stand on the side of science and reason and not scrap limits on pollution.”

But would a new governor, during his first months in office and facing a fiscal crisis, step in and derail an administrative rule initiated by his predecessor?

Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, one of the groups challenging Vistra’s petition, believes a Pritzker administration would reassess the state’s position on the rule proposal.

“You’re dealing with a proposal that came from the Illinois EPA,” he said.

While the board wouldn’t explicitly seek out a new governor’s stance before issuing a ruling, Learner said he believes this week’s election will provide important context for their decision.

“They’ll be interested to hear what [the administration’s] position is if a new governor is elected,” he said.

READ FULL STORY

Energy News Network: Illinois Pollution Board Proposes New Emissions Rules in Dynegy Coal Saga

Illinois pollution board proposes new emissions rules in Dynegy coal saga

By Kari Lydersen

The Illinois Pollution Control Board is taking public comments on an amended emissions rule for Dynegy’s coal plants in the state.

Last year, the pollution control board had put forth rules written by the Illinois EPA with much input — even line edits — from Dynegy itself, as emails and documents obtained by environmental groups showed.

Clean air advocates say the new proposed rules are better than those earlier ones but still do not do enough to limit pollution from the aging coal plants.

“They are lower than what Illinois EPA was proposing and lower than what Dynegy is asking for, but still significantly higher than what the company has emitted in recent years,” said James Gignac, lead Midwest energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The company Vistra, which acquired Dynegy this year, released a statement saying it supports the pollution control board’s proposal, which includes stricter emissions caps than those previously recommended but keeps intact what’s known as a mass-based approach, in which the company gets a flat, fleet-wide cap instead of one based on the amount of power generated, or a rate-based approach. The proposal also includes a measure ardently backed by clean air advocates: that when a plant closes or is “mothballed,” the emissions it had been allowed be removed from the total cap.

Clean air advocates say they feel they are now in a waiting game, with much hanging on the public comment period and how the board responds to comments, including whether it makes total emissions caps for the plants stricter.

Dirty and clean plants

Opponents of the mass-based approach fear it will let Dynegy continue running or ramp up its dirtier coal plants, while potentially closing or ramping down cleaner plants that are more expensive to run.

“Any plant under a mass-based approach can pollute more and another one can pollute less — it still means an older plant with less pollution control can up its emissions,” said Toba Pearlman, staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “[The recent proposal] is probably good for Vistra and bad for the people that live around the plants… We do think this is part of a larger strategy for Dynegy to squeeze Illinois for more money on their plants.”

The NRDC and Sierra Club in May released a report showing that Dynegy’s coal plants could close without affecting Illinois’ energy supply, noting the plants’ output could be replaced with renewable energy.

Vistra’s statement praised the latest proposal for allowing the company “the flexibility to assess and optimize its fleet of power plants to compete in the market.” It added that while Vistra’s subsidiary Luminant, which controls the plants, “supported the IEPA proposal, the company believes the IPCB proposal to be thoughtful and reasonable. Luminant will work constructively through the remainder of the process and looks forward to fully implementing the new standards.”

Dynegy acquired the five plants in 2013, with then-owner Ameren practically paying the company to take them off its hands. Since then Dynegy has worked on multiple fronts to try to keep the plants profitable, including a failed attempt to include supports in the 2016 Future Energy Jobs Act and an ongoing effort to change capacity market structures or switch markets, along with pushing for less stringent pollution requirements.

Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, noted that the pollution limits being amended have been on the books for a decade.

“They had plenty of time to adjust and retrofit their plants to come into compliance,” he said. “When Dynegy bought those plants, they knew what the standards were. And when Vistra bought Dynegy, they knew…but when the deadline came, they turned to a backroom deal.”

READ FULL STORY

 

Joint Statement Regarding North Dakota PSC Dismissal of Case Against Meridian Energy Group

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Sarah Eddy, 312-795-3710

Scott Skokos, 701-224-8587

Joint Statement Regarding PSC Dismissal of Case Against Meridian Energy Group

Bismarck, ND—In a decision today, the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) dismissed the complaint of the Dakota Resource Council and the Environmental Law and Policy Center against Meridian Energy Group, jeopardizing the PSC’s regulatory jurisdiction in the process.

