IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations Coal

Posted October 7, 2011 | folder icon Print this page

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008

 **UPDATE**  April 20, 2012

In the months since we released this report, electricity producers have announced another 6 GW of impending plant closures as a result of EPA’s upcoming regulations. To see the updated information, click here for the updated report.

 Download the Updated Report as a PDF

Are EPA regulations closing power plants in your state?

October 7, 2012

The United States has the world’s largest coal resources. In fact we have 50 percent more coal than Russia, the country with the next largest reserves. But coal use in the United States is under assault.

Before becoming President, Barack Obama promised to bankrupt coal companies. As President, he has tried various strategies to force Americans to use less coal. After failing to pass a national energy tax (cap-and-trade), the President vowed to continue his attack on coal stating, there is “more than one way to skin a cat.”

Currently, EPA is leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations. Two of the most important are the “transport rule” and the “toxics rule” (Utility MACT). Combined, these regulations will systematically reduce access to affordable and reliable energy. According to our report:

  • EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity

EPA modeling and power-plant operator announcements show that EPA regulations will close at least 28 gigawatts (GW) of American generating capacity, the equivalent of closing every power plant in the state of North Carolina or Indiana. Also, 28 GW is 8.9 percent of our total coal generating capacity.

  • Current Retirements Almost Twice As High As EPA Predicted

EPA’s power plant-level modeling projected that Agency regulations would close 14.5 GW of generating capacity.  That number rises to 28 GW when including additional announced retirements related to EPA rules, almost twice the amount EPA projected.  Moreover, this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.

  • Announced and Projected Retirements Higher Than Worst Case Scenarios

Analysis by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the entity in charge of grid reliability, projected that EPA’s Transport Rule and Toxics Rule would close 20 GW of generating capacity.  This list indicates that at least 28 GW will retire.  EPA’s Transport Rule and Toxics Rule push U.S. energy security past the NERC worst case scenario.

  • EPA’s New Regulations Will Hit States Trying To Get Back On Their Feet

Current announcements and EPA projections indicate that EPA regulations have a dramatic impact on states reeling from economic hardship.

    • Ohio: 2,894 MW retired, 8.6% of state total generating capacity.
    • West Virginia: 2,448 MW retired, 14% of state total generating capacity.
    • Indiana: 2,168 MW retired, 7.5% of state total generating capacity.
    • Tennessee: 1,376 MW retired, 6.2% of state total generating capacity.
    • Missouri: 1,325 MW retired, 6.3% of state total generating capacity.
    • Wisconsin:  902 MW retired, 5% of state total generating capacity.

 

Download the spreadsheet of power plants by clicking here: Announced and EPA Projected Power Plant Retirements

 

You can view the complete list below:
Plant Name

Unit
City
County StateCapacity (MW)
Year Fuel SourceCitation
Colbert
1Tuscumbia
Colbert
AL
176
2015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Colbert
2Tuscumbia
Colbert
AL
1762015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Colbert
3Tuscumbia
Colbert
AL
1762015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Colbert
4Tuscumbia
Colbert
AL
1722015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Navajo
3Page
Coconino
AZ
7502015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
BP Wilmington Calciner
GEN 1Wilmington
Los Angeles
CA
292015
Petroleum Coke
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Rio Bravo Poso
CFBBakersfield
Kern
CA
332015
Petroleum Coke
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Northside Generating Station
1Jacksonville
Duval
FL
2752015
Petroleum Coke
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Northside Generating Station
2Jacksonville
Duval
FL
2752015
Petroleum Coke
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Scholz
1Sneeds
Jackson
FL
492015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Scholz
2Sneeds
Jackson
FL
492015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Harllee Branch
1Milledgeville
Putnam
GA
2622015
Coal
Southern Company Comments on EPA NESHAP Action (Aug. 4, 2011).
Harllee Branch
2Milledgeville
Putnam
GA
3192015
Coal
Southern Company Comments on EPA NESHAP Action (Aug. 4, 2011).
Dubuque
1Dubuque
Dubuque
IA
352015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Dubuque
5Dubuque
Dubuque
IA
302015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Earl F Wisdom
1Spencer
Clay
IA
382015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Dallman
31Springfield
Sangamon
IL
862015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Dallman
32Springfield
Sangamon
IL
872015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Hutsonville
3Hutsonville
Crawford
IL
752012
Coal
Ameren to shutter 2 coal plants in Illinois, Chicago Tribune (Oct. 4, 2011).
Hutsonville
4Hutsonville
Crawford
IL
752012
Coal
Ameren to shutter 2 coal plants in Illinois, Chicago Tribune (Oct. 4, 2011).
Marion
4Marion
Williamson
IL
1702014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Meredosia
4Meredosia
Morgan
IL
1662012
OilAmeren to shutter 2 coal plants in Illinois, Chicago Tribune (Oct. 4, 2011).
Meredosia
5Meredosia

