Protesters at AMP's Columbus office
March 31, 2008, by Beth Sergent, The Daily Sentinel http://mydailysentinel.com/articles/2008/03/31/news/news01.txtCOLUMBUS - On Friday, around 35 environmental activists protested at the corporate offices of American Municipal Power-Ohio in Columbus to demand a meeting with CEO Marc Gerken about the company's plans to build a coal-fired power plant in Letart Falls.
Kent D. Carson, communications director with AMP-Ohio, said Gerken agreed to meet with two of the protesters while others waited outside with signs. Carson said the protesters were ultimately demanding time to make a presentation in front of the company's board of trustees. Carson said Gerken pointed out that wasn't his call to make, that decision fell to the chairman of the board.
However, Carson said Gerken told the protesters he would make the request to the board on their behalf and although he couldn't guarantee it, he felt "reasonably sure" the protesters would be permitted to make a presentation. This presentation, if approved, would likely take place at the next board meeting in May.
Carson pointed out AMP-Ohio's board of trustees are municipal officials, many of whom have attended public council meetings where both AMP and its opponents have made public presentations on the power plant. Carson said he and other employees have been to over 80 city council meetings to make public presentations on the plant; presentations which have been open to public scrutiny and comment.
The protesters belong to a group called "Mountain Justice" which is described by member Adam Stephenson as "Appalachian based" with active members in West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. Stephenson said during Friday's protest there were no protesters from Meigs County though Mountain Justice does have members who live in the county. Due to what he called "legal issues" some members have with AMP-Ohio, Stephenson said he requested local members not attend Friday's protest.
Stephenson also said last Thursday his group went on a "listening project," speaking to residents in Letart Falls and Antiquity about how they felt about the power plant and proposed coal mining in the area which are two separate projects by two separate companies. A follow up was done this past Saturday.
Stephenson said the group wishes to make the presentation in the hopes the company might find a greener alternative to building a coal-fired power plant. He added, AMP is the leading investor in Ohio in green energy and felt they might at least be willing to listen to alternatives.
Ratepayer Risk: New Study, Internal Docs Show AMP Electric Costs Spiraling
February 19, 2008, InfoZine http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/27081/Homeowners and businesses in Ohio could find themselves on the hook for soaring electricity costs and stuck with mounting financial liabilities associated with a giant new power plant in Meigs County. That is the finding of a new report released today on the financial impact of an American Municipal Power (AMP) pulverized coal plant that would sell power to utilities in more than 70 communities across the state. Additionally, an AMP document obtained by NRDC via a public records request confirms that the cost of the plant is skyrocketing and has increased $400 million over the last seven months alone.
"$3.3 billion never looked this bad. For that kind of price tag, AMP should be offering cutting edge technology. Instead all they are giving you is a dirty plant running on outdated technology," said NRDC staff attorney Shannon Fisk. "They can do far better before tapping into ratepayers' wallets for the next 50 years. The new AMP documents confirm what we have been saying all along -- this plant is a large financial risk that will burden ratepayers who will be forced to pay the costs for decades to come."
New Analysis Reveals Mounting Financial Risk
Respected research firm Synapse Energy Economics has released a report that spotlights the real and rising costs of the plant. The report outlines the significant risks involved with investment in a conventional coal plant in today's volatile energy landscape. It also notes considerable concerns over AMP's 50-year contract term, rising construction costs and global warming emissions, as well as the value of pursuing cleaner alternatives to coal.
Significant findings include:
Construction costs for this plant are growing at an alarming rate. AMP's price estimates have risen by 180% in just over two years. The initial estimate came in at $1.2 billion in October of 2005. By May of 2007, the estimate had ballooned to $2.7 billion (including financing). One month later, the estimate grew another $200 million. And according to AMP the current estimate has moved up to $3.39 billion. AMP's contract pushes these price increases back on municipalities and rate payers.
CO2 cost estimates are not accurate. AMP agrees that new rules limiting heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution will likely be in place by 2012. They estimate the cost of addressing their global warming emissions at around $73 million dollars for the 7.367 million tons of CO2 that the plant will emit annually. Synapse offered low, mid, and high-level estimates. At the mid-level, Synapse estimates a cost of $287 million (nearly 300% more than AMP). And at the high-level, Synapse estimates a cost of $500 million (a 580% increase over AMP's numbers). Due to AMP's "take and pay" contract, rate payers are likely to be stuck paying for those increases.
Cleaner and more efficient technologies are coming online and should be fully evaluated in order to avoid and minimize the financial risks posed by the AMP coal plant. These alternatives include energy efficiency and demand-side management programs, renewable resources, purchasing or contracting for energy and capacity from underused natural gas-fired power plants in the region, and, if necessary, building new gas-fired capacity. A portfolio of these alternatives would offer more flexibility and would limit municipal members' exposure to the coming federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
"The energy landscape has shifted to cleaner technology and escalating costs make betting on this plant for the next half century look pretty scary," said NRDC staff attorney Shannon Fisk.
Full document is available here: Synapse Study on AMP Ohio Coal Plant ( PDF ).
Internal Report Underscore Rising Risks
Through a Public Records Request NRDC has gained access to a redacted version of an updated AMP feasibility study. While significant information is blacked out, the document does include some very significant details:
The document confirms plant opponents' concerns about growing construction costs. As noted by Synapse, the prices have increased dramatically, from $1.2 billion in October 2005 to nearly $3.4 billion (with financing costs) - an increase of more than 180 percent - in less than 30 months.
AMP concedes they will be unlikely to secure a fixed price construction contract. This means that as construction prices continue to grow, the cost escalations will be absorbed by municipalities and ratepayers.
AMP has redacted their projected coal prices. But just last week Forbes magazine reported that coal prices will likely double by 2009. The Wall Street Journal this week reported that some coal futures on the New York Mercantile exchange have doubled since 2007 and Chinese demand is likely to push prices by up to 40 percent in the coming months.
AMP has acknowledged that they will likely use an eastern blend of coal to fuel the plant. Much of this coal would come from Central Appalachia, where coal is often mined through the environmentally destructive method of mountaintop removal. AMP has so far refused to commit to not using coal mined through mountaintop removal.
"The company's own internal documents confirm what ratepayers and municipalities have been worried about for months. Ratepayers around Ohio are going to be stuck paying too much for electricity that is too dirty and too expensive for their needs. This plant will be a giant step backward for the entire state in the new energy economy," said Andrew Wetzler, director of NRDC's Columbus Field Office. "The energy landscape has changed. Instead of recognizing the issue, AMP is asking more than 70 Ohio municipalities to lock into a 19th century technology for the next half century. We can do better."
"This is a bad deal," said Fisk. "Municipal governments should look closely for better alternatives rather than locking themselves in to a dirty coal plant for the next two generations."
Related Link
Full document (PDF)
Proposed Plants Face Opposition in Meigs
January 20, 2008, by Richard Heck, The Athens Messenger http://www.athensmessenger.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=273&ArticleID=7970Two proposed coal-burning power plants under development in Meigs County are among dozens of such projects nationwide under attack from environmental groups.
American Electric Power plans to build a 629-megawatt power plant in the Great Bend area along the Ohio River, while American Municipal Power-Ohio is seeking approval of a 960-megawatt power plant in Letart Falls.
Opposition to the AEP proposal so far seems to be substantially less than that of the AMP-Ohio project, which several local, state and national environmental and consumer groups oppose.
"We've had several public hearings, and while some people spoke against it, many more spoke out in favor," said Jeff Rennie of AEP. Rennie speculated that it is the nature of AEP's proposal that could be the reason for the lesser opposition.
According to the company, the Meigs County plant and a similar power plant under development in West Virginia will use integrated gasification combined cycle, clean-coal technology. The process results in reduced emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, mercury and carbon dioxide.
So far, the most opposition to the AEP proposal has come from consumer groups, who filed a lawsuit challenging the company's plan to charge customers for more than $23 million in research and other pre-construction costs.
One local group, Meigs Citizens Action Network, known as MeigsCAN, opposes both projects and a West Virginia company that wants to mine coal in Meigs County, some of which may used by the new power plants.
Elisa Young, a member of MeigsCAN, said the group opposes the power plants and the proposed mining of coal in Meigs County because of a variety of reasons, including the possible impact on health of residents and negative impact the projects may have on the environment.
"The majority of the leadership in Meigs County has gotten behind the power plants," Young said. "Our community group came up with a whole page of concerns."
Young and other members of her group have attended public hearings and other regulatory meetings in Meigs County and Columbus regarding the plant. One issue, Young noted, is that besides the two power plants proposed for Meigs County, others are being proposed across the Ohio River in West Virginia.
"The river is no boundary," Young said.
Several other larger environmental groups are vigorously opposed to AMP-Ohio's power plant.
Last month, the Ohio Environmental Council and the national Natural Resources Defense Council filed concerns with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency over AMP-Ohio's plans. The company is waiting on Ohio EPA approval for an air permit as part of the regulatory process.
The two environmental groups say the plans for the power plant use "outdated" technology that could generate as much as 400 million tons of carbon dioxide in its lifetime, seriously affecting the health of Meigs County residents and creating environmental damage.
However, AMP-Ohio's Web site says the plant is being "designed to include state-of-the-art emissions control equipment and processes." The company is proposing use of Powerspan ECO-SO2 technology.