This decision ignores the clear statutory and constitutional mandate for the PSC to act as an independent regulator of North Dakota’s utilities. The PSC’s siting laws are the bedrock of sensible utility siting in North Dakota, including not just for oil refineries, but also for wind, solar, electric transmission, power plants, and pipelines.

Rather than considering the case on its merits, the PSC today chose to dismiss this case without even granting a hearing, concluding that the PSC lacks any authority whatsoever to determine through formal proceedings whether Meridian needs a siting permit to construct a major oil refinery. The PSC chose to rely on an affidavit of Meridian’s CEO to conclude that the company does not need a permit. In other words, the PSC has taken the position that if a company states that it does not need a permit, then the PSC will trust the company at its word. The PSC’s decision ignores its duty as an independent utility regulator and the rights of North Dakotans to seek formal determinations from the PSC. This is a pivotal decision that could broadly affect the PSC’s ability to regulate everything from electric rates, to coal mines, to wind siting, and oil refinery siting, and it should concern all North Dakotans.

The Dakota Resource Council and Environmental Law and Policy Center are conferring with their legal counsel and reviewing next steps, including a review of this decision in district court.

###

Energywire: BLM’s Final Methane Rule Reveal Draws Swift Legal Action

BLM’s Final Methane Rule Reveal Draws Swift Legal Action

by Pamela King

The states of California and New Mexico yesterday opened a new courtroom battle over Obama-era methane standards, hours after the Interior Department closed the book on its long effort to scale back the rule.

Bureau of Land Management officials yesterday revealed the language of its revisions to the 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule.

“Sadly, the flawed 2016 rule was a radical assertion of legal authority that stood in stark contrast to the long-standing understanding of Interior’s own lawyers,” said Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt. “The Trump administration is committed to innovative regulatory improvement and environmental stewardship, while appropriately respecting the clear and distinct authorities of the states, tribes, as well as the direction we receive from Congress.”

The New Mexico and California attorneys general promptly sued Interior.

“With this attempt to axe the Waste Prevention Rule, the Trump administration risks the air our children breathe and at taxpayers’ expense,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “We’ve sued the administration before over the illegal delay and suspension of this rule and will continue doing everything in our power to hold them accountable to our people and planet.”

In their lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the states contend that BLM under President Trump has violated multiple statutes in its unrelenting efforts to wipe the rule from the books.

The revised rule is a “shocking abdication” of the department’s responsibilities, said David Hayes, former Interior deputy secretary in the Clinton and Obama administrations.

“The final rule fails to forthrightly address the environmental and fiscal significance of the issue to federal and state authorities, the relatively minor costs of compliance, and the major climate- and health-related environmental benefits associated with commonsense restrictions on venting and flaring activities,” said Hayes, who now serves as executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law.

BLM yesterday found that its revision would result in maximum total net benefits of roughly $1.08 billion over a decade. That benefit is rooted in reduced compliance costs for oil and gas operators.

“As environmental stewards and businessmen and women who live in the communities where they work, IPAA member companies strive to explore for and produce as much American oil and natural gas as possible, while always being mindful of the need to protect public lands and the environment,” said Barry Russell, president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “The Trump administration’s rule recognizes this fact and acknowledges the cost burden placed on companies that work and explore on federal lands.”

The cost-benefit analysis for the revision rule applies a sharp discount on the social cost of emitting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

“The administration is turning its back on commonsense methane reduction standards that reduce wasteful energy flaring and protect the public from harmful smog-forming pollution,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “The current standards call for the use of known technologies and good industry practices to reduce wasteful methane leaks. The new rule would allow more flaring of methane gas — a valuable natural resource.”

Allowing companies to release more natural gas into the atmosphere instead of capturing it for sale will result in at least $28.3 million in forgone royalty payments to taxpayers, BLM estimated.