Morgan
IL
2032012
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule); Ameren to shutter 2 coal plants in Illinois, Chicago Tribune (Oct. 4, 2011).
State Line
1Hammond
Lake
IN
1972015
Coal
Aging Indiana Power Plant to Shut Down, Cutting Chicago-Area Air Pollution, Chicago Tribune (May 5, 2011).
State Line
2Hammond
Lake
IN
1002015
Coal
Aging Indiana Power Plant to Shut Down, Cutting Chicago-Area Air Pollution, Chicago Tribune (May 5, 2011).
State Line
3Hammond
Lake
IN
3182015
Coal
Aging Indiana Power Plant to Shut Down, Cutting Chicago-Area Air Pollution, Chicago Tribune (May 5, 2011).
State Line
4Hammond
Lake
IN
1802015
Coal
Aging Indiana Power Plant to Shut Down, Cutting Chicago-Area Air Pollution, Chicago Tribune (May 5, 2011).
Tanners Creek
1Lawrenceburg
Dearborn
IN
1452015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Tanners Creek
2Lawrenceburg
Lawrenceburg
IN
15312/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Tanners Creek
3Lawrenceburg
Lawrenceburg
IN
21512/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Wabash River
2Terre Haute
Vigo
IN
113
2014
Coal
EPA regs may force Duke to shut Indiana coal plant, Reuters (Sep. 20, 2011)
Wabash River
3Terre Haute
Vigo
IN
1232014
Coal
EPA regs may force Duke to shut Indiana coal plant, Reuters (Sep. 20, 2011)
Wabash River
4Terre Haute
Vigo
IN
1132014
Coal
EPA regs may force Duke to shut Indiana coal plant, Reuters (Sep. 20, 2011)
Wabash River
5Terre Haute
Vigo
IN
1252014
Coal
EPA regs may force Duke to shut Indiana coal plant, Reuters (Sep. 20, 2011)
Wabash River
6Terre Haute
Vigo
IN
3872014
Coal
EPA regs may force Duke to shut Indiana coal plant, Reuters (Sep. 20, 2011)
Lawrence Energy Center
3Lawrence
Douglas
KS

482015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Riverton
39Riverton
Cherokee
KS
382014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Riverton
40Riverton
Cherokee
KS
542014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Tecumseh Energy Center
9Tecumseh
Shawnee
KS
742015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Big Sandy
2Louisa
Louisa
KY
43812/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011).
Cane Run
1Louisville
Louisville
KY
162016
Coal
The 2011 Joint Integrated Resource Plan of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Compny (Apr. 21, 2011)
Cane Run
2Louisville
Louisville
KY
1632016
Coal
The 2011 Joint Integrated Resource Plan of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Compny (Apr. 21, 2011)
Cane Run
3Louisville
Louisville
KY
2092016
Coal
The 2011 Joint Integrated Resource Plan of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Compny (Apr. 21, 2011)
Cane Run
4Louisville
Louisville
KY
2722016
Coal
The 2011 Joint Integrated Resource Plan of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Compny (Apr. 21, 2011)
D B Wilson
W1Centertown
Ohio
KY
4202015
Petroleum CokeIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Dale
1Winchester
Clark
KY
272014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Dale
2Winchester
Clark
KY
272014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Dale
3Winchester
Clark
KY
752014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Dale
4Winchester
Clark
KY
752014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Green River
1Central City
Central City
KY
752016
CoalThe 2011 Joint Integrated Resource Plan of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Compny (Apr. 21, 2011)
Green River
2Central City
Central City
KY
1142016
CoalThe 2011 Joint Integrated Resource Plan of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Compny (Apr. 21, 2011)
Robert A Reid
1Robards
Webster
KY
652014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Tyrone
Versailles
Versailles
KY
1352016
CoalThe 2011 Joint Integrated Resource Plan of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Compny (Apr. 21, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Nelson Industrial Steam and Operating Company

