SourceWatch needs your financial support to survive and thrive. If you've found this information on the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda helpful, please make a tax-deductible donation now.

Coal phase-out

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search


This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Institute, has recommended that no further coal plants be built that do not capture their carbon dioxide emissions, and has further recommended that all coal emissions be phased out by 2025 in the developed world and by 2030 in the developing world.[1] According to Hansen, the consequence of emissions continuing beyond that time is increasing risk of passing "tipping points" and "points of no return."[2]

Hansen's recommendation consists of two parts:

  • Moratorium on new non-sequestering plants.
  • Phase-out of existing plants.

The first recommendation, a coal moratorium, has been the subject of widespread citizen organizing, state-level legislation, and proposed national legislation.

The second recommendation, a phase-out of existing plants, has received less attention. To date, no scenarios have been published recommending specific steps to implement the recommendation of a coal plant phase-out.

Several scenarios outlining a reduction in coal usage, generally targeted at a later date than recommended by Hansen, have been published.

Contents

Early Recognition of the Need to Phase Out Coal

In 1981, a group of atmospheric physicists led by James Hansen published an article in Science magazine pointing out that as of 1980 coal usage was responsible for 26 parts per million (ppm) out of the total of 42 ppm that had been added to the atmosphere by human activity.[3] Moreover, the paper pointed out that of the potential airborne carbon dioxide in recoverable reservoirs 1000 ppm was associated with coal compared with only 220 ppm with oil, gas, and unconventional sources. The study charted various scenarios to the year 2100, including "coal phaseout beginning 2020" and "coal phaseout beginning 2000." Both produced about half the global temperature gain of a "fast growth" scenario that included synthetic fuels.

Kharecha/Hansen Coal Phase-Out Study

In 2008 P.A. Kharecha and James Hansen released a study projecting the effect of a coal phase-out on atmospheric CO2 levels.[4] One scenario was a phaseout of coal emissions by 2050. The authors describe the scenario as follows:

The second scenario, labeled Coal Phase-out, is meant to approximate a situation in which developed countries freeze their CO2 emissions from coal by 2012 and a decade later developing countries similarly halt increases in coal emissions. Between 2025 and 2050 it is assumed that both developed and developing countries will linearly phase out emissions of CO2 from coal usage. Thus in Coal Phase-out we have global CO2 emissions from coal increasing 2% per year until 2012, 1% per year growth of coal emissions between 2013 and 2022, flat coal emissions for 2023–2025, and finally a linear decrease to zero CO2 emissions from coal in 2050. These rates refer to emissions to the atmosphere and do not constrain consumption of coal, provided the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Oil and gas emissions are assumed to be the same as in the BAU [Business as Usual] scenario.

Under this coal phase-out schedule, the study assumed that 110 Gigatons of carbon would be released into the atmosphere from coal during the period 2007-2050.

Kharecha and Hansen also consider three other scenarios, all with the same coal phase-out schedule but each making different assumptions about the size of oil and gas reserves and the speed at which they are depleted. Under the Business as Usual scenario, atmospheric CO2 peaks at 563 parts per million (ppm) in the year 2100. Under the various coal phase-out scenarios, atmospheric CO2 peaks at 422-446 ppm between 2045 and 2060. The implication of the study is that a phase-out of coal is a much more potent remedy for global warming than any actions that might be taken in limiting or stretching out the use of oil and gas.

Gore zero-carbon proposal

Citing the need for urgent action to avoid catastrophic climate change, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore made a speech in Washington, D.C., on July 17, 2008, in which he proposed that the United States "commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."[5]

According to Gore, such a goal had become more feasible because "[t]he sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind and geothermal power, coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal, have radically changed the economics of energy."

Gore compared the effort involved to the John F. Kennedy's challenge to reach the moon in a decade, which launched the Apollo program: "Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system."