“Today’s final methane rule makes it painfully obvious that this administration is placing industry interests ahead of federal taxpayers,” Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said in a statement yesterday. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke “has chosen to dismiss the problem of leaked, vented or flared gas from drilling operations on federal lands, costing taxpayers millions in lost revenue.”

Industry groups applauded the changes.

“We are relieved that BLM’s final rule has been released and that it actually addresses waste prevention,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance. “The late 2016 Obama administration rule was all about regulating air quality, which is the job of EPA and the states under the Clean Air Act, not BLM, which has no air quality expertise or authority. The new regulation restores the rule of law while reducing waste of natural gas, which was supposed to be the intent of the original rule in the first place.”

BLM’s rule follows EPA’s efforts last week to relax its New Source Performance Standards for new and modified oil and gas sources (see related story).

Royal Dutch Shell PLC followed EPA’s announcement with a move to reduce methane leaks from its oil and gas operations (Energywire, Sept. 18).

Instead of viewing industry’s efforts as a reason to cut back regulations, government officials should see those actions as indicators of industry’s appetite to address their climate contributions, environmental groups said. Consistent federal regulations would require smaller operators to follow larger firms’ lead, they said.

“When even the world’s largest oil companies recognize the need for methane safeguards, reasonable people cannot pretend that the Trump administration is rolling them back in the public’s interest they purport to serve,” said Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel.

Capitol Hill

BLM’s announcement yesterday drew mixed reaction from Capitol Hill lawmakers.

Republicans in Congress last year pushed to unwind the Obama regulation under the Congressional Review Act, which requires a simple majority in the House and the Senate to support a resolution to disapprove a rule.

Although the House and Senate were under GOP control, the proposal fell short of the support it needed in the upper chamber (Greenwire, May 10, 2017).

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) called on Interior to follow Congress’ lead.

“Even though Congress has already rejected an attack on the Obama-era methane rule, Secretary Zinke has ignored congressional intent and moved forward with this ill-advised scheme anyway,” she said. “If this new rule is implemented, companies will be able to waste millions of dollars in taxpayer resources by releasing 180,000 tons of methane pollution per year into our air.”

House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said he was glad to see Interior find its own way to scrap the rule.

“Today’s announcement fulfills the promise made by the Trump administration to remove regulatory hurdles on domestic energy production,” he said in a statement yesterday. “The previous rule was founded on questionable legal theory and resulted in unnecessary costs.”

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said the revision rule ignores the years of public input that went into the creation of the original rule.

“The methane rule was established with wide support after years of open dialogue and stakeholder involvement. And the evidence is clear: This rule has had no negative effect on job creation or on the booming U.S. oil and gas production on federal lands,” he said. “That’s why the methane rule was upheld by a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate — despite heavy lobbying from some in the oil and gas industry.”

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) this year led a request that Interior officials hold public meetings on the BLM rule changes, as they did in the lead-up to the Obama regulation (Energywire, April 18, 2017).

“I’m disappointed to learn that BLM did not listen to the people of our state and went ahead with this rollback even after the Senate rejected it,” Bennet said yesterday. “Today’s decision only has downsides for the people of Colorado. It will lead to more pollution, waste more natural gas and decrease revenue for taxpayers.

“Worst of all, it will put the health of our communities at risk.”

READ MORE

Indianapolis Business Journal OpEd: Rolling Back Clean-Car Standards is Misguided

 

September 14, 2018

Janet McCabe: Rolling Back Clean-Car Standards is Misguided

OpEd

By Janet McCabe

The Trump administration has issued its much-anticipated proposal to roll back America’s clean-car standards. If it is finalized, impacts for Indiana will include more money spent at the gas pump; fewer choices of efficient, clean vehicles; fewer jobs in auto manufacturing; more air pollution; and a less-competitive American auto industry.

