U.S. Set For Wave of Power Plant Shuts Downs

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My MIL got a letter from her electric company asking if she'd like a smart meter on her AC to turn it off when peak load occured 'to save you money and keep us from having to build new plants.' They offered to give her a $25 credit per YEAR. I told her the first time the AC cut off for three hours when it was 100+ outside, she wouldn't feel like it was a good deal (she agreed, but had already devided that).

 
I just saw this...

For zero benefit, the Utility MACT is one of the most expensive federal regulations ever. In comments submitted to the EPA, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, an alliance of unions representing more than 3.2 million workers, estimated that this needless regulation would jeopardize 251,000 jobs.
Then there’s EPA’s out-of-the-blue ruling last month, ordering Texas to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide by 47 percent. This, when the draft version of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule had exempted the state entirely. The excuse for the change? A supposed need to slightly reduce emissions as monitored 500 miles away in Madison County, Ill. -- a locale that meets the EPA air-quality standards in question.

And the EPA only gave Texas just six months to comply -- when it takes three years to build the necessary controls. Particularly hard-hit will be Luminant, the largest merchant power producer in Texas, which relies on high-sulfur coal: It says “curtailing plant and/or mine operations will be the only option” to meet the EPA’s “unprecedented and impossible compliance timetable.” Jonathan Gardner, a vice president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, warns that the rule directly threatens 1,500 employees at six different power plants across Texas.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...J#ixzz1VxGEAD8x

 
EPA's own bloated estimates of benefits from the HAPs rule only come up with $5.9 million dollars a year of benefit related to HAPs. They claim more benefit from the reduction in CO2. The rest comes from reductions in criteria pollutants that are already accounted for in other rulemakings. Reductions that occur in parts of the country that are already attainment for those pollutants meaning the people are already breathing clean air. Any further reductions have no health impacts.

 
Selling Unit 2 is an interesting idea considering they aren't selling Unit 1 along with it. The logistics of having two separate owners on a two-unit site could be problematic. I've seen what happens when the owner and operator of the facilities are two separate entities and it isn't pretty.
My guess is that in a lease-back arrangement, TVA will still be the operator. Of course, no one in town believes Unit 2 will be complete by 2013 anyway, so this plan of theirs will very likely go in the ditch.

 
Selling Unit 2 is an interesting idea considering they aren't selling Unit 1 along with it. The logistics of having two separate owners on a two-unit site could be problematic. I've seen what happens when the owner and operator of the facilities are two separate entities and it isn't pretty.
My guess is that in a lease-back arrangement, TVA will still be the operator. Of course, no one in town believes Unit 2 will be complete by 2013 anyway, so this plan of theirs will very likely go in the ditch.
My company also does a lot of work for TVA for spent nuclear fuel-handling. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For zero benefit, the Utility MACT is one of the most expensive federal regulations ever. In comments submitted to the EPA, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, an alliance of unions representing more than 3.2 million workers, estimated that this needless regulation would jeopardize 251,000 jobs.
Hold up there. Sure MACT does not immediately provide union jobs, but the engineering sector sees benefits from it. My company is doing a lot of these MACT studies. MACT studies eventually lead to project, which usually require skilled labor the last I checked.

 
^^^ but that assumes there is funding for said studies, projects, and jobs. I think the point made earlier by others is that several of these plants would rather close than to go through the update process to meet the new standards, thus eliminating jobs.

 
The following was included in my latest ebill pdf from our local electricity provider (please forgive any typo's as I had to re-type this since the pdf was password and copy/paste protected):

WHOLESALE POWER COSTS TO RISEIREA [intermountain Rural Electric Assoc.] obtains its power supply from three sources: The Western Area Power Administraion, a federal agency that provides hydropower, Comanche Unit 3, the new supercritical pulverized coal plant in Pueblo owned jointly by IREA, Xcel Energy and Holy Cross Energy; and Xcel Energy, which sells power to IREA under a wholesale rate tariff. This year IREA expects to purchase more than 40% of its power from Xcel. The cost of that power is going up.

In 2010 the Colorado General Assembly approved the so-called "Clean Air Clean Jobs Act," legislation that was written behind closed doors in a collaborative effort by the gas industry, Xcel, the administration of former Governor Ritter, and other interests including even members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The legislation was rushed through the General Assembly in only seventeen days, with little debate and no ammendments permitted. The Act established the framework for the retirement of existing, low-cost generation plants and their replacement with new gas generation plants. As called for by the Act, the PUC set up a "fast track" process and in December 2010 approved an Xcel plan to implement the Act. The plan calls for the retirement of five coal generation plants, conversion of two coal plants to gas plants, construction of a new gas plant, the conversion of two shut-down plants to synchronous condensers (needed to maintain transmission voltage support upon retirement of some of the plants), and installation of emissions controls at three coal plants.

Needless to say, this plan will be expensive. Xcel estimated it would cost over one billion dollars, and it appears that estimate may be too low. In a recent PUC filing the company says the new gas plant alone will cost $534 million, with a 20% margin of error. Ratepayers also will continue to pay for the retired plants even after they are closed.

In February Xcel filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a new "formula rate" wholesake tariff. The new tariff is designed to allow Xcel to automatically pass through its increased costs to wholesale customers.

IREA and other wholesale customers protested the application. We have been negotiating with Xcel to reduce the cost of the new tariff, but there will be additional and recurring increases to our wholesale rate going forward. Since the fall of 2009 IREA has had a fixed rate that does not pass through power cost increases to customers, so the new wholesale rate increases will not have an immediate effect on consumers. We will continue to absorb increases as long as we can without jeopardizing the financial welfare of the Association.
 
Back
Top