1AWestlake
Calcasieu
LA
1072015
Petroleum CokeIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Nelson Industrial Steam and Operating Company
2AWestlake
Calcasieu
LA
1062015
Petroleum CokeIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Brayton Point
3Somerset
Bristol
MA
6122015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Brayton Point
4Somerset
Bristol
MA
4352014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Salem Harbor
1Salem
Salem
MA
82June, 2014
CoalDominion Sets Schedule to Close Salem Harbor Power Station, Press Release, May 11, 2011; IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule).
Salem Harbor
2Salem
Salem
MA
82June, 2014
CoalDominion Sets Schedule to Close Salem Harbor Power Station, Press Release, May 11, 2011; IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule).
Salem Harbor
3Salem
Salem
MA
166June, 2014
CoalDominion Sets Schedule to Close Salem Harbor Power Station, Press Release, May 11, 2011; IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule).
Salem Harbor
4Salem
Salem
MA
476June, 2014
CoalDominion Sets Schedule to Close Salem Harbor Power Station, Press Release, May 11, 2011.
Eckert Station
1Lansing
Ingham
MI
402015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Eckert Station
2Lansing

Ingham
MI
422015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Eckert Station
3Lansing
Ingham


MI
412015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Eckert Station
4Lansing

Ingham
MI
692015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Eckert Station
5Lansing

Ingham
MI
692015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Eckert Station
6Lansing