Kent Carson, spokesman for AMP-Ohio, said the company disagrees with the claims made by the two groups, especially the Ohio Environmental Council.
"We have not negotiated with them, and they have expressed some opposition, which is not unexpected," Carson said. "They have not acknowledged our efforts, and that is disappointing."
The technology to be used reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury and small particles, Carson said. The Ohio Environmental Council wants AMP-Ohio to use technology at the Meigs facility that is similar to that being employed by AEP, he said.
Carson said that public hearings about the power plant held in Meigs County generated some opposition, "but the vast majority of those who spoke were very supportive."
One reason for that support is that either project could generate hundreds of construction jobs for job-starved Meigs County, both power companies claim.
AEP estimates its power plant would cost about $1.03 billion to build, while AMP-Ohio's project carries a $1.2 billion price tag.
"Clean Coal" Plants Hitting Snags
Higher construction costs, global warming are hurdlesFriday, January 11, 2008 by Spencer Hunt, The Columbus Dispatch full article here
Plans once touted as environmentally friendly ways to burn coal to produce electricity are falling victim to rising construction costs and the unknown expense of trapping global-warming gases.
For clean-air advocates, the issue is simple: "There's no such thing as clean coal," said Bruce Nilles, who directs the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign.
For consumers, however, the whole thing might seem a bit more complicated and expensive.
Clean is the word that power companies use to describe coal-fired plants they want to build to address our insatiable demand for electricity. These plants turn coal into a gas and release far fewer toxins than traditional plants.
But how clean is clean? And why are plans to build these plants falling apart?
Spiraling construction costs and questions about carbon dioxide emissions -- a leading global-warming contributor -- already have delayed plans to build dozens of traditional coal-burning power plants nationwide. Plans for at least 11 coal-to-gas plants have been scrapped or delayed.
A coal-gas plant that Cincinnati-based Global Energy wants to build in Lima has been delayed for years. Yesterday, the Sierra Club threatened to sue the company if it does not apply for a new air-pollution permit.
Officials at Columbus-based American Electric Power say they remain committed to building two coal-gas plants along the Ohio River, though construction estimates have risen by nearly $1 billion for each plant over three years. A legal dispute over the company's plans to pay for one plant planned for Meigs County has delayed that project pending an Ohio Supreme Court ruling.
"It's a good investment in the long run," said Pat Hemlepp, an AEP spokesman.
Why? To meet nationwide demand, which is expected to grow 41 percent by 2030, and it's probably cheaper to add carbon dioxide-reducing equipment to new plants than to older plants.
Though coal-gas plants eliminate pollutants that contribute to smog and acid rain -- federal clean-air restrictions call for this -- Nilles said carbon-dioxide emissions still make them "dirty."
"None of these plants are doing anything about carbon dioxide yet," he said.
In fact, these plants would produce an estimated 4 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. Coal-gas plants would emit the same amount of carbon dioxide as traditional power plants, Nilles said.
Federal officials have yet to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, though they're expected to do so.
Some states have imposed limits. In October, Tampa Electric Co. scrapped plans for a 630-megawatt clean-coal plant after Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signed an order lowering global-warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2025.
Rising costs of steel, concrete and labor helped push the cost to produce a kilowatt of electricity from a coal-gas plant from $1,600 in 2004 to $3,300 last year, said Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm to the power industry.
That increase could make the electricity these plants produce more expensive for consumers.
Tampa Electric's plant would have cost $2 billion. "Ultimately, our customers were going to have to pay for it," said spokesman Rick Morera.
Other companies, including Phoenix-based Southwestern Power Group, had no place to trap the carbon dioxide. Some companies say they can inject the gas into spent oil wells or deep-underground aquifers. The idea is being tested in Ohio.
Neither option was available for a coal-gas plant Southwestern wanted to build near Bowie, Ariz., said spokesman Ian Calkins. In August, the company decided instead to build a natural-gas plant that it says will emit less than half as much carbon dioxide as traditional plants.
Hemlepp said AEP's proposed plants are in regions where carbon dioxide could be stored underground, lowering the cost of reducing emissions.
The company is moving ahead with plans to build a plant in West Virginia's Mason County. Hemlepp said AEP hopes to break ground this year and have the plant running by 2012.
AEP put on hold plans for the Meigs County plant while it awaits the state high court's ruling on whether the company can collect $23.7 million in research and development costs from customers before the plant is built.
Ohio Consumers' Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander said the company should bear the costs until the new plant is proven to be useful.
Residents speak out about proposed coal-fired facility
November 2, 2007, Becca Bothius, Brown News Service http://athensnews.com/index.php?action=viewarticle§ion=archives&story_id=29699POMEROY — Community members for and against a proposed coal-fired power plant in Meigs County gave sworn testimony Thursday at a public hearing of the Ohio Power Siting Board held at Meigs High School.
"This is the public's opportunity to let the board know what (they) think about the proposed facility," said Gregory Price, an administrative law judge.
In May, American Municipal Power-Ohio applied for permission to build two 480-megawatt electric generation units at Meigs County's Letart Falls, and for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to construct the power plant. The hearing testimony will be used in the board's decision-making process.
Trade union members encouraged the board to approve the plant, which would create jobs close to their homes. Dencil Hudson of Syracuse said he has worked 20 of the past 23 years outside Meigs County.
Troy Ferrell, president of the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said many of his members are in similar situations, which puts strains on families and the community.
"The economic impact of this facility is no secret, and the benefit to our county will be great," said County Commissioner Mick Davenport, noting that Meigs County has one of the highest percentages of poverty in Ohio.
But Elisa Young of Racine, who opposes the plant, asserted that Meigs County also has the highest rates of lung cancer and cancer in adult males in the state as well. Other residents expressed similar concerns about the long-term health and environmental effects of building a fifth coal-fired plant within 10 miles.
AMP-Ohio has described the proposed plant as "one of the cleanest facilities of its type in the nation."
"I believe that what we're confronting here is a false choice between jobs for 100 to 150 people versus the environment and health of all residents of Southeast Ohio and future generations," said Catherine Cutcher of Rutland, adding that the proposal was like "dangling a poison carrot in front of a starving rabbit."
Bill Price of West Virginia said people mistakenly assume they must choose between the economy and the environment. "We have got to find a way to have good-paying, long-lasting union-organized jobs … and we've got to do it without poisoning our children," he said.
But Jeff Circle, a union construction worker from Long Bottom, said these job opportunities have not been made available. "If they want to have renewable energy sources, we'll be happy to help them with that, too. But, so far, no one has stepped up with those ideas and brought them forth," Circle said.
Many supporters of the plant, however, said AMP-Ohio's current proposal is good as is.
"I think anybody that reads the news is concerned about global warming. Clean coal technology must be a part of the solution," Davenport said.
Cutcher disagreed with the term "clean coal."
"Pollution caused by generating electricity from coal does not start or stop at the power plant," she said. "There is no such thing as ‘clean coal.'"
Circle said the hearing was "very energetic."
"It wouldn't be the first time people have disagreed on something. I think we're all reasonable people and we're pretty resilient here in Southeastern Ohio. We'll get by," he said.
The next step in the process, an adjudicatory hearing, will be held Thursday at 8 a.m. at the offices of the Public Utilities Commission in Columbus.
EPA says it's still undecided on permit for Meigs County power plant
Monday, October 29th, 2007, By Mike Ludwig, The Athens News http://athensnews.com/index.php?action=viewarticle§ion=archives&story_id=29699Around 100 people attended a public hearing in Meigs County last Thursday on an Ohio Environmental Protection Agency draft permit to allow American Municipal Power to produce air pollutants at a coal-burning power plant the company has proposed to build along Route 124 near Letart Falls.
Attendees were invited to ask questions and submit oral and written testimonies to the state EPA during a comment period that revealed deep public opposition to bringing a new coal-burning facility to the economically depressed county.
The meeting included an EPA presentation on the process of issuing AMP's temporary "permit-to-install" as well as information on the "Best Available Control Technology" that would be required to reduce emissions of certain pollutants created by the AMP plant.
These technologies include "good combustion practices" in the dual-boiler facility, "low NOx (nitrogen oxide) burners," continuous emissions monitoring, and either ammonia or limestone scrubbers to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.
"We have not made our minds up either way," EPA Division of Air Quality representative Jed Thorp said of the decision to deny, approve or amend the permit.
If issued as it is currently drafted, the EPA's permit for the AMP facility would allow the annual release of 3,194 tons of nitrogen oxide, 6,820 tons of sulfur dioxide, 1,182 tons of "particulate matter," 7,009 tons of carbon monoxide, 44 tons of lead, 343 tons of "sulfuric acid mist," and 172 pounds of mercury.
Neither the federal EPA nor the state EPA has required AMP and other power companies to limit the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main pollutant that many scientists, environmentalists and public officials believe is the main cause of global warming.
That is in serious dispute, however, with skeptics questioning whether the problem is as serious as framed by those they consider global-warming alarmists. And even if it is, they argue that the proposed solutions could cripple the economy while not making a dent in climate change.
But the tide of scientific and public opinion seems to be moving toward a rough consensus that carbon dioxide emissions must be curtailed. And the Appalachian Ohio Sierra Club has alleged that the AMP plant would produce at least 7.3 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.