Gore argued that a ten-year plan is "the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target," whereas plans with much longer time horizons, "such as a political promise to do something 40 years from now," are "universally ignored because everyone knows it's totally meaningless."

Gore noted that upgrading the nation's electrical transmission infrastructure would be a key component of his proposal.

In October, 2008, WeCanSolveIt.org released further details on the Gore plan. Titled "Repower America,"the plan provided two scenarios for 2020, one of which included a small contribution from carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) and one which did not. In both scenarios coal was primarily replaced by a combination of increased efficiency, wind, and solar thermal, with smaller contributions from geothermal and photovoltaics.[6]

Google Clean Energy 2030 proposal

On October 1, 2008, search engine company Google unveiled a detailed energy plan that would eliminate coal and oil use for electrical generation by 2030, while cutting natural gas usage in half.[7] The plan would also cut oil use for cars by 38 percent in the same time period. It would leave nuclear power capacity unchanged. The plan would implement the following measures:

  • End-use electrical energy efficiency improvements. (These reduce demand by 33%, offsetting the Energy Information Agency's projection of 25% demand growth plus 8% growth in electricity demand for use by plug-in vehicles.)
  • 300 gigawatts (GW) of onshore wind
  • 80 GW of offshore wind
  • 170 GW of photovoltaics (PV)
  • 80 GW of concentrating solar power (CSP)
  • 15 GW of conventional geothermal power
  • 65 GW of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)

Major Considerations in Phasing Out Coal Plants

Phasing out existing coal plants will require consideration of a number of issues:

Retrofitting Existing Coal Plants for Carbon Capture

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, it is not economical to retrofit existing coal plants with carbon capture technology:

Existing CO2 capture technologies are not cost-effective when considered in the context of large power plants. Economic studies indicate that carbon capture will add over 30 percent to the cost of electricity for new integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units and over 80 percent to the cost of electricity if retrofitted to existing pulverized coal (PC) units. A recent study from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) confirms that additional alternatives need to be pursued to bring the cost of carbon capture down. In addition, the net electricity produced from existing plants would be significantly reduced - often referred to as parasitic loss - since 20 to 30 percent of the power generated by the plant would have to be used to capture and compress the CO2.[8]

Existing Coal Plants

Here's a breakdown of existing U.S. coal-fired generating units by age:[9]

Years Built # of Units Total Capacity
2000-2004 15 1,837 MW
1995-1999 27 4,524 MW
1990-1994 67 8,638 MW
1985-1989 104 23,577 MW
1980-1984 119 55,887 MW
1975-1979 126 55,845 MW
1970-1974 136 66,334 MW
1965-1969 166 42,142 MW
1960-1964 162 25,240 MW
1955-1959 221 29,568 MW
1950-1954 234 18,674 MW
1940-1949 111 3,194 MW
1930-1939 20 132 MW
1921-1929 14 87 MW

The stock of existing U.S. coal-fired power plants is relatively old: the median aged generating unit was built in December 1964. Out of total coal-fired capacity of 336,000 MW of capacity, only 39,000 MW of capacity (about 12 percent) have been built since 1985. This means that by 2025 phase-out date proposed by James Hansen, 88% of the existing plants will have reached the age of 40 or above.

Effect of carbon trading and carbon taxes on existing coal plants

According to climate and energy analyst Joe Romm, neither carbon trading programs nor carbon taxes will have the effect of forcing utilities to phase out existing coal plants:[10]

A price isn’t what is needed to stop building any new coal plants and shut down every existing one in 10 years in rich countries and 20 years everywhere else — and replace all that power (plus growth) with carbon-free generation and efficiency.
Indeed, I can’t imagine how high a price would be needed but it is probably of the order of $1000 a ton of carbon or more starting in 2010. Talk about shock and awe. Remember, we are talking about a carbon price so high that it actually renders coal plants that have been completely paid for uneconomic to run. And once you stop new demand and start shutting down existing plants, the price of coal will collapse to almost nothing.
Once you start building all of the alternatives at this unimaginable pace, bottlenecks in production and material supply will run up their costs. The collapse in coal prices, making existing plants very cheap to run, together with the run up in the price of all alternatives will force carbon prices even higher.
But, in any case, if you want to replace all those existing coal plants with carbon free power that fast, again the carbon price is almost beside the point.