Ingham
MI
672015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Endicott Station
1Litchfield
Hillsdale
MI
552014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
James De Young
5Holland
Ottawa
MI
272014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Blue Valley
3Independence
Jackson
MO
512014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Chamois
2Chamois
Osage
MO
492014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
James River Power Station
3Springfield
Greene
MO
412015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
James River Power Station
4Springfield
Greene
MO
562015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Lake Road
6St Joseph
Buchanan
MO
972015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Meramec
1St. Louis
St. Louis
MO
1382015
CoalThe Ameren 2011 Integrated Resource Plan
Meramec
2St. Louis
St. Louis
MO
1382015
CoalThe Ameren 2011 Integrated Resource Plan
Meramec
3St. Louis
St. Louis
MO
2892015
CoalThe Ameren 2011 Integrated Resource Plan
Meramec
4St. Louis
St. Louis
MO
3592015
CoalThe Ameren 2011 Integrated Resource Plan
Sibley
1Sibley
Jackson
MO
542014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Sibley
2Sibley
Jackson
MO
542014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Colstrip Energy LP
BLR1Colstrip
Rosebud
MT
352015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Yellowstone Energy LP
BLR1Billings
Yellowstone
MT
282015
Petroleum CokeIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Yellowstone Energy LP
BLR2Billings
Yellowstone
MT
282015
Petroleum CokeIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Buck
5Salisbury
Rowan
NC
382014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Buck
6Salisbury
Rowan
NC
382014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Buck
7Salisbury
Rowan
NC
382014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Cape Fear
5'MoncureMoncure
NC
14812/31/2014
CoalProgress Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan (Sep. 13, 2010).
Cape Fear
6'MoncureMoncure
NC
1512/31/2014
CoalProgress Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan (Sep. 13, 2010); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule).
Riverbend
7Mount Holly
Gaston
NC
942015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Riverbend
8Mount Holly
Gaston
NC
942015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Weatherspoon
1Lumberton
Robeson
NC
4912/31/2014
CoalProgress Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan (Sep. 13, 2010)
Weatherspoon
2Lumberton
Robeson
NC
4912/31/2014
CoalProgress Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan (Sep. 13, 2010)
Weatherspoon
3Lumberton
Robeson
NC
7912/31/2014
CoalProgress Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan (Sep. 13, 2010)
Schiller
4Portsmouth
Rockingham
NH
482015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Deepwater
8Pennsville
Salem
NJ
802015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Glenwood
40Glenwood Landing
Nassau
NY
1172015
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Glenwood
50Glenwood Landing
Nassau
NY
1222015
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Port Jefferson
3Port Jefferson
Suffolk
NY
1852015
Natural Gas, Residual Fuel OilIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
WPS Power Niagara
1Niagara Falls
Niagara
NY
532015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Avon Lake
10Avon Lake
Lorain
OH
932014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Conesville
3Conesville
Conesville
OH
16512/31/2014
CoalAEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Hamilton
8Hamilton
Butler
OH
332014
Natural Gas, Residual Fuel OilIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Miami Fort
6North Bend
Miami Township
OH
1631/1/2015
CoalThe Duke Energy Kentucky 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (July 1, 2011).
Muskingum River
1Beverly
Beverly
OH
22012/31/2014
CoalAEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Muskingum River
2Beverly
Beverly
OH
22012/31/2014
CoalAEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Muskingum River
3Beverly
Beverly
OH
23812/31/2014
CoalAEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Muskingum River
4Beverly
Beverly
OH
23812/31/2014
CoalAEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Niles2Niles
Trumbull
OH
1112015
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Picway

Lockbourne
Lockbourne
OH
10012/31/2014
CoalAEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
R E Burger

5Shadyside
Belmont
OH
472014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
R E Burger

6Shadyside
Belmont
OH
472014
CoalIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
WC Beckjord1New Richmond
Clermont
OH
1151/1/2015
CoalThe Duke Energy Ohio 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (July 15, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
WC Beckjord
2New Richmond
New Richmond
OH
1131/1/2015
CoalThe Duke Energy Ohio 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (July 15, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
WC Beckjord
3New Richmond
Clermont
OH
1251/1/2015
CoalThe Duke Energy Ohio 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (July 15, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
WC Beckjord
4New Richmond
New Richmond
OH
1631/1/2015
CoalThe Duke Energy Ohio 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (July 15, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
WC Beckjord
5New Richmond
Clermont
OH
2451/1/2015
CoalThe Duke Energy Ohio 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (July 15, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
WC Beckjord
6New Richmond
New Richmond
OH
4611/1/2015
CoalThe Duke Energy Ohio 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (July 15, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Anadarko Plant

3Anadarko
Caddo
OK
442015
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Mustang
1Oklahoma City
Canadian
OK
532015
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Mustang
2Oklahoma City
Canadian
OK
532015
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Mustang
3Oklahoma City
Canadian
OK
1182015
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Mustang
4Oklahoma City
Canadian
OK
2502015
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Boardman
Boardman
Boardman
OR
601Not Available
Coal
Portland Gas and Electric Comments on EPA NESHAP Action (Aug. 2, 2011)
G F Weaton Power Station
1Monaca
Beaver
PA
562015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
G F Weaton Power Station
2Monaca
Beaver
PA
562015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
New Castle
3West Pittsburg
Lawrence
PA
952014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
New Castle
5West Pittsburg
Lawrence
PA
1382014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Shawville
1Shawville
Clearfield
PA
1222014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Sunbury Generation LP
3Shamokin Dam
Snyder
PA
942014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Sunbury Generation LP
4Shamokin Dam
Snyder
PA
1282014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Sunbury Generation LP
2AShamokin Dam
Snyder
PA
402014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Sunbury Generation LP
2BShamokin Dam
Snyder
PA
402014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Canadys Steam
1Walterboro
Colleton
SC
1052015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
John Sevier
4Rogersville
Hawkins
TN
1762014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
1New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1062014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
2New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1062014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
3New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1062014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
4New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1062014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
5New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1062014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
6New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1062014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
7New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1412014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
8New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1412014
Coal


IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
9New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1412014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Johnsonville
10New Johnsonville
Humphreys
TN
1412014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
AES Deepwater
AAB0 01Pasadena
Harris
TX
1392015
Petroleum Coke
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
ERCT_TX_Coal steam
1n/a
n/a
TX
3002015
Petroleum Coke
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Lone Star
1Lone Star
Morris
TX
502014
Natural Gas, Distillate Fuel Oil
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Monticello
1Mount Pleasant
Titus
TX
5932012
Coal

Luminant Announces Facility Closures, Job Reductions in Response to EPA Rule, Luminant (Sep. 12, 2011)
Monticello
2Mount Pleasant
Titus
TX
5932012
CoalLuminant Announces Facility Closures, Job Reductions in Response to EPA Rule, Luminant (Sep. 12, 2011)
Moore County
3Sunray
Moore
TX
482012
Natural GasIPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
San Miguel
SM-1Christine
Atascosa
TX
39112/31/2014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Welsh
2Pittsburg
Pittsburg
TX
5282015
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Carbon
1Price
Carbon
UT
672015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
KUCC
1Magna
Salt Lake
UT
302015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
KUCC
2Magna
Salt Lake
UT
302015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
KUCC
3Magna
Salt Lake
UT
302015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Sunnyside Cogen Associates
1Sunnyside
Carbon
UT
512016
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Chesapeake
1Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
192016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
2Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
162016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
3Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
1852016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
4Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
162016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
6Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
162016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
7Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
242016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
8Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
242016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
9Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
242016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
10Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
242016
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Chesapeake
ST1Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
1132016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
ST2Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
1132016
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Chesapeake
ST4Chesapeake
Chesapeake (city)
VA
23912/31/2014
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Clinch River
3Cleveland
Cleveland
VA
23512/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Glen Lyn
1Glen Lyn
Giles
VA
10012/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Glen Lyn
2Glen Lyn
Giles
VA
2382015
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Glen Lyn
51Glen Lyn
Giles
VA
452015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Glen Lyn
52Glen Lyn
Giles
VA
452015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Potomac River
1Alexandria
Alexandria (city)
VA
882015
Coal
Alexandria coal plant may shut by 2012, Washington Post (Aug. 30, 2011); IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Transport Rule)
Potomac River
2Alexandria
Alexandria (city)
VA
882015
Coal
Alexandria coal plant may shut by 2012, Washington Post (Aug. 30, 2011)
Potomac River
3Alexandria
Alexandria
VA
1102015
Coal
Alexandria coal plant may shut by 2012, Washington Post (Aug. 30, 2011)
Potomac River
4Alexandria
Alexandria
VA
1102015
Coal
Alexandria coal plant may shut by 2012, Washington Post (Aug. 30, 2011)
Potomac River
5Alexandria
Alexandria
VA
1102015
Coal
Alexandria coal plant may shut by 2012, Washington Post (Aug. 30, 2011)
Yorktown
1Yorktown
York
VA
1882015
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Yorktown
2Yorktown
York
VA
1882015
Coal
Dominion plans to shutter Yorktown and Chesapeake power plants between 2015 and 2022, Daily Press (Sep. 1, 2011).
Blount Street
8Madison
Dane
WI
492015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Blount Street
9Madison
Dane
WI
482015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
South Oak Creek
5Oak Creek
Milwaukee
WI
2612015
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
South Oak Creek
6Oak Creek
Milwaukee
WI
2642014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule)
Valley
1Milwaukee
Milwaukee
WI
702014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Valley
2Milwaukee
Milwaukee
WI
702014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Valley
3Milwaukee
Milwaukee
WI
702014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Valley
4Milwaukee
Milwaukee
WI
7012/31/2014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Kammer
1Captina
Moundsville
WV
23812/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Kammer
3Captina
Moundsville
WV
23812/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Kammer
2Oroville
Moundsville
WV
23812/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Kanawha
1Glasgow
Glasgow
WV
22012/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Kanawha
2Glasgow
Glasgow
WV
22012/31/2014
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Phillip Sporn
1Graham Station
New Haven
WV
1532011 (450 MW), Dec. 31, 2014 (600 MW)
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Phillip Sporn
2Graham Station
New Haven
WV
1532011 (450 MW), Dec. 31, 2014 (600 MW)
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Phillip Sporn
3Graham Station
New Haven
WV
1532011 (450 MW), Dec. 31, 2014 (600 MW)
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Phillip Sporn
4Graham Station
New Haven
WV
1532011 (450 MW), Dec. 31, 2014 (600 MW)
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Phillip Sporn
5Graham Station
New Haven
WV
4962011 (450 MW), Dec. 31, 2014 (600 MW)
Coal
AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, Press Release (June 9, 2011)
Rivesville
7Rivesville
Marion
WV
462014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Rivesville
8Rivesville
Marion
WV
912014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
Willow Island
1Willow Island
Pleasants
WV
542014
Coal
IPM Parsed Results - Policy Case (Toxics Rule/Transport Rule)
You can download the excel document by clicking here: Announced and EPA Projected Power Plant Retirements.