The EPA's Thorp and his colleagues said that, as proposed, the plant would not create enough pollution to put the region in violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a federally created set of standards aimed at protecting public health.
"They basically passed," state EPA representative Rod Windle told an audience member who raised concerns about the cumulative impacts of the coal industry in the Ohio River valley. "We considered all the plants on this river and all the other plants contained on this grid, and we did have an accumulative analysis."
Another audience member asked Windle what would happen to pollutants, such as mercury, after they are released from the AMP facility.
"The mercury will get into the atmosphere, and like a lot of pollutants become part of clouds and be washed back with the rain and water," Windle said.
Several labor representatives and members of the Meigs County Chamber of Commerce supported the draft permit during the comment portion of the hearing. They claimed that AMP is committed to using new pollution-control technologies and creating about 150 permanent jobs while contributing an annual $20 million to their struggling local economy.
"We don't have a power plant; that's why we're so poor," said Meigs County Commissioner Mick Davenport. "I believe the location of this (global-warming) battle should be moved from Racine to Beijing, where BBC reports that one to two power plants go on line every day."
Harold Kneen, president of the Meigs County Chamber of Commerce, said the plant would reduce the county's unemployment rate and that workers in Meigs have the skills needed to build and operate the facility.
Other attendees disagreed with Kneen and Davenport, saying the plant will only increase toxic emissions in an over-polluted area and support environmentally hazardous coal-mining methods, such as "mountaintop removal."
Opponents also claimed that investing in alternative energy sources could yield more economic benefits than those of coal power.
"AMP is not using any groundbreaking new technologies," maintained Mary Beth Lohse, a Meigs County resident and member of the Ohio chapter of the Sierra Club. "This is only a pulverized coal plant, and according to the permit, will be emitting thousands of tons of pollution each year."
Lohse called on the EPA and the energy industry to invest in "energy efficiency" and alternative-energy sources, such as wind power, which could create more jobs than creating electricity by burning coal.
Other opponents were concerned about the effects a new power plant could have on human health.
"It is unjust to expect low-income communities to have the burden of disproportionate levels of pollution, especially when the product is being exported to other communities," said Catherine Cutcher, an environmental activist and resident of Rutland.
Cutcher said Meigs County already has four other coal-burning power plants within a 10-mile radius.
"These plants are known to pollute the air and water, and many residents are suffering from cancer," Cutcher said.
The Ohio EPA is accepting comments on the draft permit for the AMP facility through Nov. 30. Comments should be written and mailed to Dean Ponchak, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Southeast District Office, 2195 Front St., Logan, OH 43138.
Environmental group speaks out against coal-burning plant
October 9th, 2007 by Bob Downing, Akron Beacon Journal http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/10333997.html?page=1&c=yA national environmental group is on the warpath against a new coal-burning power plant in southern Ohio, but Akron-area communities, including Cuyahoga Falls and Wadsworth, that are investing in the $2.5 billion project are not swayed.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is raising questions about American Municipal Power of Ohio (AMP-Ohio) and its plans to build a power plant that would burn pulverized coal near Racine in Meigs County.
"We have serious concerns about the plant's economic and environmental impacts," said Shannon Fisk of the NRDC's Chicago office. "We're urging communities to say no and explore better alternatives."
But AMP-Ohio is very happy with its project and intends to proceed, said spokesman Kent Carson.
AMP-Ohio is a Columbus-based wholesale power supplier. It operates a coal-fired plant near Marietta, a hydroelectric project on the Ohio River and Ohio's first commercial wind farm near Bowling Green.
The new 1,000-megawatt plant involving 75 communities in Ohio and 12 others in Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Virginia is expected to open in 2013.
Local communities investing in the project and planning to get its electricity are Cuyahoga Falls, Wadsworth, Hudson, Orrville, Seville, Lodi, Brewster and Beach City.
Wadsworth has no reservations about the project, said Service Director Chris Easton.
Cuyahoga Falls is also very satisfied with the plan and has approved the contract for what will be cheaper peak-demand power, said Bob Bye, superintendent of the electric department.
Hudson is still reviewing final details of the project, said city spokesperson Jody Roberts.
Fisk said the plant would rely on an unproven clean-air technology, would be a new major source of global-warming gases, would be dirtier than more advanced technologies and could require coal mined by environment-damaging mountaintop removal.
The plant is also financially risky to participating communities, because they are locking themselves into 50-year contracts, he said.
Those contracts require the communities to buy a set amount of power every year, even if they don't need it or if less costly alternatives are available, he said.
The communities would be required under the contracts to pay for escalating plant costs and could face major additional costs in the future to control emissions of carbon dioxide, a key global warming gas, he said.
The plant would generate about 7.3 million tons of carbon dioxide, Fisk said, and there are no immediate plans to deal with those emissions.
His group suggests that there are more desirable alternatives to burning coal for electricity, including natural gas, wind, solar and biomass.
His group is pushing local communities to defer making decisions on contracts with AMP-Ohio and suggesting they commission a study of the Meigs County plant and alternatives.
Communities can withdraw from the project with no penalty before March 1, he said.
Fisk has visited a number of AMP-Ohio communities, including Cleveland, Oberlin, Bowling Green and Westerville, and has sent NRDC information sheets to Hudson, Cuyahoga Falls, Wadsworth, Painesville, Amherst and others.
To date, no participating community has said no to the project, although it is being reviewed in some communities, Carson said.
AMP-Ohio needs communities to sign long-term contracts to arrange financing, he said.
The plant will be new, clean and efficient and will enable member communities to stop buying electricity on the open market from older, dirty power plants, he said.
Coal is still a needed and desirable fuel source in Ohio and the Midwest, he said.
Plans for the Meigs County plant include new equipment to remove the sulfur dioxide that contributes to acid rain, unhealthy air and poor visibility.
The plant would rely on New Hampshire-based Powerspan Corp. emissions controls. The system, called Electro-Catalytic Oxidation, controls multiple pollutants and produces a waste product that can be used as fertilizer. FirstEnergy Corp. has been helping test the system at its RE. Burger Power plant in Belmont County. Similar equipment is to be installed at the Burger plant.
The Meigs County plant would be designed so carbon dioxide could also be captured in the future, Carson said.
No coal contracts have been signed, so it's impossible to say whether the plant would add to mountaintop removal, he said.
The decision on coal contracts would be made by a committee of participating communities, he said.
The NRDC attack comes as "no surprise," Carson said, but AMP-Ohio is "a little disappointed in some of the arguments."
"This is a good project that has been thoroughly reviewed," he said. "It's a little frustrating to be criticized."
Despite pleas, coal-fired power OK'd in Oberlin
October 2nd, 2007 by Cindy Leise, The Chronicle Telegram http://www.chroniclet.com/2007/10/02/despite-pleas-coal-fired-power-okd-in-oberlin/OBERLIN - In a compromise that made no one happy, Oberlin City Council voted 4-to-3 Monday to commit to purchasing power from a new coal-fired power plant in southern Ohio.
Community members made impassioned pleas for Council to back away from the 40-year commitment to coal because of the carbon imprint on the environment and impact on global warming.
Alternatives and conservation were a better choice rather than committing to the plant, which is expected to open in 2013, community members said, spurring the audience of 60 or so people to clap and cheer.
"You can buy into 19th century technology or have the courage and the smarts to buy into 21st century technology," said Oberlin College Professor David Orr, who was featured in Leonardo DiCaprio's documentary called "The 11th Hour."
But the four Council members who voted to authorize a power sales contract with American Municipal Power — Ohio (AMP-Ohio) said they feared leaving the community without affordable power. The commitment over 40 years for the AMP-Ohio plant is estimated at $36 million.
Councilwoman Eve Sandberg, a politics professor at Oberlin College, said she questioned experts in hopes of finding affordable alternatives but came up empty-handed.
"It came nowhere near providing the amount of power we need for this community," Sandberg said.
At her urging, Council dropped the level of power purchased from the proposed 1,000-megawatt plant from 12 kilowatts to 9 kilowatts, saying "I don't want to have businesses and individuals in this community worried we will not have power."
Council has until March 1 to opt out of the project, but it could not have gotten in and then had the choice to withdraw had it not approves the sales contract Monday.
Council President Daniel Gardener, and Councilmen David Ashenhurst and Charles Peterson voted against the plan. Voting for it were Council Vice President Ronnie Rimbert, Sandberg, and Councilmen Everett Tyree and Tony Mealy.
Rimbert said he was emotionally torn after hearing an impassioned plea from Elisa Young, who lives near the proposed site in Meigs County in southeastern Ohio.
"We would have nine power plants within a 10-mile radius of where my family has owned a farm for generations," said Young, whose family got the land from fighting in the Revolutionary War.
With tears rolling from her eyes, Young showed Council photos of soot coming out of smokestacks even after scrubbers were placed on existing plants.
"I'm sorry but I'm pretty upset about being dumped on like this because of cheap electricity," said Young, who said the area had the highest rates in the country for premature deaths.
Before the meeting, Steve Dupee, director of the Oberlin Municipal Light and Power System, said he and acting city manager Gary Boyle are working with Gardener, Orr and other staff from Oberlin College in hopes of finding alternatives and to promote conservation.
The cost of power in Oberlin is about 25 percent lower than in community without a power plant or for those that contract with different suppliers than AMP-Ohio, Dupee said.
