Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Northeastern Coal Plant Retirement Announced in Oklahoma

Energy
Northeastern Coal Plant Retirement Announced in Oklahoma

Sierra Club

Sierra Club joined Gov. Mary Fallin, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and American Electric Power subsidiary Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (AEP-PSO) yesterday in announcing an agreement in principle in pending federal court litigation over the state's clean air protections. The agreement sets firm dates for retiring both units at AEP-PSO’s Northeastern coal-fired power plant near Oologah, Okla. The plant’s retirement is a major victory for public health in Oklahoma, as reducing the number of coal-fired power plants will both reduce harmful emissions and will pave the way for clean energy. The Northeastern Plant is the 107th coal plant to retire since the Beyond Coal campaign began.

“Oklahoma must move beyond coal, and AEP-PSO is taking a strong first step here,” said Whitney Pearson with Sierra Club. "Today's announcement paves the way for resolving long-standing public health concerns about PSO's Northeastern coal plant, and shines a bright spotlight on the other two coal plants owned by OGE. Litigation over OGE's two coal plants continues."

Pearson added, “EPA has done a great job here working with a utility to create a responsible retirement plan. We commend the EPA and Governor Mary Fallin for their leadership in this settlement. AEP-PSO has set a good example for OG&E, which is now the biggest polluter in Oklahoma.”

Under the agreement between the U.S. EPA and Public Services Company of Oklahoma, the first 473 megawatt coal-burning unit at the Northeastern Plant will be retired by Dec. 31, 2017. The second unit, also 473 megawatts, will remain online but will have pollution controls installed by Dec. 31, 2017. Between 2017 and 2026, AEP-PSO will dramatically reduce the amount of coal burned at the unit until it is decommissioned no later than Dec. 31, 2026.

“This retirement schedule creates ample opportunity for AEP-PSO to prioritize its workers,” said Charles Wesner, chair of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra Club. “Sierra Club calls on AEP-PSO to keep existing workers employed while decommissioning the plant and strive to keep as many workers as possible employed in new, clean energy projects in Oklahoma. With our tremendous wind, solar and energy efficiency potential, AEP-PSO should be able to create jobs and keep these workers employed.”

Currently, Oklahoma has six coal-fired power plants that collectively emit significant amounts of soot, smog and mercury pollution. Coal-fired power plants are a major contributor of ozone-forming pollution, and 2011 air quality data has shown that Tulsa and Oklahoma City exceeded federal limits on ozone pollution, threatening Oklahoma’s most vulnerable citizens, such as children, the elderly, and people who work or exercise outdoors. Ozone pollution is worsened during periods of high temperatures, meaning the summer of 2012 may be one of the worst ozone seasons in Oklahoma history.

Oklahoma has significant clean energy potential, which could power the state while protecting public health. Oklahoma’s wind resources rank ninth in the U.S., with more than 50,000 megawatts of wind power potential. Wind power in Oklahoma supports thousands of jobs, and according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind can provide more than 31 times as much electricity as Oklahoma currently uses. States such as Alabama are already purchasing Oklahoma wind power.

For more information, click here.

With restaurants and supermarkets becoming less viable options during the pandemic, there has been a growth in demand and supply of local food. Baker County Tourism Travel Baker County / Flickr

By Robin Scher

Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A technician inspects a bitcoin mining operation at Bitfarms in Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec on March 19, 2018. LARS HAGBERG / AFP via Getty Images

As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.

Read More Show Less
OR-93 traveled hundreds of miles from Oregon to California. Austin Smith Jr. / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs / California Department of Fish and Wildlife

An Oregon-born wolf named OR-93 has sparked conservation hopes with a historic journey into California.

Read More Show Less
A plume of exhaust extends from the Mitchell Power Station, a coal-fired power plant built along the Monongahela River, 20 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, on Sept. 24, 2013 in New Eagle, Pennsylvania. The plant, owned by FirstEnergy, was retired the following month. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

By David Drake and Jeffrey York

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The Big Idea

People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.

Read More Show Less