Coal-fired Power Plants Finally on a Path Toward Closure?

Jose More Photography/Chicago News Cooperative

(above a picture of one of the coal-fired plants on the Illinois-Indiana border slated for closure)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utilities-announce-closure-of-10-aging-power-plants-in-midwest-east/2012/02/29/gIQANSLEiR_story.html

This article discusses the closings of ten coal fired U.S. power plants. Two of which are in Chicago in the Little Village and Pilsen neighborhoods that have a predominantly Hispanic population. Critics have threatened that closure of the plants will raise energy costs, as environmental groups have applauded the decision. Midwest generation, the company that owns the plants has come under criticism from environmental groups as well as the communities situated near them for their contribution to growing health problems associated with toxicity. These plants not only pollute the air with high carbon emissions, but have also been linked to elevated mercury levels in the air, soil, and water of the surrounding communities. The EPA had responded in December with new rules regulating the mercury and other toxins that these plants release into the atmosphere. The plants are aging and Pedro Pizarro, standing president of the Edison Mission Group that owns Midwest Generation cited new environmental regulation and market influences as reasons that “simply do not give us a path for continuing to invest in further retrofits at these two facilities.” GenOn Energy, another power company announced closings of eight of their plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey for similar reasons, stating: “forecasted returns on investments necessary to comply with environmental regulations are insufficient.” The article quotes Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association: ““These announcements are further proof EPA has dangerously underestimated the impact of its unprecedented roll-out of rules on the reliability of the nation’s electricity grid, as the announced retirements of electricity plants already exceed EPA’s dubious estimate” As these industry representatives complain of the economic impact of these decisions, they are failing to assess the externalized costs for healthcare and other services that these plants create for the low-income, minority, and ethnic communities where they are often located.

In Chicago, the Fisk and Crawford plants have survived in those largely Latino communities since 1968, and 1958, respectively. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was quoted in response to the closings  “This agreement means a cleaner, healthier environment for the communities around these coal plants…For too long, Fisk and Crawford have been literally choking some of Chicago’s most diverse neighborhoods, and some of its poorest.”

The closings of these plants are a step towards decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and will optimally be replaced with more natural gas and renewable energy sources. However natural gas requires pipelines be built which takes a few years, and wind power is intermittent according to Jeffrey Holmstead, a former head of the E.P.A’s air and radiation office under George W. Bush. While these concerns may suggest a temporary rise in fuel costs and the global trajectory suggests an inevitable rise in energy costs throughout the course of forthcoming decades, perhaps this is defensible in light of the health concerns and the need to develop our alternative energy resources. The Sierra club is working towards a goal of retiring 105,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy and replacing it with renewable sources by 2015, and currently mentions 106 plants slated for closure. I feel that coal power is probably the way of the past, and perhaps a squeeze on energy costs is necessary to stimulate innovation and systematic change.