Plant not worth cost of air fix, group says
September 24, S. Hunt, Columbus DispatchAn environmental group that helped scuttle 10 proposed power plants in Florida and Texas is trying to do the same to one in Ohio.
A 1,000-megawatt, coal-fired plant planned along the Ohio River in Meigs County is intended to help meet growing demand for electricity. It would cost $2.5 billion and produce enough power for up to 1 million homes.
The plant proposed by American Municipal Power, a cooperative of local governments, also would be a significant source of smog and soot, according to a draft permit issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
It wouldn't produce as much pollution as existing power plants, but the Natural Resources Defense Council says that the new plant's carbon-dioxide emissions, which are not regulated by the state, are a big concern.
The New York group also says that cities that buy into the proposed plant could get stuck with an unexpected, hefty bill to combat climate change.
It says that expected federal limits on carbon dioxide, a key gas that causes global warming, could add hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unplanned costs to the plant project.
Many utility officials and advocates think Congress soon will pass a law restricting carbon-dioxide emissions. That could force power companies to spend billions to capture carbon dioxide, likely raising the price of electricity.
The Defense Council says the added costs would make the plant too expensive for the residents of Westerville, Cleveland and 75 other Ohio communities that buy electricity from the nonprofit company, said Shannon Fisk, an attorney for the council.
"That cost is a huge uncertainty," Fisk said.
American Municipal Power officials say they've tried to factor the cost of global warming into their plans and don't think it will derail them.
"We're aware of what's going on industrywide, but we have to focus on Ohio," said spokesman Kent Carson. "We feel pretty comfortable."
The company wants to start generating power at the plant in 2013.
Demand for electricity among residential users nationwide is expected to grow 36 percent by 2030, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says.
American Municipal Power is a wholesaler of electricity that supplies power to 119 cities in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.
A copy of the Meigs County plant's draft air permit shows it would emit lower levels of pollution than older, similar-size power plants in Ohio. Many of these plants were built decades ago without modern pollution controls.
There are 27 coal-burning power plants statewide.Ohio already leads the nation in air pollution. Coal-fired power plants, chemical companies, steelmakers and other businesses spewed more than 126 million pounds of toxic chemicals and compounds in 2005.
American Municipal Power's plans come when the Ohio EPA wants the state's top 100 toxic polluters to voluntarily reduce emissions. Some advocates think the state should require deeper cuts.
The plant's permit does nothing to limit carbon dioxide, a key ingredient in global warming. Ohio coal-fired power plants release millions of pounds of it every year.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has met with officials in Westerville, Oberlin and Yellow Springs. It plans to attend similar meetings in Cleveland, Cuyahoga Falls and Bowling Green, Fisk said.
In June, Florida utility regulators rejected Florida Power and Light's proposed 1,960-megawatt plant in Glades County. The Florida Public Service Commission rejection was based in part on the unknown costs of carbon-dioxide reduction, said spokesman Todd Brown.
About a month later, a group of Florida city utilities and Walt Disney World withdrew an application to build a similar plant in Taylor County.
The Defense Council also supported the buyout of Texas' largest utility, TXU Corp. As part of the deal announced in February, TXU scrapped plans to build eight plants there.
Andrew Boatright, Westerville's electric utility manager, said the city could vote on a contract to buy a 25-megawatt share of the planned Meigs plant as early as Oct. 16.
That would replace a year-to-year agreement in which the city purchases as much as 50 megawatts a day from American Municipal Power. That accounts for about half the city's power needs, he said.
"We need to consider all of those risk factors," he said. "(Global warming) is a risk that exists, and we'll have to consider that."
Carson said that should the need arise, the plant's design will allow adding equipment to capture carbon dioxide.
As for cost, "No one knows," he said.
IGCC = CCS ?
Jul 5th, 2007 by loufuzaihttp://significantdistraction.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/igcc-ccs
AEP has had plans to build one or more IGCC plants in Ohio and/or West Virginia for several years. The proposed Great Bend IGCC Plant that is meant to be built in Meigs County Ohio was originally scheduled to be completed by 2010. Now the plans are stalled. AEP has pushed the date back at least two years. This is due in large part to a challenge to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio's (PUCO) granting AEP cost recovery for the IGCC plant. Several industrial groups and FirstEnergy have challenged PUCO's decision in the Supreme Court of Ohio (Industrial Energy Users-Ohio et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, #2006-1594). Oral arguments are scheduled for 9 October 2007.
While the case is an interesting study in regulation, degregulation, and possibly re-regulation, one fact that appears to go unmentioned is that the proposed IGCC plant will not be built with carbon dioxide capture equipment. Here is a quotation from the Ohio Power Siting Board's Staff Report of Investigation (case #06-30-EL-BGN, 28 November 2006):
"CCS equipment, such as shift reactors and CO2 compressors, would not be installed at the time of initial plant operation. However, the Applicant does intend to incorporate space in the plant layout to accommodate such equipment in the future should a decision ultimately be made to pursue CCS at this facility."
It is not just AEP. The situation appears to be the same for Duke's proposed IGCC plant in Edwardsport, Indiana. It is interesting that one of main benefits of IGCC - less expensive carbon dioxide capture - will not be realized immediately when these plants are built. Here is a link to a similar discussion on the Green Thoughts blog.
Activists aim to throw cold water on coal's revival
The Athens NewsBy Mike Ludwig, June 21, 2007
Local opponents of proposed coal-fired power plants and associated coal-mines in Meigs County will be joined by student activists from Athens and abroad beginning this summer, thanks to the Energy Justice Summer (EJS) program.
The students will support the efforts of Citizen Action NOW (Meigs CAN), a Meigs group organizing against recent proposals for developing new coal mines and coal-burning power plants along the Ohio River in Meigs County and West Virginia, according to Matt Reitman, a campus and community organizer for the Energy Justice Network (EJN), which sponsors EJS. Participants will include members of the OU chapter of the Sierra Student Coalition, Reitman confirmed.
"We are concerned about the move toward so-called 'clean-coal,' which are programs where companies mine coal in the same destructive ways they've already done for years, and burn it in a somewhat safer way," Reitman said Tuesday. "They're trying to green-wash this process and make it seem like a sustainable practice."
Supporters say the plants and coal-mining will provide a desperately needed economic boon to southeast Ohio, which is still reeling after the closure of AEP coal mines in Meigs and Vinton counties over the past decade. They also argue that promoting "clean coal" as an energy source is a good way to help distance the U.S. economy from Middle-Eastern oil.
The student activists are opting to focus on door-to-door type work instead of direct protest, according to Elisa Young, a spokesperson for Meigs CAN.
"You have to listen to what people's concerns are," said Young, who noted that "people only care about mining under homes and cemeteries." Young hopes to raise awareness about the direct connections between a recent mine proposal by Gatling Ohio LLC and the desire of several electric power companies, including American Electric Power (AEP), to build power plants in the area.
"There was no resistance to the power plants here," Young said. "There was only a reaction to the coal mining."
Young said her organization is seeking to build bridges between the students involved in EJS and her local community.
"Everything we do is community driven and based on community needs," Young said.
EJS participants will set up shop in a barn on Young's property, where they plan to create a place where young activists can live and receive training.
"We're going to use that space to its full potential," said Reitman, who said they hope to turn the barn into a center capable of hosting large events.
Both Reitman and Young said that students will continue to support grassroots campaigns to encourage clean-energy production and consumption on a large scale when they return to school.
"It's going to be activism from a distance," Young said. "We're in this for the long haul."
Reitman said EJS is part of a "broad energy justice movement" composed of similar programs and campus initiatives such as the Campus Climate Challenge, which has the support of dozens of environmental groups and even MTV.
"It's easy to plug in on a local level," said Reitman, who claimed that the energy justice movement's popularity is reflected in the many students who now volunteer their summers and spring breaks to be part of programs like EJS and Mountain Justice Summer. The latter is a sister program seeking to end the practice of mountaintop removal for the extraction of coal in West Virginia and other parts of Appalachia.
Similar initiatives to address concerns about environmental impact of the coal-fueled power industry have recently popped up in Athens, including the Residence Challenge, which encouraged Ohio University residents to conserve energy in their dormitories and apartments. OU President Roderick McDavis signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment this spring amid petitions and conferences organized by students and faculty. The Commitment holds OU responsible for evaluating its energy consumption and reducing its contribution to global warming by using fewer energy sources that produce carbon emissions.
OU currently gets all of its electricity from coal-burning power plants, including one that's owned and operated by the university. That plant mainly heats steam for heating campus buildings.
"I think it's a great symbolic step," Reitman said of McDavis' decision to join over 250 other schools in signing the Commitment. "I think there is a lot to be done in creating binding commitments and implementation. We want to work with the administrations on that."
For more information on Energy Justice Summer, Mountain Justice Summer and other youth-driven efforts to reform the energy industry, visit www.energyjustice.net/ejs.
West Virginia IGCC plant could be online in 2012
Energy Publisher Tuesday, June 19, 2007A proposed Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, clean-coal power plant in New Haven, W.Va., could be completed in mid-2012 at the earliest at a cost of approximately $2.23 billion if appropriate regulatory approvals are obtained in West Virginia and Virginia without delays, according to testimony filed with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia by Appalachian Power, an operating subsidiary of American Electric Power.
