Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Mitchell won’t call it *** Graduated tax hike blasted
Next Post: Whistling past the graveyard
Posted in:
* BND…
The company that operates several coal-fired power plants in central and southern Illinois announced Tuesday it would shut down units one and three at the Baldwin Power Station.
The shutdown will occur over the next year, according to a Dynegy statement. Company spokesman Micah Hirschfield said approximately 122 current jobs plus any vacant open positions will be lost. […]
The company has notified the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which operates the power grid in central and southern Illinois, of the shutdowns that will take a total of 1,835 megawatts of generating capacity offline.
Hirshcfield said the next step in the process is for MISO to conduct a study to determine whether the grid can handle the loss of capacity. If it can, the shutdowns will go forward. If it cannot, MISO and Dynegy will negotiate a deal to keep the units online.
* Howard Learner, who runs the Environmental Law & Policy Center, responded with a warning…
“Dynegy’s management made a business decision to shut down old coal plants that are not economically competitive in the power market. Dynegy appears to now be asking Illinois legislators to force consumers to pay higher utility bills to subsidize Dynegy’s old, uncompetitive power plants. That’s just not fair. Illinois legislators should advance policies to support investment in the new clean energy technologies that keep electricity costs affordable while creating new jobs and spurring economic growth.
“Illinois has a surplus of old nuclear and coal plant supply while demand is declining due to smart energy efficiency that saves money for businesses at home. Natural gas and new wind power are outcompeting the old coal and nuclear plants, and they are saving consumers’ money. Illinois policymakers should not force consumers to pay higher utility rates to subsidize old plants they’ve already paid for.”
* And this is from the Sierra Club…
“Dynegy’s decision to phase out units at these coal-fired power plants is a signal of the profound shift that’s happening right now in America’s energy landscape. It is essential that we invest in the livelihoods of workers and communities historically dependent on coal, and work to maximize opportunities for the skilled workforce at the plants impacted by Dynegy’s announcement.
“Clean energy technology is growing every year in Illinois, but we must act now to get energy policy right to ensure that every Illinois community can thrive in the clean energy economy. The Sierra Club will continue to fight statewide for policies like the Illinois Clean Jobs Bill that will jump-start the state’s energy economy to allow for new, family-sustaining jobs for the workers impacted by a rapidly changing energy market.
“Workers and communities need the long-term stability that the clean energy economy can bring when we update our policies to make Illinois a national leader in technologies of the future. ”
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Mitchell won’t call it *** Graduated tax hike blasted
Next Post: Whistling past the graveyard
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yet,Howard Learner supported a heavily-subsidized gas plant (Renaska) that would have forced consumers to pay 4 times the market rate for power.
There was a time when environmentalists were all about natural gas. But now, in the age of tracking, I don’t know how any of them can be a shill for that industry.
Comment by Ggeo Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:27 am
Look, the Dynegy plants need anywhere between $500 million and $1 billion per plant to fund scrubbers and other upgrades to comply with the acid rain sulfur requirements. They delayed those investments when they took over those plants from Ameren, saying they needed time to plan for the upgrades.
Looks like that was just a cynical move to buy some more time and money at the plants before shutting them down, or using them as budget hostages to extract a bailout.
Southern Illinois can’t see rates rise by $500 million per year to subsidize all the investments they should have planned to make at the plants when they bought them a few years ago.
Comment by okgo Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:32 am
Basically, they got a discount on the purchase price on those plants because they needed upgrades.
Now, they want someone else to pay them again.
Comment by okgo Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:36 am
“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Hillary Clinton
March, 2016
Good luck in coal country in November Hillary…we’ll remember!
Comment by union coal Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:37 am
Maybe it’s time to turn lemons into lemonade, get off the coal and move to wind and solar, if we have to subsidize something make if for low carbon alternatives.
Comment by independent Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:40 am
If you do some research about the economic model for wind power, you’ll find that they are currently benefiting from significant “subsidization”.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:43 am
=“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Hillary Clinton
March, 2016
Good luck in coal country in November Hillary…we’ll remember!=
I doubt there are enough coal miners in the country to make a dent in her chances. On the other hand, there are plenty of environmentally conscious voters who will vote for her just because of things like this.
Comment by MSIX Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:44 am
Dynegy is also closing the Wood River plant in the Metro East. The older coal plants (Wood River’s newest unit was operational 53 years ago) probably aren’t viable at this point.
On the other hand, Dynegy is a partner in a massive new coal plant just 50 miles away. Coal isn’t dead yet, but the oldest coal plants are on their way out.
Comment by illini97 Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:46 am
==I doubt there are enough coal miners in the country to make a dent in her chances. On the other hand, there are plenty of environmentally conscious voters who will vote for her just because of things like this.==
80,000 of coal workers. 85,000 wind power workers
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:52 am
I find it funny renewables complain about subsidizing reliable generators.
Presently, companies are forced to buy renewables through portfolio standards passed by the GA. They pay a much higher than market rate for these renewables in contracts. The renewable companies then bid into the MISO market at rates well below the market rate because they already have guaranteed money from the companies forced to buy their product. This drives down the market price further and harms traditional stable generators.