Effect of renewable portfolio standards on existing coal plants

In an editorial published in the New York Times, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard argued that renewable portfolio standards (RPS) should be abandoned in favor of a cap-and-trade system. According to Leonard, the type of conventional energy displaced as the result of an RPS requirement is more likely to be expensive gas-fired generation rather than comparatively cheap coal-fired generation.[11]

"Reverse seniority" phase-out model

A straightforward way to schedule the phase-out of existing coal plants is to retire plants by age, starting with the oldest plants first. As the table above suggests, 95% of existing U.S. coal capacity will be 45 years or older by 2029. The following table suggests the following scheduling of retiring the existing fleet of plants in 5-year blocks:

  • Plants older 60 years and older are retired in 2009
  • From 2010-2014, plants are retired when they reach age 55
  • From 2015-2019, plants are retired when they reach age 50
  • From 2020-2029, plants are retired when they reach age 45

As the table shows, this scheme results in the retirement of 95% of currently existing coal capacity by the year 2029.


Years Retirements Capacity Retired Capacity Remaining Portion of 2008 Capacity Remaining
2009 Plants 60+ years old 3,413 MW 308,766 MW 99%
2010-2014 Plants 55+ years old 18,674 MW 290,092 MW 93%
2015-2019 Plants 50+ years old 96,950 MW 193,142 MW 62%
2020-2024 Plants 45+ years old 122,179 MW 70,963 MW 23%
2025-2029 Plants 45+ years old 55,887 MW 15,076 MW 5%

A reverse-seniority phase-out would allow a smoother adjustment process, since plant and captive mine workforces could be shrunk in an orderly fashion without layoffs as workers retire and manpower is shifted to the younger generating units at a given location. Communities could adjust in stages. Where possible, baseload generators and transmission infrastructure could be re-purposed.

One issue that may be important with respect to some coal plants is the date of their most recent "rebuild." A simple reverse seniority phaseout may fail to take into account that plants have been substantially rebuilt, and there is "new debt" on them which has not been paid down. Where investments were made prior to 2008 in a plant, it may be appropriate to assign a new "age" to the plant to reflect the investment and rebuild.

For example, the Centralia plant in Washington State was originally built in 1972. Under the "simple" reverse seniority process, this unit would be subject to retirement in 2020 - 2024. But the investment in SO2 scrubbers and Low-Nox burners was made in 2002-03, and that cost nearly equalled the original construction cost (in nominal dollars). A feature of both California and Washington law is that coal plant owners are not allowed to make substantial NEW financial commitments to power plants emitting more than 1100 #/MWh of CO2, so this type of investment would not be permitted today. Allowing at least 20 years for recovery of rebuild costs is probably fair. Utility debt is often issued for a 30-year term, and this could be the outlier date. In the case of Centralia, therefore, the latest date would be 2033 -- the rebuild date plus 30 years.

"Gross Polluter" buy-back model

In California, regulators have determined that 10 to 15 percent of cars produce 50 percent of emissions.[12] In order to accelerate the scrapping of such vehicles, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District offers a $650 bounty for recycling cars manufactured prior to 1988. The Vehicle Buyback Program is funded through the Air District's Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA).[13]

The gross polluter model matches the coal plant phase-out issue in that coal plants represent a small number of emitting sources in private hands that produce a large proportion of emissions.

Distribution of Coal-Fired Generation in the U.S.