Notes:1.       All retirements announced by plant owners result from EPA regulation.  In each such case, the citation included directly identifies EPA regulations as the sole or main reason for the power plant’s retirement.

2.       Plant closures attributed to EPA modeling only include those plants that EPA projects to close as a result of EPA regulations.  “Toxics Rule” results were found by removing plants listed on the Toxics Rule “IPM Parsed File – Base Case” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3032) from the “IPM Parsed File – Policy Case” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3033).  “Transport Rule” results were found by removing plants listed on “TR Base Case Final” from the “TR Remedy Final” (both files available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html).

3.       According to the EPA, the Toxics Rule base case includes the Transport Rule.  Thus, theoretically, both the Toxics Rule Policy Case and Transport Rule Remedy Case (when controlled for their respective base cases) should not both independently identify closure of the same plant.  Nevertheless, the list shows a 2 GW overlap between the two rules.  This is, presumably, due to variance in the modeling platforms EPA utilized for both rules.

Power Plant Retirement List Background Information 

Methodology

 List Sources

This list is derived from three sources: (1) EPA’s parsed modeling files, which identify the power-plant units that EPA models say will close as a result of either the Clean Air Transport Rule (Transport Rule) or Utility MACT (Toxics Rule); (2) news releases or press stories where a power-plant operator says a unit will or is likely to close due to EPA regulations; and (3) filings with state public utility commissions where a power-plant operator says a unit will or is likely to close due to EPA regulations.  All sources are publically available information.

EPA Parsed  Files

Process to Identify Units Closed by EPA Regulation

Individual power-plants often have multiple boilers, called “units,” that generate electricity.  EPA, in addition to overall modeling, models the impact that the Agency believes its regulations will have on each unit, at each power-plant in America.  EPA lists these results in “parsed files.”  When producing parsed files for a regulation, EPA will first create a business-as-usual “base” case parsed file where the Agency details what it believes will happen absent EPA’s new regulation.  Next, EPA creates a “policy” or “remedy” case parsed file showing how EPA believes plants will respond to a regulation.  Thus, one can find the difference between these two cases, and figure out the impact EPA believes a regulation will have, by comparing the policy/remedy case parsed file to the base case parsed file.  As such, the following steps were taken so that the list would only include those units EPA said would retire as a result of the Transport Rule and Toxics Rule:

For the Transport Rule, data from the parsed files for the Transport Rule’s base case and remedy case were put on a single spreadsheet.  The combined results were organized by plant name.  Each plant listed in both the base case and remedy case was removed.  Thus, the resulting list only shows those plants that EPA believes will close because of the Transport Rule.

