Tulsa World: Coal plant proposal abandoned

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Saturday, November 21, 2009 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Coal plant proposal abandoned
The power company that had sought to build it withdraws an air permit application.

By SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer
Published: 2/18/2009 2:30 AM
Last Modified: 2/18/2009 3:17 AM

PANAMA — Global power giant AES has dropped its air permit application to build a second Shady Point coal-fired generating plant in southeastern Oklahoma, company spokesman Lundy Kiger said Tuesday afternoon in a news release.

"Although we would like to help meet the need for an affordable source of base load power, our decision to withdraw our application is part of our broader strategy to re-evaluate our growth plans," Kiger said.

Harlan Hentges of the Center for Energy Matters, a group opposing the plant, said AES's decision was proof that the handwriting is on the wall for burning coal to produce electricity. A public outcry for cleaner technologies is forcing companies to take a second look at how they generate electricity, he said.

Critics also had argued that pollution from an additional coal-fired plant in the region could put Tulsa in noncompliance with federal Clean Air Act standards.

AES's announcement comes on the heels of the decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the George W. Bush administration's policy not to enforce pollution control regulations on coal-fired plants.

Hentges said, "With today's EPA ruling, the cost to AES to clean up carbon emissions from their existing Panama plant, much less a new plant twice the size, would make any company's shareholders think twice about using coal to generate electricity, especially when cleaner technologies exist."

Kiger said the withdrawal was solely a business decision and had nothing

to do with Hentges' group, the EPA or a nuclear power bill that is moving through the Oklahoma Legislature.

"We constantly re-evaluate our growth plan as an entire company, and the decision was made from this evaluation," he said.

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality had been reviewing the application.

"DEQ staff has been very helpful through the process and we appreciate them working with AES through to this point," Kiger said.

Another member of the opposition group, Rosemary Crawford, said their success was a result of concerns raised by residents of Poteau, Sallisaw, Bokoshe and Panama.

"The people from LeFlore and Sequoyah counties who voiced their concerns about the health and economic ramifications prove they aren't going to believe everything a large, multinational corporation tells them," she said.

AES Shady Point was planning to build a 600-megawatt plant to complement its 320-megawatt plant about 10 miles northwest of Poteau.

Opposition to coal-fired plants centers on mercury and other harmful emissions, including carbon dioxide, which research shows contributes to global warming. Coal is considered the dirtiest-burning of the fossil fuels because of its chemical composition, but it is cheaper and plentiful domestically.

Susan Hylton 581-8381
susan.hylton@tulsaworld.com By SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

12 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment Travis, Tahlequah (2/18/2009 6:48:23 AM) Unless we continue to add new baseload generating capacity brownouts will become as common in the midwest as they are in California. Natural gas is a good option for peak demand generation but expensive for baseload generation. I hope the nuclear energy industry sees a resurgence in our country.
	Report Comment Graychin, Eucha (2/18/2009 8:52:03 AM) With lights going out all over America, perhaps we don't need a new power plant. If we don't need it, and they build it anyway, we would still have the privilege of paying for it. That would be good for AEP, bad for everyone else.
	Report Comment Frites and Mayo, Tulsa (2/18/2009 8:58:03 AM) Use Natural Gas not Coal.
	Report Comment peaceout2009, booger hollarl (2/18/2009 9:03:01 AM) How long does it build a power plant, get EPA approval, and all the other permits? Sometimes people try to plan five to ten years down the road. Dual fire plants are cheaper and quicker, by a couple of years, to have built than nuclear.
	Report Comment oktulsa17, (2/18/2009 9:08:17 AM) Graychin it was AES not AEP. And everything has a price. Green energy is a possibility, but at a much higher price. In these tough economic times do we want to saddle ourselves with higher energy prices?
	Report Comment Graychin, Eucha (2/18/2009 9:42:26 AM) oktulsa17: my mistake. The reason that "cheap" energy is cheap is that the full cost doesn't come due until later, or it is borne by someone else. See "tragedy of the commons."
	Report Comment Zoomin-in, Tea Town (2/18/2009 12:46:29 PM) This is great news!!! Those coal plants are not efficient and they pollute. There are better ways. How about composting all the chicken manure before it ends up in the water supply? I'm talking methane gas.
	Report Comment MaintenanceMan, Tulsa (2/18/2009 2:28:27 PM) Go Nuke.
	Report Comment Polar Bear, (2/18/2009 2:53:01 PM) Congratulations to all citizens who informed themselves of the danger of this coal plant and took action..Next up:stop the Oklahoma Legislature from getting us into dangerous and expensive Nuclear Plants..Inform the lawmakers about all the possibilities of renewable energy!! They need the info!!!
	Report Comment OU9996, (2/18/2009 3:30:25 PM) Sure there are many other forms on energy providing resources but the question is. Is the common man willing to pay for the higher cost to produce and therefore use this energy? Coal, yet somewhat dirty, is very efficient in the production of energy and energy companies are coming up with new ways to scrub the carbon and capture the CO2. Nuclear and natural gas is better and cleaner but more costly. Wind and solar energy are just not cost effective YET for what is produced. So the next time you look at your AEP bill imagine it 2 to 4 times higher if all your consumption was from another source.
	Report Comment J3SS!CA, Sh0NkA (2/18/2009 6:02:35 PM) Natural Gas all day everyday!
	Report Comment Meowlicious, (2/18/2009 6:24:31 PM) Hey Polar Bear! I know you! I saw you yesterday and you know where too! Yes...congrats to all the folks who helped make this happen. I don't care what Lundy Kiger says... he backed down in the face of extreme opposition and knew he was going to lose!

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.