This map shows the distribution of coal-fired generation in the United States in July 2006.[14] Image:US_electricity_prod_by_coal.PNG

Military Base Closure Model

Like coal mines and power plants, military bases often serve as major providers of jobs in rural areas. For that reason, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process of the United States government, created in 1988, provides a model for dealing with the political challenges and the socio-economic impacts that might be encountered in phasing out coal mines and plants.

The BRAC process

Since Congress created the BRAC process in 1988, more than 350 installations have been closed in four rounds: 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995.[15]

The process works as follows:[16]

  • Pentagon officials submit a list of bases to be closed, shrunk, or enlarged.
  • An independent nine-member commission, the BRAC Commission, takes testimony from interested parties and visits affected bases.
  • The commission submits its list to the President, who must approve or disapprove of the list in its entirety.
  • If approved, the list goes to Congress, which has the opportunity to disapprove the list within 45 days; otherwise, the list becomes final.

Life after closure

The military base closure system provides a number of methods of assisting communities and individuals affected by base closings. These include:[17]

  • Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA): The OEA, located with the Department of Defense, serves as the focal point for assistance from other federal agencies, funding strategy development for communities seeking local development and other federal funding
  • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): Administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the CDBG provides federal funds for community and economic development projects, including job creation and retention efforts.
  • Economic Development Administration (EDA): Located with the Department of Commerce, the EDA provides grants to leverage private sector and local public sector dollars for targeted investments to alleviate sudden economic dislocation caused by base closures.
  • Workforce Investment Act (WIA) National Emergency BRAC Planning Grants: These funds provide assistance in planning for layoffs resulting from BRAC, with locations facing the largest impact getting priority attention.

Ontario Phase-Out Program

In 2001, Ontario generated 37,000 Gigawatt hours of electricity from coal.[18] In 2007, Ontario's Labor government committed to phasing out all coal generation in the province by 2014. Premier Dalton McGuinty said, "By 2030 there will be about 1,000 more new coal-fired generating stations built on this planet. There is only one place in the world that is phasing out coal-fired generation and we're doing that right here in Ontario."[19]

Effect of the Large Combustion Plant Directive on phasing out coal in the United Kingdom

According to the UK Committee on Climate Change report "Building a Low-Carbon Economy," a large amount of coal capacity will be retired in the United Kingdom over the next fifteen years due to the European Union Large Combustion Plant Directive. This creates an opportunity for adding climate-friendly power sources into the power supply mix.[20]

Plant Retirements

Pepco announces closure of Buzzard's Point and Benning Road

In February, 2007, Pepco Holdings announced that it would retire its Buzzard's Point and Benning Road plants in 2012.[21] Both units are located in Washington, D.C. Both plants are more than 35 years old and have recently operated for only a small number of hours each year.

Indian River Power Station Units 1 and 2

Under a 2007 consent decree reached with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environment, NRG Energy agreed to shut down Indian River Power Station Units 1 and 2 in 2010 and 2011. Unit 1 is an 82 MW unit built in 1957; Unit 2 is an82 MW unit built in 1959. The company also agreed to install air pollution controls on Units 3 and 4 by the end of 2011 to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury.[22]

Indian River Power Station Unit 3

On February 3, 2010, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environment announced that it is evaluating a potential agreement with NRG Energy to shut down Indian River Power Station Unit 3, a 177 MW generator built in 1970, after operating the plant through 2013. The plan would replace a previous plan to install pollution controls and continue to operate the plant for decades. According to the DNREC, no permanent jobs are expected to be lost as a result of the shutdown due to attrition, retraining, and redeployment.[22] According to the DNREC, benefits of the shutdown include the following: Expected environmental benefits of the shutdown include:[22]

  • Elimination of between 30 and 40 billion gallons of cooling water drawn annually from Indian River;
  • Elimination of annual kills of aquatic life including hundreds of thousands blue crabs, millions of bay anchovy, and hundreds of thousands of Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic croaker, winter flounder and weakfish;
  • Reduction by about 1,173 tons annually of nitrogen oxide and 6,252 tons of sulfur dioxide;
  • Elimination of 837,000 tons annually of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide;
  • Reduction in annual fly ash production of between 40,000 and 70,000 tons; and
  • Reduction of mercury emissions by five pounds annually.