The filing with the West Virginia PSC supports the company's application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which was submitted in January 2006, to construct the 629-megawatt IGCC plant in West Virginia, and includes engineering and cost information from the recently completed engineering and design study for the project.
The filing also includes a request for the PSC to approve a cost recovery mechanism for the timely recognition in rates of the financing costs incurred during construction, and for full recognition of the plant's costs in rates after it is placed in commercial operation.
Appalachian Power proposes that future rate adjustments related to the plant be considered in conjunction with the company's annual Expanded Net Energy Cost (ENEC) filings.
In the coming weeks Appalachian Power said it plans to file an application seeking appropriate regulatory approvals related to the plant from the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
IGCC technology converts coal into a gas and moves it through pollutant-removal equipment before the gas is burned in gas turbines that drive electric generators. The heat produced by the gas turbines is recovered in boilers that produce steam to drive a steam turbine also coupled to an electric generator. The integrated process results in fewer emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates and mercury, in addition to lower carbon dioxide emissions.
"With restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions expected in the future, IGCC technology represents an important advancement for power generation and for the coal industry," said Michael G. Morris, AEP's chairman, president and chief executive officer. "It's much less expensive to capture carbon dioxide pre-combustion in the gasification process than it is to capture it post-combustion from a pulverized coal plant.
"When we were the first to announce our intent to build a large, commercial IGCC plant, we anticipated the cost for IGCC would be 20 to 30 percent higher than for a new plant using pulverized coal technology," Morris said. "That range turned out to be accurate, but even with the cost premium we expect IGCC will be the least-expensive option over the life of the plant."
The site of the proposed West Virginia plant is adjacent to AEP's Mountaineer plant.
AEP has also proposed building an IGCC plant on a site in Meigs County, Ohio. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio granted approval to move forward with the Ohio project under provider of last resort provisions.
A challenge to the commission's authority to approve the project is currently going through the normal appellate process. The company is awaiting resolution of that challenge before continuing with the Ohio regulatory process.
"Appalachian Power has a clear need for additional generating capacity," said Dana Waldo, president and chief operating officer of Appalachian Power. "We have not added baseload generating capacity since the Mountaineer Plant was completed in 1980. But we also recognize the importance our customers place on containing costs. That's why our West Virginia filing outlines a plan to phase in, over approximately five years, the impact of rate increases that will be necessary to recover the plant's costs."
To recover anticipated costs of the IGCC plant, Appalachian Power estimates that it will need to increase West Virginia rates by approximately 12 percent by 2012 when the plant goes into service.
Appalachian Power provides electricity to 1 million customers in Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee.
Meigs County debates pros, cons of proposed coal mine
The Athens NewsBy Nick Claussen, June 18, 2007
A new coal mine may be coming to Meigs County soon, and could be a sign of things to come.
But while the mine proposal is going through the approval process, county residents are debating whether new coal mines would be good or bad for the county.
Perry Varnado, development director for the Meigs County Economic Development Office, said Friday that it has been six years since any coal mines were operating in Meigs County. Athens County currently has one mine open in Glouster.
The new mine has been proposed by Gatling Ohio LLC, a company that already operates a mine in Mason County, W.Va.
Varnado explained that this mine is unrelated to past Meigs County mines that were owned by the utility giant American Electric Power, and is not directly related to the proposed power plants that may be built in the county.
"It's totally unrelated to the talk of power plants," Varnado said. The previous mines sold their coal directly to the Gavin Power Plant in Cheshire, he said.
The proposed mine would be built in the Yellowbush Road area, which is near the village of Racine.
Varnado said the proposal calls for the mine to create 100 jobs. The economic development office is not involved in the proposal, but is watching it carefully, he said.
"They are on their own. They have not asked for any assistance," Varnado said.
He added that while the mine is going through the permitting process, company officials expect to have a decision by the end of the year on if the mine can go forward.
"We support good jobs in the county and this would apparently provide good jobs, head-of-household jobs," Varnado said.
He added that Meigs County is an area that is accustomed to coal mines and that many people who live in the county already have skills in the coal mining field.
While a lot of discussion in the county has focused recently on the proposed coal mine, local officials are also discussing separate plans for power plants in the county. The power plants would provide jobs as well, and likely would need more coal and spur the creation of other mining operations in the county and region.
The coal mine and power plant proposals have opponents, though, such as Elisa Young, a member of Meigs Citizen Action NOW (Meigs CAN).
Young said she is worried about how the Gatling mine could hurt county residents, and concerned about all the changes that could be brought by the power plants and additional mines.
One big concern is how the mining operation will affect water in the county, she said. Coal mines employ different processes for dealing with sludge and waste from the coal, and the methods being discussed all could have harmful impacts on the water in the county, according to Young.
"I'm really concerned about the sludge impoundment," she said, adding that the water impacts caused by previous mines can still be seen in southern Ohio. While the new mines may have different methods for dealing with waste, they still can cause great harm to the water, she said.
New mines could also cause soil stability problems, mining trucks can damage roads, and countless other problems can be caused by the scrubbers and the mining operations, Young said.
As for the economic impact, Young noted that Gatling officials have said current employees will fill half the jobs at the mine.
In addition, mining is an example of unsustainable economic development, and history shows that it does not help the county, she said.
If mining is so good for the economy, she asked, why are so many parts of southern Ohio that were built on mining having so many problems?
If the proposal for this mine is approved, it likely will mean that other mines will also be started in the county, she added.
"It gives them a foot in the door," Young said.
Young said she and other area residents are unhappy with how the state regulates the permit process for mines and how the public meeting/comment process has been handled so far. She and others will continue to watch and comment on this mine proposal, as well as on the power plant and future mine proposals, she said.
AEP's Meigs County plant likely delayed
The Columbus DispatchBy Paul Wilson, June 18, 2007
American Electric Power's proposed coal-fired plant in Meigs County might not be operational until 2017 – seven years later than the utility had originally hoped.
AEP said the project could be delayed because of legal challenges revolving around whether it can charge Ohio customers to build the plant, which is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The delay comes despite AEP's work to reign in projected expenses at the plant, the company said. Earlier this year, the utility told Ohio regulators it needed more time to find ways to trim costs.
AEP also looked for ways to cut costs at a twin project in Mason County, W.Va. There have been no legal challenges in that state, and AEP now hopes to have that plant running by mid-2012.
The utility provided revised timelines for both plants in a regulatory filing today in West Virginia. It would take about four years to build each plant.
Both plants would capture much of the gases emitted from burning coal and could be retrofitted to capture carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas seen as the main culprit in global warming.
AEP officials first announced plans to build the plants in 2004, and said at the time that they hoped both operations would be running by 2010.
In the past two years, AEP eased off on 2010 projection, saying it hoped the plants would be running by the early part of the next decade.
AEP says it won't abandon coal plans: Challenges Add 4 Years to Timetable
The Columbus DispatchBy Paul Wilson, April 25, 2007
Regulatory hurdles, legal challenges and slow site work will keep American Electric Power from starting operations at two coal-fired plants along the Ohio River until the middle of the next decade.
That's about four years later than officials with the Columbus-based utility had hoped for when they announced plans for plants in Meigs County, Ohio, and Mason County, W.Va., in August 2004.
But the company's top officer told shareholders at AEP's annual meeting yesterday that the utility is committed to the projects.
"Someone like AEP … needs to take that next step, so we can continue as a nation to enjoy that tremendous resource of coal," Michael G. Morris, chairman, president and chief executive, told shareholders at the meeting in Shreveport, La.
The plants would capture many emissions from the burning of coal and could be retrofitted to capture carbon dioxide, which is linked to global warming. Morris also stressed the importance of AEP's projects in Arkansas and Oklahoma to use more efficient coal-pulverizing technology that would generate more electricity and cut emissions.
AEP has asked regulators in each state for permission to charge customers for the plants. Ohio officials approved the Meigs County site this week, but a decision on paying for the $1.3 billion operation has not been made.
Last year, state regulators approved AEP's request to charge customers to study the Meigs County site, but the Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio challenged the decision in court.
When it appeared that the project would cost more than expected, the utility told state officials it needed more time to find ways to cut costs. The West Virginia project was delayed for the same reason.
AEP is the nation's largest consumer of coal, which provides about two-thirds of the electricity used by the utility's 5.1 million customers from Virginia to Texas. Morris also mentioned work at two existing plants that would remove carbon dioxide from emissions after coal is burned.
Such projects are important because of changing winds in Washington.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision this month could force AEP and other utilities to pay large penalties for modifying older coal plants without first installing air-pollution equipment. There also is talk of new federal rules that could cap carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon legislation could pose challenges, even though AEP is doing the right thing with its new coal projects, said Robert Burns, a researcher at the National Regulatory Research Institute at Ohio State University.
"It will not be business as usual, but they're already changing strategy in anticipation of the legislation," he said.
Gatling Ohio Responds To Rumors About Mine
The Sunday Times-Sentinelby Beth Sergent, April 15, 2007
Racine - Nearly a year after announcing plans to develop a coal mining operation along Yellowbush Road and all the rumors that came with it, representatives of Gatling Ohio LLC are speaking.
Ed Griffith with Gatling's Broad Run Mine in New Haven, W. Va., and Tim Myers, engineer with The Cline Group, which owns Gatling, recently attempted to displace some of the rumors about the Yellowbush Road operation.