The current standards were adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2012, with unanimous support from the American car industry, and nearly unanimous support from international companies.
The standards provide regulatory certainty through 2025, with plenty of lead time to design and build increasingly efficient cars. California, which is authorized to set stronger emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, also signed on to the 2012 rules, so there would be a single national clean-car program.

Six years later, Americans have many more choices for fuel-efficient vehicles of all models and sizes. Fewer trips to the gas station means more money for other things. Less gas burned means less air pollution in our neighborhoods, which is good for our health and good for the planet. The agencies last affirmed the continuing need for and appropriateness of the standards in 2016, after a thorough review with input from all stakeholders.

The administration’s proposal, which would freeze the standards as of 2020, is based on conclusions about costs, driving behavior and safety that are already being vigorously challenged as not supported by facts.

First, it assumes people will not buy fuel-efficient cars and thus drive their older, less-safe vehicles longer. That conclusion is contradicted by sales data.

Second, it exaggerates what consumers will do with the money they save on gas, finding they will drive more, negating the benefits of the rule and increasing traffic fatalities.

Third, it assumes that one of the approaches available to increase fuel economy—using high-strength, lighter-weight materials—will also increase fatalities. Wrong again. The auto industry does not trade safety for fuel-efficiency; lighter SUVs and pickups are actually safer, and lighter-weight aluminum does not sacrifice strength.

What about jobs and air quality? The agencies’ own analyses of the proposal acknowledge a loss of 60,000 auto industry jobs, and the UAW and United Steelworkers have both expressed concern about rolling back the standards. And while the proposed rule downplays air-quality impacts, rolling back the standards will increase the amount of gas we use by 500,000 barrels per day. This means increases in a broad range of air pollutants that contribute to smog and soot and toxic emissions such as benzene.

American automakers have said they do not want a rollback. They have said they do not want to pick a fight with California. They want certainty, one national program, and standards that will keep them competitive in the global auto market. Industry advocacy group Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said recently that “automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, jobs, safety and the environment.”

The Alliance urged the federal government and California to work toward a “common sense solution” to resolve their differences on mileage and emission standards. Well said. This ill-considered proposal is now available for comment. Let’s hope a sound policy meeting everyone’s needs prevails in the end.

READ OpEd HERE

Greenwire: EPA’s New Oil & Gas Proposal: Increased Emissions, ‘Adverse’ Health Effects

EPA Plan: Increased Emissions, ‘Adverse’ Health Effects
By Niina Heikkinen

The agency this morning released its proposed revisions to the Obama administration’s New Source Performance Standards for new and modified oil and gas sources (Greenwire, Sept. 11).

Under the proposal, the industry would have to monitor wells on an annual basis, and low-production ones every other year. The Obama-era rule required methane monitoring twice a year.

EPA is also suggesting semiannual and annual monitoring for compressor stations and annual monitoring for compressor stations on the Alaska North Slope. The Obama-era rule required methane monitoring twice a year.

The agency is taking a look at various technical requirements in the Obama rule. EPA is re-evaluating certification requirements for closed vent systems.

It is also studying provisions on alternate emissions limitations, well completions, onshore natural gas processing plants and storage vessels, and is planning some technical corrections.

The proposed amendments are the third in a series of regulatory rollbacks aimed at greenhouse gases, following moves to change the Clean Power Plan and vehicle emissions standards.

The Interior Department is also expected to release its own revisions to methane rules covering the oil and gas industry on public lands.
EPA said changes in monitoring frequency would provide cost savings. At the same time, it estimated the changes would lead to higher emissions, degraded air quality, and “adverse health and welfare effects.”

EPA estimated the foregone climate-related benefits of the rule at between $13.5 million and $54 million between 2019 and 2025.

This calculation is based on a domestic social cost of carbon, which considers a dollar value for the harm caused by climate change.

The metric is different from the one adopted by the Obama administration, which relied on a global social cost of carbon value.

The agency’s analysis of the proposal found that monitoring emissions on an annual basis from compressor stations between 2019 and 2025 would increase fugitive methane emissions by 100,000 short tons, volatile organic compounds by 24,000 tons and hazardous air pollutants by 890 tons, compared with monitoring on a semiannual basis.