Duke ordered to shut down three coal-fired units in Indiana

On May 29, 2009, U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney ordered Duke to shut down three units of the Wabash River Generating Station in Indiana for violations of the federal Clean Air Act. In 2008, a jury found that Duke-owned Cinergy had modified the facilities without installing best-available pollution control technology. In his ruling, Judge McKinney cited increased sulfur dioxide emissions from the units and gave a deadline of September 30, 2009 for closing them. Duke's Chief Legal Officer Marc Manly said the company was disappointed with the court's decision to "accelerate the shutdown." The units, which supply 39 percent of the station's power, were slated to be taken off line in 2012.[23]

S.D. Warren Muskegon Power Plant

S.D. Warren Muskegon Power Plant was a 51-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station owned and operated by Sappi, a South African multinational pulp & paper corporation, in Muskegon, Michigan. The plant provided power to Sappi's Muskegon pulp & paper mill until the entire facility was shut down in 2009.

Mohave Generating Station

In 2005, the Mohave Generating Station ceased operations due to a Clean Air Act lawsuit and because Navajo and Hopi tribes passed resolutions ending Peabody’s use of the Black Mesa aquifer. According to the EPA, the coal plant was the dirtiest in the Western U.S., emitting up to 40,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per year.[24]

Arapahoe Station and Cameo Station

In August 2008, Colorado regulators approved Xcel Energy’s plan to shut down two coal plants: the Arapahoe Station (Denver) and the Cameo Station (east of Grand Junction). According to Western Resource Advocates, "The utility’s decision to shut down the plants has been praised as the nation’s first voluntary effort to cut coal power generation in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In its decision to support Xcel’s plan, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) cited public health benefits and shared concerns about carbon emissions as major selling-points in the company’s groundbreaking proposal. The verdict marks a collective effort to move the state and its utilities toward the carbon reduction goals outlined in Governor Bill Ritter’s Climate Action Plan."[25]

Xcel plans to replace the combined 229 MW of coal power with 850 MW of wind power and a 200 MW utility-scale solar power plant with storage capacity by 2015. Another key component of Xcel’s proposal, to build a 480 MW natural gas plant at the Arapahoe station, has been postponed pending approval by the Colorado PUC.[25]

TVA considering shutting down some aging coal plants

In August 2009, CEO Tom D. Kilgore announced that TVA was studying the possibility of closing its John Sevier Fossil Plant in Tennessee and the oldest six units at its Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Alabama. A federal judge has ordered TVA to install pollution equipment on the plants by the end of 2013, at an estimated cost of more than $1 billion. However, the company has not yet budgeted any money for the improvements. In 2010 TVA is planning to begin building an $820 million gas-powered plant to replace the generation at its John Servier Plant. The agency has already reduced power production from the oldest six units at Widows Creek. Environmental groups want TVA to shut down or convert to cleaner fuels the oldest and least efficient of its coal plants, including Widows Creek, John Sevier, and Johnsonville plants.[26]

Ontario shutting 4 plants, considering conversion for remaining 11 plants

Ontario Power Generation will shut down four of its 15 coal-fired power plants in late 2010. The closures include two of eight units at Nanticoke Generating Station, and two of four units at Lambton. The four plants represent about 2,000 megawatts of total generation capacity. The closure of the four units, in addition to the 2005 closure of Lakeview Generating Station in 2005, will reduce the Canadian province's coal capacity by 40 percent. OPG said it would continue to assess converting its remaining 11 units to other types of fuel such as biomass, beginning with the conversion of Atikokan Generating Station by 2012.[27][28]