For the Toxics Rule, data from the parsed files for the Toxics Rule’s base case and policy case were put on a single spreadsheet.  The combined results were organized by plant name.  Each plant listed in both the base case and policy case was removed.  Thus, the resulting list only shows those plants that EPA believes will close because of the Toxics Rule.

The resulting base case-free Transport Rule list and Toxics Rule list were then put on a single spreadsheet.  The combined results were organized by plant name.  In each instance where the Transport Rule and the Toxics Rule independently said the same plant would retire, one of the entries was deleted so as to not double-count it.  The citation was modified to attribute the unit closure to both the Transport Rule and Toxics Rule.

Transport Rule Parsed File

The parsed file for the Transport Rule is based on EPA’s proposed Clean Air Transport Rule and not the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  EPA has not yet made the CSAPR parsed files available to the public.  However, given that the final CSAPR is more stringent than the rule’s proposed version, it is likely that CSAPR’s parsed file will show more unit closures than the parsed file used on this list.

Power-plant Owner Public Announcements

Ensuring that Retirements are Result of EPA Regulation

All retirements announced by plant owners in news releases or through public filings on this list were due to EPA regulation.  In each such case, the source cited directly identifies EPA regulations as the sole or main reason for the power plant’s retirement.

Avoiding Double-Counting

If a unit was identified to close by both EPA parsed files and public announcements, then the duplicate entry was released.  The units citation was modified to indicate that both EPA and public announcements slated the unit for retirement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is this list’s total retired capacity higher than EPA’s total?

The total retired capacity for this list is higher than EPA’s total because this list includes EPA’s projected unit retirements and unit retirements announced by power-plant operators.  No unit cited by both sources was double counted.

Does this list include plants that will close even without the Transport Rule or Toxics Rule?

No.  The parsed file results used in this list do not include business-as-usual base case results.  In other words, if EPA modeled a unit to close even if the Transport Rule or Toxics Rule were not implemented, then that unit was not included.

EPA says only 9.9 GW will close, so why are these numbers higher?

The 9.9 GW retired coal-plant capacity figure is from the EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Toxics Rule alone.  The Transport Rule RIA projects an additional 4.8 GW of coal-plant capacity to retire due to the Transport Rule.  When combined, the RIA’s project 13.8 GW of coal-plant capacity to retire due to the Toxics Rule and Transport Rule.  As noted above, additional plant retirements are due to actually announced retirements.

Why do EPA’s RIAs say the Transport and Toxics Rule will retire 13.8 GW of coal-capacity, while EPA’s parsed files say the two rules will retire 14.5 GW? 

EPA’s overall modeling runs and parsed model use slightly different methods.  Thus, the totals for the final results are slightly different, though very similar.  The difference between the two totals is only .8 GW.

When a power-plant operator announces that it is closing a certain unit, how do you know that is because of EPA regulations?

In each case where a retirement is attributed to public announcements, the cited source material lists EPA regulations as the sole or main reason for the plant’s retirement.

Some groups have said EPA regulations will retire 60 – 80 GW of coal-fired generation, but this list only shows 28 GW.  Does this mean those projections are wrong?

No.  If anything this list gives more credibility to those higher retirement projections.  This list is very conservative; it merely shows what units EPA says its regulations will close, plus specific units that plant-operators have said will close because of EPA regulations.  Those analyses that show higher power-plant retirements than this list lay out what the final overall impact of EPA’s regulation will be.  On the other hand, this list focuses just on the currently disclosed impact.  Plant-operators generally announce retirements only when required to by public filings.  Thus, this list will likely grow far higher.  However, because this list already finds twice as many retirements as EPA projected, the Agency’s claim that its regulations will have minimal impact on electric generation are clearly incorrect.

EPA has said that other projections showing a high coal generation retirements were based on incorrect assumptions.  Is that the case for this list?