Reactions
Janet McCabe, who was acting head of EPA’s air office as the Obama rule was finalized, noted that the oil and gas industry is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, after mobile sources and power plants.

“There is nothing ground-breaking about the technologies or activities called for in the 2016 rule. In this Administration’s drive to de-regulate, they are heedless of the cost to the public health and the cost to the future of the planet,” McCabe said in an email.

Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, slammed EPA for moving to undo “common sense” methane reduction standards.

“The Administration’s ideology is trumping common sense methane reduction standards that avoid energy waste and protect the public and our environment from dangerous smog-forming pollution,” Learner said.

READ MORE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Misguided New Oil & Gas Proposal Weakens Strong Methane Reduction Standards that Avoid Waste and Protect Public Health and Our Environment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 10, 2018

Contact:
Judith Nemes, Environmental Law & Policy Center, JNemes@elpc.org (312) 795-3706

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Misguided New Oil & Gas Proposal Weakens Strong Methane Reduction Standards that Avoid Waste and Protect Public Health and Our Environment   

STATEMENT BY HOWARD A. LEARNER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER

In response to the Trump Administration’s proposed rollback of existing methane waste reduction standards in connection with oil and gas drilling across the Midwest and the country, Environmental Law & Policy Center Executive Director Howard Learner said:

“The Administration’s ideology is trumping common sense methane reduction standards that avoid energy waste and protect the public and our environment from dangerous smog-forming pollution. The current standards call for the use of known technologies and good industry practices to reduce wasteful methane leaks. The new proposal would allow more methane leaks that harm human health and our climate, and waste energy resources.

“The existing EPA standards for new and modified sources of dangerous pollution in the oil and gas industry resulted from an extensive public process and include reasonable cost-effective measures that some companies are already using and some states are already requiring. One study concluded that compliance with the existing standards would generate nearly 5,400 jobs annually in leak detection to reduce emissions at covered facilities. The Trump Administration is again proposing to weaken a sensible federal standard that avoids energy waste and protects public health from smog and reduces harmful climate change pollution,” Learner said.

###

View the EPA’s proposal here.

Midwest Energy News: Coal Closings May Undermine FirstEnergy’s Attempt to Shift Plant to Bankrupt Subsidiary


Coal Closings May Undermine FirstEnergy’s Attempt to Shift Plant to Bankrupt Subsidiary

By Kathiann M. Kowalski

FirstEnergy wants to transfer a West Virginia coal plant into its bankrupt subsidiary’s portfolio, but the justification for the move is in doubt as the company seeks other coal plant closures.

On August 26, FirstEnergy Solutions’ Chief Restructuring Officer Charles Moore told the bankruptcy court in Ohio that “another coal-fired power station … would add purchasing power to enhance the value to the Debtors’ enterprise.”

Yet FirstEnergy had already scheduled the Pleasants Power Station in West Virginia to close next year.

And just three days after Moore’s declaration, FirstEnergy Solutions announced it would close the Eastlake coal plant and remaining coal and diesel units at the Sammis plant in Ohio, along with 2,490 megawatts of capacity at the Bruce Mansfield coal plant in Pennsylvania.

Environmental advocates welcomed the shutdown news. “This will mark the end of FirstEnergy’s coal portfolio in the state of Ohio,” said Dan Sawmiller, Ohio energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

First Energy Solutions President Don Moul said in an August 29 press release announcing the latest planned closures: “As with nuclear, our fossil-fueled plants face the insurmountable challenge of a market that does not sufficiently value their contribution to the security and flexibility of our power system.”

At the same time, the company could reverse its decision if the federal government mandates support for fossil and nuclear generating plants.

Either way, the timing raises questions about who benefits from the proposed transfer, and how it might affect consumers or taxpayers.

“What’s good for FirstEnergy here is not necessarily good for the public,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

READ MORE

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 25 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now