"We are not doing long wall mining and we are not mining under the village's water supply," Griffith said unequivocally.
Also not true, according to Griffith and Myers: the Yellowbush Mine is not owned by the American Electric Power (AEP) and the seam they are mining, the Pittsburgh 8A is a totally different seam than the Meigs 31 seam.
Griggith and Myers also denited the rumor that Gatling has approached residents to purchase land for a subdivision to house its own out-of-town employees.
"That is a non-story as far as I know," Griffith said, further denying the rumor that Gatling wants to hire the lowest-paid employees, including migrants.
Griffith said employees at the Broad Run Mine are highly skilled much like most coal miners currently in the industry and these types of employees are who the company is looking for in its Yellowbush Run operation.
As for the logging happening on the Yellowbush Road, Griffith said AEP owns the timber rights to the land and is doing the clearing which has created a perception that Gatling is doing heavy site work before the permit has been approved. When asked if AEP was clearing the land in anticipation of the mine going in, Myers said if they were, they weren't clearing enough and more trees would likely come down for the operation if the permit is approved.
Griffith also addressed a community perception that Gatling was somehow trying to, as he put it, "steal mineral rights" and added, "this is not the case."
In addition, Griffith addressed the perception that Gatling was just going to barrel through the community and set up shot anyway and at any time they wished. Griffith said laws prevent this from happening and the coal mining industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country aside from the nuclear industry.
"We are currently going through a process which we are bound by law to follow,"{ Griffith said of the permit process. "It takes awhile to construct a clean, safe, productive coal mine."
The type of mining operation they plan on constructing is basically the same as the Broad Run Mine in New Haven.
As for why they haven't been in the public eye, Griffith denies the company has anything to hide, saying they really haven't had anything to say at this point as they continue with the permitting process.
Unlike the permit process for the two power plants proposed for Meigs County which require public meetings by law, the law does not require Gatling to hold a public meeting about the proposed coal mine. However, the law requires the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to host an informal conference after request to document residents' concerns about the operation which is currently being planned.
"All we can do is follow the law and we're very confident if someone checks we've followed all the proper steps in the process," Griffith said. "We can only follow the process of the law. We want to be a good community company and we will be here for awhile."
Griffith and Myers said the company plans to be there decades, possibly even 40 years.
"It does us no good to put millions of dollars in a mine only for a short period of time," Griffith said.
As for their impression of people in the Racine area at this point, Griffth and Myers both complimented the community's friendliness and even from those community members that don't want them here.
Test site near Port?
The Dover-New Philadelphia Times-ReporterBy Paul E. Kostyu, March 23, 2007
COLUMBUS - Tuscarawas County appears to be a leading candidate for a carbon dioxide sequestration test site. The 9,000-foot deep well, the deepest ever drilled in Ohio, could open an area near Port Washington to economic development for companies that generate carbon dioxide, which would be pumped into the ground instead of the atmosphere.
Last year, a 750-acre site north of Rt. 36 near Port Washington and another site in Meigs County were the state's entries in a competition for a federal project called FutureGen, a $1 billion electric coal-fired power plant with zero emissions. The government is expected to pick a final site in Illinois or Texas for that project sometime this summer.
The state is considering three sites for the test well - in Tuscarawas, Carroll and Meigs counties. But the Meigs site is under option to a company that could locate a coal-to- liquid fuel plant there and the Carroll site originally was rejected by the state's FutureGen task force for being too close to a dam.
"I'm not aware of a decision" said Keith Dailey, a spokesman for Gov. Ted Strickland.
"We're on the edge of picking a site," said Mark R. Shanahan, the governor's energy adviser and executive director of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority. "The well will allow us to gather geological data about the region by taking core samples."
The well cannot be drilled until the Division of Geological Survey in the Department of Natural Resources submits a permit application to the department's Division of Mineral Resources Management, according to Jane Beathard, a spokeswoman for the department. That has not been done yet, she said.
Shanahan said the state wants to be ready in case Congress imposes federal rules on carbon dioxide emissions. "We're going to have to know where carbon dioxide can be sequestered in the state of Ohio. It will be very attractive for an industry that emits carbon dioxide, such as ethanol plants.
"Ohio is not going to make the same mistake it did on acid rain and stay out of the debate until it's too late. We paid a high economic price for that. We're one of the top three or four energy users in the country. We could pay a high price on carbon emissions, so we have to develop strategies on how we are going to respond."
Drilling the 18-inch diameter hole will cost $2.3 million, Shanahan said. Part of the money will come from state general revenue funds allocated by the Legislature during its last session and part will come from the Ohio Coal Development Office. Battelle, a global science and technology institute based in Columbus, is a partner in the program.
Shanahan said the state's efforts to attract FutureGen last year have not gone to waste.
"One of the reasons Tuscarawas is one of the candidate sites (for the well) is because of the analysis we did for FutureGen," he said. "We know the geology of the area."
Shanahan said the Environmental Protection Agency is involved in the drilling project, and the Department of Development will be involved in marketing the site.
A similar project is nearing completion in Belmont County near the FirstEnergy plant in Shadyside. A coalition of Midwest states is participating in that project, where the well is 7,000 to 8,000 feet deep, Shanahan said. He said carbon dioxide from the plant will be pumped into that well.
http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=65730&r=2
AMP signs engineering contract for Letart project
The Daily SentinelFriday, February 23, 2007, by Brian J. Reed
POMEROY - American Municipal Power-Ohio has signed a contract with R.W. Beck to serve as the owner's engineer for the American Municipal Power Generating Station project in Meigs County.
Officials with AMP-Ohio announced the contract at a meeting Thursday in Pomeroy with U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Bridgeport. Wilson visited the AMP-Ohio site in Letart Township following a visit earlier in the day to Piketon.
Wilson, who was assigned to the House Science and Technology Committee, said he had talked about the planned power plant across the Sixth District, and wanted to see the site for himself.
The proposed project is a coal-fired power plant and associated transmission line to be constructed on the Ohio River. AMP-Ohio, along with development partners the Blue Ridge Power Agency and the Michigan South Central Power Agency, are currently in the permitting process for the facility.
AMP-Ohio, based in Columbus, is a non-profit wholesale power provider for 119 member municipal systems in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan.
As owner's engineer, R. W. Beck will provide a broad range of services with regard to the project construction including: preliminary project planning/ scheduling, request for proposal preparation for engineering procurement and construction contractor, project feasibility studies to support financing, design reviews, construction monitoring and project progress monitoring and reporting.
"This is the logical 'next step' in this process," said AMP-Ohio President/CEO Marc Gerken. "Obviously the construction of a plant of this size is a major undertaking and we wanted to bring in expertise to help guide the organization through this process."
"R.W. Beck brings a great deal of experience to the table and we're glad to be working with them."
AMP-Ohio Vice President Jolene M. Thompson said hiring the owner's engineering firm is a "sign of our committment" to the project. Construction on the plant could begin as early as next year, Thompson said, although an early 2009 start is more likely.
http://www.mydailysentinel.com/articles/2007/02/23/news/local_news/news00.txt
AEP's clean-coal plant delayed - Utility seeks six more months before starting work in Meigs County
The Columbus DispatchFriday, Jan. 19, 2007, by Paul Wilson
American Electric Power will delay building a clean-coal plant in Meigs County for at least six months and wants to do the same at a twin project in West Virginia.
Both 629-megawatt plants would use technology considered crucial to address global warming and growing energy demands. But studies of the two sites along the Ohio River found that the projects would cost more than AEP expected, because of rising steel, concrete and labor costs, the utility said.
Last week, AEP told Ohio officials about the delay and also requested extra time in West Virginia, where an extension is subject to regulatory approval.
Still, the Columbus-based utility said the projects, slated to go online between 2010 and 2015, aren't in jeopardy.
"We're still totally committed to the technology," spokesman Pat Hemlepp said. "We're still totally committed to the projects."
The original price tag for each plant was $1.3 billion, about 20 percent more than the cost of an operation without clean-coal technology, Hemlepp said.
Studies of the sites found the gap could be wider. AEP, working with project designers Bechtel Corp. and General Electric Co., wants more time to study ways to cut costs, Hemlepp said.
The extra time won't cost ratepayers more, AEP said. But the findings are important in determining how the projects will be paid for.
In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission allowed AEP to charge customers $24 million to study the Meigs County site last year. The PUCO wanted to see the findings before ruling on whether AEP could charge customers to build and run the plant.
AEP's delay shows state regulators acted correctly in not granting AEP's full request, PUCO Chairman Alan Schriber said. Several groups appealed that ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, including the state Office of Consumers' Counsel.
Janine L. Migden-Ostrander, leader of that group, disagreed with Schriber, saying AEP's delay "confirms our concerns."
"What the utility is saying is, 'We don't want our shareholders to take the risk, but we want the hard-working residential customer to pay for this,' " she said.
The new plants would strip away pollutants that create smog, soot and acid rain. They also could be retrofitted to capture carbon dioxide, a gas linked to global warming.
"If we don't do (clean-coal) plants, then the opportunity for economic growth becomes far more limited if we are also going to address global warming," said Robert Burns, a researcher at the National Regulatory Research Institute at Ohio State University.
About 150 coal-fired plants are in various stages of development in the United States. About two dozen would use clean-coal technology, Burns said.