Progress Energy announces plan to close N.C. coal plants

On August 18, 2009, Progress Energy announced a plan to close 3 units at its Lee Steam Plant in North Carolina. The company is seeking regulatory approval to build a new natural gas-fired plant at the site. As proposed, the new plant would increase generation capacity at the site by about 550 megawatts, while still reducing overall emissions, including carbon dioxide. The project will cost an estimated $900 million, and is expected to be operational in 2013.[29]

On December 1, 2009, Progress Energy Carolinas announced that by the end of 2017 it would permanently close all of its North Carolina coal plants without sulfur dioxide scrubbers. The 11 units at L.V. Sutton, Cape Fear, Weatherspoon, and Lee total almost 1,500 megawatts and represent about a third of the utility's coal-fired power generation in N.C. The retirement plan includes the following:

  • Lee is still scheduled for retirement in 2013.
  • Sutton is slated for closure in 2014. Progress hopes to replace it with a natural gas-fired power plant.
  • Cape Fear and Weatherspoon will be shut down between 2013 and 2017. The company is considering converting 50 to 150MW of the total capacity to burn wood waste.

The closure plan was filed in response to a request by the N.C. Utilities Commission, which ordered Progress to provide its retirement schedule for "unscrubbed" coal-fired units in North Carolina. The request was a condition of the commission's approval of Progress' plan to close Lee and build a 950-MW natural gas plant at the site.[30][31]

Exelon announces plan to shut coal plants in Pennsylvania

On December 2, 2009, Exelon announced that it would retire Cromby Generating Station and two units at Eddystone Generating Station in 2011. The closures include 144 MW of coal-fired power at Cromby and another 588 MW at Eddystone. Eddystone will continue to operate 820 MW of natural gas- and oil-fired generation. Exelon senior vice president Doyle Beneby said the retirements were due to "decreased power demand, over supply of natural gas and increasing operating costs," adding that, "these aging units are no longer efficient enough to compete with newer resources."[32] The announcement comes just one day after Progress Energy said it would shut 11 aging coal-fired power units totaling almost 1,500 MW in North Carolina.[33]

NRG Energy to shut Somerset Power Generating Station

In November, 2009, NRG Energy announced that it would close the Somerset Power Generating Station, a 174 MW coal plant in Somerset, Massachusetts, on January 2, 2010. A company spokesman cited "market forces" and a "requirement that we close down or repower [by] September of 2010." NRG plans to convert the plant from burning coal to a plasma gasification process, which breaks down coal into its component parts before converting it into energy. No timetable for that conversion has been announced.[34]

Opponents of the Somerset plant, including the Conservation Law Foundation, the Massachusetts Clean Air Coalition, and the Toxics Action Center, expressed optimism that the conversion to gasification would prove to be infeasible. "Shutting down Somerset for an indefinite period shows that this old coal-fired plant is not necessary for reliability and undermines the likelihood that the coal gasification project will move forward," said Shanna Cleveland, staff attorney for CLF.[35]

Sylvia Broude, lead organizer for Toxics Action Center, said, “Closing this plant will immediately improve public health in the area, and we will continue to fight to ensure that NRG will not proceed with experimental coal gasification technology that is expected to have significant public health impacts.”[36]

In December 2009, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) released a statement saying that an announcement by the Deval Patrick administration would likely stall NRG's plans to retrofit the smaller of the Somerset plants to burn biomass. According to CLF, the state of Massachusetts intends to maintain its incinerator moratorium, suspending projects that would burn construction and demolition debris pending a complete environmental review.[37]