Wind and solar are not stable sources of energy. They cannot respond to demand as easily as coal and nuclear can. That “ramp rate” is what allows for reliable electricity. Reliability is the major concern when evaluating plant closures and keeping within NERC standards for a reliable grid.
It’s easier put like this - on a hot August Day when all the A/C units are running, how much wind is blowing?
Comment by Blue Dog Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:53 am
==If you do some research about the economic model for wind power, you’ll find that they are currently benefiting from significant “subsidization”.==
so is gas, oil, solar and virtually every form of energy under, and including, the sun
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:53 am
Thanks for playing…
“In U.S., there are twice as many solar workers as coal miners”
http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/
Comment by Biker Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 9:54 am
Will Dynegy’s proposed cut in electricity production make the Clinton nuclear plant economically viable?
Comment by SAP Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:00 am
Isn’t it odd that “Rauners Department of Revenue” doesn’t have a dire prediction on how many jobs and wages will be lost when taxpayers give in to this blatant con job and raise tax subsidies and electric rates for consumers and yes businesses too? How strange! /s.
Comment by Old and In the Way Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:01 am
>It’s easier put like this - on a hot August Day when all the A/C units are running, how much wind is blowing?
How much sun is shining? I agree with point about needing stable sources of energy though.
Comment by Earnest Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:03 am
renewables complain about subsidizing fossil fuels because it’s investing in the past. A dirty past that’s making global warming worse in an industry that doesn’t need the help. Subsidizing renewables is an investment in a clean future. One that IS going to happen. Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:09 am
There may be more solar energy workers, but coal miners are concentrated in a few states, such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennslyvania, where they will have a bigger impact on the 2016 election.
Comment by union coal Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:11 am
Earnest - solar does well at shaving some peak demand on a summer day, but not much. There seems to be some technical limitations on its ability.
The biggest problem is the acres of land needed to produce a few MW of energy.
There is a Six Flags park in NJ building a 21MW farm. It will require the removal of 15,000 trees. For comparison, the entire set of stacks by lake Springfield produce up to +- 500 MW.
Plus the coal can respond to changes in demand load. Solar isn’t really controllable, and doesn’t work well in less than optimal conditions.
Comment by Blue Dog Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:13 am
Coal workers in
Ohio: 2,923
Pennsylvania: 7,938
West Virginia: 18,330
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:14 am
“but coal miners are concentrated in a few states, such as Ohio”
Yes, but Ohio voters just paid $8 billion to subsidize their coal miners. Once those bills start rolling in, I think the folks in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, etc. are going to be a little bitter.
Comment by okgo Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:15 am
In 2011, according to the DCEO coal report, Illinois coal mines had 4019 employees spread over a dozen or so counties.
Comment by 100 miles west Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:15 am
Also - Dynegy is cutting 122 jobs. Their proposed solution, raising “capacity charges” on customer bills by $250 million/year, means that Southern Illinois customers would be paying essentially $2 million per job saved!
Are you serious?
Comment by okgo Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:18 am
Plenty of tax subsidies for solar energy too.
Solyndra anyone?
Comment by union coal Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:27 am
The number one coal producing state, and the cheapest, is Wyoming. They produce 3 times the coal that West Virginia does and employ less than 7000 workers. The high point was in the early 80’s when they employed about 12,000 workers.
Despite the elimination of 25% of the workforce they produce more and cheaper coal. In other words the jobs are going to be eliminated in WVa, Ohio, Penn, and Ky no matter what we choose to subsidize in a coal based energy market. Why not grow jobs in the renewable energy market?
Comment by Old and In the Way Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:37 am
You’re taking Hillary’s comments on coal miners out of context. When she said “we’re going to be shutting down coal plants” she was talking about the U.S. and it was a statement of economic reality.
Coal is losing ground because it can’t compete with natural gas from fracking. Her point was that we need to figure out what to do in coal country since these jobs are going away and not coming back.
And for the record, IL doesn’t use IL coal or even Eastern US coal. We use coal from the Powder River Basin out West. IL coal plant closings affect miners in Wyoming - not Illinois.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 10:48 am
Article says they are sitting down units 1 and 3. Does that mean Unit 2 keeps operating? If so, then 1,200MW are being taken offline not 1,800. Probably makes sense economically to shutdown at least one unit.
Comment by chicagojoe Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 11:05 am
let em shut down and replace them with public utilities. bond out new clean coal plants, we get the infrastructure investment and jobs, and the rates are based on actual cost not aending millions in pofts to 1 or 2 guys at the top. C.F CWLP
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 12:30 pm
For the record, Springfield’s CWLP, from which Rich powers this blog, gets its coal from just down the road from a mine in Elkhart. 300 workers who’s family & friends aren’t likely to support Hillary….
Comment by union coal Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 3:46 pm
==- union coal - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @==
It was just devastating to former President Obama in 2012 when his “War on Coal” cost him the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio! Thanks to President Romney, the economic market for coal magically changed!
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 5:33 pm