AEP has a mixed environmental past. But pursuit of clean-coal technology is part of a "practical and progressive" strategy for the utility, Burns said.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/business-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/01/19/20070119-G1-02.html
While area political, business and community leaders have been rallying around the idea of locating one or more new power plants in Meigs County, opposition is beginning to mount against the proposal.
http://www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=26896
RACINE - Ohio Department of Natural Resources Environmental Specialist Scott Stitlier confirmed a coal mining permit filed with his agency by Gatling Ohio Mining, LLC is for “room and pillar” underground coal mining in the Racine area on and around Yellowbush Road.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Ohioans and West Virginians who use drinking water that contains a chemical used to make Teflon have levels of the chemical in their bloodstreams 25 times higher than normal, preliminary results of a screening show.
Tests showed the average level of ammonium perfluorooctanoate in 30,629 people was 123 parts per billion. The median level was 48 ppb, according to the Sunday Gazette-Mail. The average level of C8 in the general population is 5 ppb.
The health screening is part of a February 2005 class action settlement between residents and DuPont Co. over the company's use of the chemical, also known as C8, at its Washington Works plant along the Ohio River near Parkersburg. Residents in six water districts sued the company in 2001 claiming DuPont contaminated their water supplies.
About 70,000 residents participated in the screening, which ended earlier this year.
The preliminary blood results showed that levels of C8 ranged from 19 ppb in Pomeroy, Ohio, to 132 ppb among residents living in the Lubeck Public Service District in West Virginia.
A three-member science panel appointed to determine if there is a link between C8 and human health risks presented the preliminary results in July to lawyers for the residents and Wilmington, Del.-based DuPont. The company presented the findings to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August.
In submitting the results, the panel cautioned lawyers that the early data should not be shared with the media, the public or general scientific community.
"They are all just preliminary (numbers) and we didn't want anyone making conclusions from them," Dr. Kyle Steenland, an Emory University professor and science panel member, told the newspaper.
Art Maher, one of the study coordinators, said the science panel was not authorized to release the information. Final results are expected to be made public later this year, he said.
Whether there is a link between C8 and human health risks could take up to four years to determine, Steenland has said. DuPont has maintained there are no risks, though the Science Advisory Board for the EPA has determined C8 to be a likely cancer-causing agent in humans.
In an August letter, DuPont lawyer Andrea Malinowski told the EPA the company didn't believe the preliminary results showed a significant risk, the newspaper reported.
Rob Bilott, a lawyer for the residents, submitted information to EPA last week that showed residents participating in the study reported miscarriages, birth defects and various forms of cancer. It wasn't clear whether those problems occurred at a greater-than-normal rate.
The latest results follow a limited study conducted last year that also found elevated levels of C8 in 326 randomly selected Ohio residents living near the plant. The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine study found the residents had up to 80 times more C8 in their blood than the general population, but the researchers said they could not find a link to increased liver, kidney, thyroid or cholesterol problems.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/15711984.htm
http://www.dispatch.com/reports/reports.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/06/20051206-A9-02.html
An elementary school in a small town on the Ohio River, just west of Cincinnati, is closed today after the state confirmed that the air is polluted with toxic chemicals.
An Ohio Environmental Protection Agency study of air pollution around the Lanxess plastics factory in Addyston has found an unacceptable cancer risk for lifelong and long-term residents, the agency reported yesterday.
In response, Addyston area officials said they will temporarily close Meredith Hitchens Elementary School, located across the street from the Lanxess plant.
More than 380 students will be moved to other classrooms in different schools starting Wednesday while the EPA studies pollution levels inside the building, said Rhonda Bohannon, superintendent of the Three Rivers school district.
"All along, we've said whatever recommendations were made by the EPA, we would follow them," Bohannon said. "Today they said they were concerned.
"We will definitely get our kids out of there."
Lanxess, Addyston and the school were featured Sunday in "Blue Smoke, Tainted Water," a Dispatch investigation of pollution in towns and neighborhoods along the Ohio River. EPA officials said the timing of the story and yesterday's announcement was a coincidence.
"We've been working on this since May," said Paul Koval, an EPA toxicologist.
Koval said air monitors that the EPA and Hamilton County officials placed on the school's roof detected acrylonitrile, butadiene and other chemicals at levels that pose a higher-thannormal cancer risk for one out of every 2,000 people exposed over a period of 30 to 70 years.
The agency takes action if toxic chemicals pose a risk greater than one case per 10,000 people, Koval said.
The plant uses acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene to make plastic pellets that other companies use to make everything from toys to car dashboards.
Acrylonitrile and butadiene are suspected of causing cancer. Exposure to either can cause headaches, nausea and dizziness. Styrene can cause nausea and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.
The Ohio EPA and Hamilton County began investigating after three recent incidents in which Lanxess leaked the three chemicals into the air. Starting on Oct. 2, 2004, chemicals were leaked for more than two days while residents attended an Oktoberfest celebration at the school.
EPA Director Joe Koncelik ordered Lanxess to follow through on a $2.5 million plan to reduce pollution that plant managers announced weeks ago. The agency also demanded a full inventory of every place in the plant that emits acrylonitrile and butadiene.
Koval said he plans to begin studying air-pollution levels inside Hitchens Elementary, where more than 380 preschoolers, kindergartners and first-graders attend classes.
Alexander "Sandy" Marshall, plant manager of Lanxess' Addyston facility, said he was surprised by the EPA's order.
He said he and other company officials were in Columbus yesterday going through the agency's data and findings.
"We take our responsibilities very seriously, to make sure that the plant is safe for our employees and the surrounding area," Marshall said. "We announced $2.5 million in improvements before we were asked."
The improvements were announced after complaints from an organized group of residents backed by Ohio Citizen Action, an environmental group.
Ruth Breech, Citizen Action's Cincinnati-area program director, said she and other area residents thought Lanxess was working to solve its problems before the EPA made its announcement.
Regardless, she said she is happy the state is taking action.
She said neither herself nor others were surprised that a health threat exists.
Residents' "intuition was saying that something was wrong here," Breech said. "There were no eloquent numbers or science behind it, but they already knew it."
Meanwhile, parents of students at Hitchens Elementary were waiting to find out where their children will be going to school. Bohannon said no Hitchens students will attend classes today as teachers move their materials to schools in nearby communities.
Debby Murphy, a parent of two Hitchens students and a PTA vice president, said she is happy that the district decided to move the students, though she was anxious to learn where she would be driving them.
"We'll find that out tomorrow," Murphy said. "Everything is kind of up in the air right now."
http://www.dispatch.com/reports/reports.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/06/20051206-A1-04.html
Bonnie and Chuck Warman say their restored Civil War-era home is often gassed by toxic smoke from the nearby Zimmer power plant near Moscow.
Danny Freeman
Cheshire Mayor Jim Rife rides past a grassy lot where a church once stood. American Electric Power bought most of the village's homes after residents complained about pollution from the nearby Gavin power plant.
Some residents of Cheshire said acid mists from American Electric Power's J.M. Gavin plant threaten their health. AEP has said acid levels have been reduced.
MOSCOW, Ohio - Chuck Warman never worried much about the power plant next door.
On most days, smoke from Cinergy's W.H. Zimmer power station drifted east over Moscow in a lazy white plume. And when the wind pushed the smoke down through this Clermont County village of 244 people, he'd cough, wipe his eyes and shut his doors and windows.
Then one day a visiting friend watched the smoke cross Warman's front yard and asked, "Isn't this dangerous?"
"I didn't know how to answer," he said. "It was embarrassing."
Now he and other Moscow residents are suing Cinergy, claiming Zimmer's smoke is a hazard to their health. The suit contends that recently installed pollution controls actually make the smoke more toxic.
There are 18 coal-burning power plants perched on either side of the Ohio River.
These plants burn more than 50 million tons of coal each year to help feed Ohio's and the nation's hunger for electricity.
These plants also make the Ohio River Valley one of the greatest producers of powerplant pollution in the U.S.
Continue reading "Appetite for Energy"
Opposition mounting against power plants
The Athens News
Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006, by Nick Claussen
At least two different power plants are proposed for Meigs County, one by American Electric Power and the other by American Municipal Power. The county and state of Ohio lost out earlier this year on their bid for the FutureGen clean-coal-technology power plant.
Southeast Ohio economic-development officials have praised plans for the power plants, saying that if they locate here, they will bring hundreds of jobs and provide a big boost to economically depressed Meigs County and the region.
The area suffered a substantial hit several years ago when Southern Oho Coal Company, an affiliate of American Electric Power, closed its underground mines in Meigs and Vinton counties. Many people hope that the new power plants will revitalize the moribund coal industry in southeast Ohio, providing jobs and various spin-off economic benefits.
The Meigs Community Action Network (CAN), though, is concerned about a possible increase in mining and potential problems caused by the power plants and related businesses. "Our group is just now forming," confirmed Elisa Young, a member of Meigs CAN. The group has held two meetings so far and will meet again in early January.
"The most immediate concern right now, among the people near Racine that I've met, has to do with the mines that are opening up," Young said. Several people have told her that they have been approached by Gatling LLC, a coal company, about purchasing mining rights for new coal mines, Young said.