No.  The only modeling in this list is from EPA.  Thus, any mistaken assumption would be EPA’s mistaken assumption.  Otherwise, the remaining data is from actual public announcements detailing the imminent or highly possible closure of specific units at specific power-plants.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) projected that most power-plants will retire because of EPA 316(b) cooling tower regulations.  Does this list account for the fact that EPA has since indicated it will pursue less stringent 316(b) regulations?

This list only includes the parsed files for EPA’s Transport Rule and Toxics Rule modeling.  EPA’s modeling for the 316(b) is not included.  Public unit retirement announcements largely cited the Transport Rule and Toxics Rule as causing a unit to retire; there is little discussion of 316(b) regulations.  This is likely due to the fact that EPA ultimately chose to pursue less stringent cooling tower rules than the Agency originally insinuated.  Regardless, all of the publically announced plant retirements listed are retiring due to EPA regulations.

This list compares its total numbers to NERC’s worst case analysis.  Does that include NERC’s analysis of 316(b) regulations?

No.  The NERC analysis was broken down between the Transport Rule, the Toxics Rule and 316(b) regulations.  The chart compares the list only to the NERC Transport Rule and Toxic Rule “strict,” or worst case, scenarios.

 

 

 

Author:
IER Webmng
  • Pingback: Obama Raises Energy Costs | I. M. Citizen

  • Pingback: Effect of an Energy Price Increase on Real Economic Growth | budbromley

  • Pingback: Bananas Foster Is Beating His Head Against The Wall Again…

  • Pingback: Chandler's Watch » Blog Archive » Obama’s “War On Coal” and The 2012 Election

  • Pingback: The Big Fail: Summer Of Despair For Coal - GOP

  • Pingback: Flashback: It’s not statism ’til your lights don’t work | Captain America's Wife

  • truckersagainstobama

    Ralph- you fool. You have no idea the amount of energy it takes to build “green energy” wind farms or solar panels. We don’t have the energy output from so-called “green” energy to replace these plants. Once off line, they degrade quickly and most cannot be put back into service. We will not be able to recover from this. And, based upon your remarks, I suspect you will be the first to agree to rolling brown and blackouts during the winter and summer months since “everyone lives downstream…” FOOL

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GTWW5A7R5VGLQNGMPQ3OMH5CJ4 egoist_capitalist

    Thank you Prez Nixon! It took a little while: disconnected $US from gold – ruined the money. Created EPA – kills millions w/ ban of DDT, and worst of all!!!: the smart phones will cost too much to recharge. Now there’s a crisis.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sovereign.davidmichael Sovereign Man David-Michael

    If I were an owner of Anyone of these COAL fired plants, This is what I would do as recoil, I would meet with all the other coal plant owners, and agree, Its Pointless to provide service any longer for America, We all agree? And Shut down All Power output at once, Close doors and let the country SCREAM for a WEEK in the cold and DARK, After a Week Of Screaming, Obama and His Cronies, will resign like Nixon…This is an all out assualt, So fight it like one, Sometimes you have to make sacrifices to make a point, I am willing to go without, even If i have to sesort to Lighting up a Woodburner stove to stay warm…People have lost site to their past…This country hasn’t always had electricity, we used to live by candle light, Even the AMISH do well without it, Its not the end of the world, The Amish prove you can’t hold power over them in the Form of Electricity….Sometimes people need to suffer to show them who the trouble makers really are…..Hey don’t take me seriously, But after looking at this, if this trend moves forward and it looks like it WILL, I see a few things going down, in the next couple of years or sooner, Old People will be Bitching about PRICES, especially on fixed income…LMAO, The wealthy, they have no worries, BUT If these Plants do go down as projected, I SEE THE LIGHTS GOING OUT, LMAO……Now thats leveling the playing field, Rich People NO LIGHTS, Hahaha…And when they find out it was Obama’s plan…LMAO…Skin a cat….He should be impeached if he even said it…

  • Pingback: Bananas Foster Is Pushing His Dopey Assault On Utility Profits Again