Resources

References

  1. ↑ "Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy," Jim Hansen, PACON International, Honolulu, Hawaii, 6/3/08
  2. ↑ "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?" J. Hansen et al, 6/18/08 draft
  3. ↑ J. Hansen et al, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Science, 8/28/81
  4. ↑ Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen, "Implications of “peak oil” for atmospheric CO2 and climate," Global Biochemical Cycles, August 5, 2008
  5. ↑ "Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and Climate," Washington Post, 7/17/08
  6. ↑ "Repower America: Analysis," WeCanSolveIt.org, accessed November 2008
  7. ↑ Clean Energy 2030, accessed 10/08
  8. ↑ "Retrofitting the Existing Coal Fleet with Carbon Capture Technology," U.S. Department of Energy, accessed December 2008
  9. ↑ "Existing Capacity by Energy Source", Energy Information Administration website, accessed April 2008.
  10. ↑ Joe Romm, "An open letter to James Hansen on the real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm," Climate Progress, 11/23/08
  11. ↑ J. Wayne Leonard, "A Better Shade of Green," New York Times, 1/23/09
  12. ↑ "What Is a Gross Polluter Vehicle," SmogTips.com, accessed 10/08
  13. ↑ "Vehicle Buy Back Program" Bay Area Air Quality Management District, accessed 10/08
  14. ↑ "Coal power in the United States," Wikipedia, accessed July 2008
  15. ↑ "Base Realignment and Closure," Wikipedia, accessed 10/08
  16. ↑ "Base Realignment and Closure 2005," Department of Defense website, accessed 10/08
  17. ↑ Appendix S: "Life After BRAC" Resource Finder"
  18. ↑ Ontario Public Health Association website, accessed July 2008
  19. ↑ "Ont. Liberals promise to close coal plants by 2014," CTV.ca, 6/18/07
  20. ↑ "Building a Low-Carbon Economy, Chapter 5: Decarbonizing Electricity Generation," page 178 and figure 5.6,
  21. ↑ "Pepco Holdings Seeks to Retire D.C. Power Plants: Benning Road and Buzzard Point Units to be retired by 2012," Pepco Holdings Inc. Press release, February 28, 2007
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 DNRC negotiating permanent shutdown of additional coal unit at Indian River Power Plant, state of Delaware press release, February 3, 2010
  23. ↑ Andrew M. Harris, "Duke Energy Ordered to Shut Indiana Coal-Fired Units," Bloomberg, May 29, 2009.
  24. ↑ “Making a Just Transition” Timothy Lesle, Sierra Club newsletter, May 2006
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 "Clean Energy Accomplishments," Western Resrouce Advocates, accessed April 2009
  26. ↑ "TVA may shutter aging coal-fired plants," Chattanooga Times Free Press, August 24, 2009.
  27. ↑ "Early Closure of Four Coal Units Significant Milestone to Improving Air Quality and Lives," Ontario, September 2009.
  28. ↑ "Ontario to cut back coal power 40 per cent," Toronto Star,] September 4, 2009.
  29. ↑ "Utility will build natural gas-fueled units to be in service by 2013," Progress Energy, August 18, 2009.
  30. ↑ "Progress Energy Carolinas Plans to Retire Remaining Unscrubbed Coal Plants in N.C.," PRNewswire, December 1, 2009.
  31. ↑ Tina Casey, "Progress Energy Joins Stampede Away from Coal," Reuters, December 2, 2009.
  32. ↑ "Exelon to retire 933 MW of capacity in 2011," Power Engineering, December 2, 2009.
  33. ↑ Progress Energy
  34. ↑ Marc Munroe Dion, "Somerset's NRG plant closing down," The Herald News, 11/4/09
  35. ↑ "Environmental and Community Activists Hail Shut Down of Polluting Plant," Conservation Law Foundation press release, November 5, 2009
  36. ↑ "Environmental and Community Activists Hail Shut Down of Polluting Plant," Conservation Law Foundation press release, November 5, 2009
  37. ↑ "Group: Patrick's stance will halt NRG Energy's Somerset plant," Herald News, December 18, 2009.

Related SourceWatch articles

External resources

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_phase-out"
Personal tools

Be a SourceWatcher!

Enter your e-mail address to get the Center for Media and Democracy's free weekly e-newsletter.