Her group is hoping to bring an attorney who has worked on cases involving coal mines to its next meeting, in order to help people learn what their rights are with regard to coal mining, Young said.
"People have a lot of questions about coal rights," she added. Some people worry about getting a fair price for their land, while others worry they will be pushed off of their properties, Young said.
"I've heard that from a lot of people, that we're going to end up like Cheshire anyway," Young said. This is a reference to a Gallia County village, located in the shadow of American Electric Power's Gavin Power Plant, that had many of its homes and businesses bought by AEP and now is just a shadow of what it was a few years ago.
"Our top priority now is the mining," added Young, who has been outspoken in her opposition to coal-mining in Ohio and West Virginia, including mountaintop removal in the latter state.
According to Young, many residents worry about how the mining might harm the landscape, whether the trucking of coal will hurt the roads and community, and what the mining will do to the scenic beauty of the community.
"We had people with a lot of concerns with trucking," Young said, adding that people are worried both about logging trucks and mining trucks.
At public meetings on the power-plant proposals, Young has heard people from all over the county speaking up abut the power plants. While supporters of the plants cite the clean-coal technology planned for the facilities, Young said she and others are still concerned about how the technology will work and the potential impact to the environment of hazardous waste from the power plants.
"Our water wells are extremely vulnerable to contamination," she said.
While supporters say the power plants will not hurt the environment, Young argues that the supporters are just looking at the effect of one plant, and not the cumulative affect of all the power plants in and around Meigs County.
"We already have four in less than a 10-mile radius," Young said.
The Gavin and Kyger Creek plants are located nearby in Gallia County, while two other plants are located just across the Ohio River from Meigs County in West Virginia. Now, at least two more are being proposed for Meigs County, and more are being proposed for just across the river, she said.
"I have deep concerns about that," Young said. "We are constantly wiping grit off our windows. There are particulates all over the place." She worries about contamination now, and said it could just get worse if any more power plants are built in and around the county.
"I have concerns about the water, I have concerns about the air, I have concerns about the proximity of the landfill," Young said. "I also have concerns about the cost of it."
Many people say these concerns don't carry much weight when stacked up against the need for jobs and economic activity in Meigs and southeast Ohio. Young, however, maintains that Meigs County can do other things to create jobs.
"People don't think that we have any other options," she said. "My view is if power plants create jobs, and we have four that you can throw a rock and hit, we should be rolling in prosperity." She added that if the power plants cause problems, they could actually hurt economic development in the region. She is pushing for county officials to look at manufacturing jobs and employment that won't harm the environment.
"I think we have to look at recurring real jobs that aren't going to poison us," Young said. "The reason we are in the fix we're in is because of the coal-mining industry that is around us. To me, if you want to get out of a hole, you quit digging."
Young is inviting all interested area residents to the Meigs CAN meetings, and said there will be special guess speakers at the upcoming meeting. She said she's glad that people are starting to be active in the Meigs CAN group, and said that people are trying to have their voices heard on these projects.
"I think we have the opportunity to be proactive here," Young said.
Gatling mining permit for 'room and pillar' extraction
The Daily Sentinel
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, by Beth Sergent
Officials with Gatling were in Racine Monday along with Stitlier and representatives from the US Army Corps of Engineers investigating possible impacts, if any, the proposed mine may have on wetlands or streams.
“Room and pillar” underground mining is described by the United Mine Workers of America as a method of extracting coal that involves “rooms” cut into the coal bed leaving a series of pillars, or columns of coal, to help support the mine roof and control the flow of air. Generally, rooms are 20 to 30 feet wide and the pillars up to 100 feet wide and as mining advances a grid-like pattern of rooms and pillars is formed.
Stitlier added the permit is for mining 1,894.9 acres of underground coal while the surface operation is estimated to expand over 80.8 acres. Although not included in the permit, Stitlier said he had the impression Gatling may apply for a permit to install a conveyor belt that would travel from the mining operation on Yellowbush Road, cross Ohio 124 and end up at the Ohio River bank where coal would be loaded onto barges for transport to avoid large trucks on the township and village roads.
Stitlier said the application is in the preliminary review process and if no “glaring omissions” are found on the application Gatling will move onto the next step which will be registering their mining application at the Meigs County Recorders Office and other pertinent materials such as maps of the operation. The company is also required to advertise in The Daily Sentinel about the proposed operation once a week for four consecutive weeks. Stitlier felt the advertisements may start to appear within the next month.
After the advertising period the process moves into a pubic comments phase which doesn't require a public meeting though if requested ODNR can set one up, allowing for citizens to pose their questions to ODNR officials though those questions will not be answered at that meeting which will be recorded. The meeting serves the purpose of collecting information.
http://www.mydailysentinel.com/articles/2006/12/13/news/local_news/news03.txt
Early results show residents have high levels of Teflon chemical
Associated Press
Posted on Sun, Oct. 08, 2006
Ohio River Brownfield Sites
Tuesday, December 06, 2005 The Columbus Dispatch
Click to Enlarge
Polluted air prompts town to close school
Tuesday, December 06, 2005 THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Spencer Hunt
APPETITE FOR ENERGY
Ohio power plants respond to growing electricity demand by burning more coal
Stories by Spencer Hunt | Photos by Mike Munden
Monday, December 05, 2005
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Special Report: Ohio River Coal-Fired Power Plants
Monday, December 05, 2005 The Columbus Dispatch
Click to Enlarge
http://www.dispatch.com/reports/reports.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/06/20051206-A9-02.html
Top Polluters Along the Ohio River
The Columbus Dispatch Sunday December 4, 2005
http://www.dispatch.com/reports/reports.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/04/20051204-D2-00.html
Ohio's Top 10
The Columbus Dispatch Sunday December 4, 2005
http://www.dispatch.com/reports/reports.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/04/20051204-D2-02.html
Pollution and paychecks
Health becomes less of a concern when jobs are at riskThe Columbus Dispatch Sunday, December 04, 2005
The fires in the steel mill that once darkened the sky and coated Mingo Junction with soot have not been extinguished.
But while the mill still produces rolls of steel, decades of domestic and foreign competition have led to bankruptcy and layoffs.
Today, 1,200 workers remain in the factory where 5,000 once drew paychecks.
Joseph Mannarino recently sat on a Commercial Avenue bench less than a block from the mill and ticked off Mingo Junction's losses: its schools, its status as a city and many of its businesses.
"People working in these plants are making a decent wage," he said of the four Ohio mills that Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. owns along the Ohio River. "If they shut down, we're done." For every person who fears that Ohio River industries are polluting the environment, there is someone such as Mannarino.
Pollution might be a problem, he said, but the economy is in a crisis.
Seven of Ohio's 14 river counties had unemployment rates higher than the state's 5.4 percent in October. Meigs County's 8.2 percent rate was the state's second highest behind Pike County's 8.7 percent. Scioto County's 7.8 percent was third, and Monroe County's 7.5 percent was fifth.
More than 17 percent of the people in Adams, Athens, Gallia, Lawrence, Meigs and Scioto counties live below the poverty level, according to U.S. Census estimates, compared with 10.6 percent statewide.
Standing outside her family's hilltop Washington County farmhouse, Betty Starlin can see the Kraton Polymers plant in Belpre. Across the river, she can look at DuPont's Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, W.Va.
Starlin, a cafeteria cashier at Parkersburg's Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital, said many area residents have friends and family who work or have worked at the plants.
"Half the guys that work down there (at Kraton) go to my church," she said.
Her brother David Watson said he's not concerned about C8, a chemical that Washington Works uses to make Teflon. C8 has been found in the drinking water of thousands of people on both sides of the river, and the U.S. EPA is studying its health effects.
"There's something in everything," said Watson, a retired meat cutter who works the family cattle and grain farm for his father, Melvin. "But there are jobs there."
Pollution was not listed as a grievance Nov. 22, 2004, when 1,200 union workers went on strike at two Ormet Co. aluminum mills in Monroe County.
A steelworkers union officer, Dominic Snyder, said workers were concerned that Ormet planned to move 200 jobs to private contractors and reduce benefits.
Those concerns grew in April after the company emerged from bankruptcy with a plan to increase retirees' health premiums and renegotiate labor contracts.
Snyder said the decision to strike was tough because many feared that the mills might close for good. Some of those fears were realized last month when Ormet announced plans to shut down its aluminum rolling mill and sell its equipment to a competitor, Aleris International Inc.
That would leave 500 union employees out of a job.
"This is a major business in Monroe County," Snyder said. "Without it, Monroe is dead."
Ormet spokeswoman Linda Regelman said the company asked workers to begin paying monthly health-care premiums, but there were no plans to cut jobs until last month.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel has its own history of money woes, dating from 1998 when foreign steel was selling at prices below most U.S. manufacturers' costs.
The company reduced its total work force by 650, to 3,150, after it emerged from bankruptcy in 2003. The union agreed to take a 15 percent pay cut for 13 months and to pay 10 percent of health-care costs that same year.
Spokesman Jim Kosowski said the company hopes its cost-cutting will keep the mills open.
"We compete with steel that gets produced in countries where they don't have the expense of pollution controls, where the wages and health benefits are not equal to what we pay," he said.
"But people here, they've been through it and they know that when the mills are running that there are jobs, that taxes are being paid and school districts are getting money."
http://www.dispatch.com/reports/reports.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/04/20051204-D3-00.html