• 5 minutes Desperate Call or... Erdogan Says Turkey Will Boycott U.S. Electronics
  • 11 minutes Don't Expect Too Much: Despite a Soaring Economy, America's Annual Pay Increase Isn't Budging
  • 15 minutes WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 12 hours The EU Loses The Principles On Which It Was Built
  • 3 hours Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 5 hours Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 20 hours Crude Price going to $62.50
  • 7 hours Why hydrogen economics does not work
  • 4 hours Tesla Faces 3 Lawsuits Over “Funding Secured” Tweet
  • 4 hours Again Google: Brazil May Probe Google Over Its Cell Phone System
  • 2 days Anyone Worried About the Lira Dragging EVERYTHING Else Down?
  • 17 hours WSJ *still* refuses to acknowledge U.S. Shale Oil industry's horrible economics and debts
  • 1 day Chinese EV Startup Nio Files for $1.8 billion IPO
  • 2 days Oil prices---Tug of War: Sanctions vs. Trade War
  • 2 days Correlation does not equal causation, but they do tend to tango on occasion
  • 2 days Russia retaliate: Our Response to U.S. Sanctions Will Be Precise And Painful

New EPA Rules Could See the West's Largest Coal Power Plant Shut Down by 2017

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new plan to clean the air in the national parks of Arizona; a move that could force the largest coal-fired power plant in the West out of business.

Owners of the plant fear that the proposal could push them into an unprofitable situation which would force a shutdown of the plant as soon as 2017.

George Hardeen, a spokesman for the plant, has admitted that “the critical issue is the timing of it. If the EPA requires it to be done within a short period of time, it becomes economically non-viable.”

The plant burns eight million tonnes of coal a year, and provides power to Arizona, Nevada, and California, as well as most of the power used in the Central Arizona Project, which supplies water to Phoenix.

The new EPA rules will require the installation of new pollution controls which are estimated to cost $1.1 billion. The owners of the plant say that it would be financially non beneficial to invest such a large sum when their lease for the land of the plant expires in 2019, and as of yet no deal has been agreed for an extension. Without a guarantee of that lease extension the money will not be invested and the plant will be closed.

Hardeen explained that, “you'd be putting a big expense out and not know if you'll be getting that expense back over time.”

By. Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • dralston on July 26 2012 said:
    Is there some reason not to mention the name of the power plant or the location? George Hardeen must be the spokesman for ??

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News