By BRYAN WALSH
Time Magazine

All in all, 2010 was a year to forget for environmentalists — carbon cap-and-trade legislation died, international climate talks sputtered and even the clean-tech market took a hit — and 2011 isn’t looking much better. The incoming class of Republicans taking over the House in January features no shortage of members who deny the connection between man-made greenhouse-gas emissions and a warming planet — let alone think it’s worth trying to lower those emissions. Ralph Hall, the new head of the House Science Committee, has said he’s not sure whether global warming or what he calls quot;global freezingquot; are bigger problems, and he’s planning to subpoena climate scientists over the so-called Climategate dispute. (Climategate involved hacked e-mails from scientists, which some skeptics argue erode the scientific argument for man-made global warming; independent investigations into the e-mails, however, have shown no evidence of scientific fraud.) In Congress, at least, environmentalists will be spending all of 2011 on defense — even as global carbon emissions are expected to grow quickly again in the wake of the recession.

But the Obama Administration has a Plan B — and its already putting it into place. On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted what are the first regulations of major stationary sources of greenhouse gases. (While auto fuel-efficiency standards of the sort strengthened by President Barack Obama in 2009 essentially regulate mobile sources of greenhouse gases, the EPA has never tried to regulate major stationary sources such as power plants, refineries and factories.) The new rules will be modest at first, affecting only new plants or existing facilities that are undergoing major upgrades — perhaps 400 facilities will be affected initially. But eventually the EPA will be issuing regulations for nearly all sources of greenhouse gases — providing the only federal action to control U.S. carbon emissions. quot;We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change,quot; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement late last month.

quot;Measured and carefulquot; — expect to hear those carefully chosen words a lot from Jackson as she’s called to Congress to defend the EPA regulations. And the agency is taking its time as it embarks on what could be the most far-reaching environmental regulatory scheme in American history. The EPA said in December that it wouldn’t propose standards for existing power plants — meaning facilities that aren’t being upgraded or overhauled — until the middle of 2011, and for refineries until the end of the year, with final standards coming even later. Jackson insists those rules won’t impose unreasonable costs, and the EPA will be holding a series of consultations with business this year to ensure that industry will have its say. Unlike carbon cap-and-trade legislation, which would have fixed a limit on greenhouse-gas emissions, the regulations will focus on pushing plants to run at higher levels of efficiency or use cleaner fuels by requiring them to use the best available technology to reduce emissions. quot;This is not a [carbon] cap program,quot; said Gina McCarthy, EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, when the agency announced the rules late last month. quot;It’s an emissions standard.quot;

Despite the EPA’s cautionary talk, however, the political battle lines have already been drawn on greenhouse-gas regulations, with Republicans and industry ready to declare war. A dozen states have already filed suit to block the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases, though so far federal courts have refrained from stopping the first round of regulations from going into effect. Texas, though, is going further, simply refusing to comply with the new rules entirely. In response, the EPA has said that it would take direct control of Texas’ air-pollution enforcement rather than work with the state environment agency.

But on Dec. 30, a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the EPA from enforcing its regulations in Texas as the courts considered whether such a federal takeover was legal. What’s certain is that these lawsuits will only be the beginning as conservatives, industry and some states question the constitutionality of greenhouse-gas regulations. Already Republicans and some conservative Democrats have discussed passing legislation that would block the EPA from regulating emissions — something the White House has threatened to veto. quot;The EPA has its foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery,quot; said Fred Upton, Michigan’s Republican Congressman and the incoming chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. quot;We will not allow the Administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate."

Yet in the absence of congressional action, the White House and its environmental allies insist the EPA has no choice but to regulate greenhouse gases. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act if those gases threatened public health. The EPA — and nearly all climate scientists — have found that unchecked global warming does indeed pose a threat to public health, meaning that the agency would be breaking the law if it refused to act on those regulations. (This was the case even under former President George W. Bush, though his White House literally avoided the issue by refusing to open e-mails from EPA staff experts — though several states and environmental organizations eventually sued the agency over the issue.) Both Jackson and Obama have said repeatedly that they would much prefer Congress to take the lead on greenhouse gases through regulation — a carbon cap-and-trade program or tax — but that no longer seems to be an option. quot;EPA is doing precisely what is needed to protect our health and welfare at a time when some would prefer just to roll back the clock,quot; wrote David Doniger, policy director for the National Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center.

For all the sound and fury we’re likely to witness from congressional Republicans over the coming year, the EPA’s regulations won’t do that much to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. While the carbon cap-and-trade bills debated by Congress last year would have aimed to cut U.S. emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, EPA officials believe that regulations could only achieve perhaps a 5% cut — far below the reductions many scientists believe are needed to avert dangerous climate change.

Still, President Obama was elected promising to cut carbon emissions and chart a path to a cleaner economy — and whatever its political perils, regulation looks like his only immediate tool.

by: Renee Schoof
McClatchy Newspapers

Washington – Next up for Republicans in the House of Representatives who are seeking to curb the role of the Environmental Protection Agency is a vote Friday on a bill that would give states the power to monitor the disposal of coal ash from power plants.

Coal ash contains arsenic, lead and many other toxic materials that can escape into the air or water if the material isn’t properly contained. Coal ash, the general term for the material that’s left behind when coal is burned, is one of the biggest industrial wastes in the nation. U.S. power plants produce 140 million tons of it every year.

If the bill became law, it would block the EPA from imposing a federal rule to regulate the coal ash in disposal sites as a hazardous substance. The EPA has proposed that, but it hasn’t yet decided whether to follow through with it or opt for a state-based plan instead.

The bill would put the regulatory power in the hands of the states. It sets up a permit system for new coal-ash disposal sites under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. It also sets minimal federal standards and limits the EPA’s role.

The bill’s backers argued that the hazardous designation would make people shy away from using products made from recycled coal ash, such as concrete and wallboard, even though the ash that’s bound up in these things isn’t a hazard.

The bill is expected to pass the Republican-controlled House. It’s already won the support of some Democrats.

The White House said it opposed the bill because the measure undermined the federal government’s ability to make sure that the waste was disposed of in ways that protected human health and the environment. The statement, however, made no mention of plans for a veto if the bill clears the Senate.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., said in an interview Thursday with McClatchy that he discovered that there were problems with the current disposal sites for coal ash.

"In the midst of trying to remove the stigma — fly ash (coal ash) being a hazardous material, which it’s not — we got deeper and found there really are some problems with the management of the product that’s not recycled," he said.

The bill would tighten standards for new coal-ash disposal sites so that they’re equal to or greater than those for municipal landfills, McKinley said. "I feel confident we’ve met the requirements."

The EPA, however, said in an analysis of the bill that municipal waste landfills had a requirement to "protect human health and the environment," but that the coal ash bill didn’t use that standard. Without it, the EPA would have a hard time making the case that a state program was deficient, the analysis said, according to a summary released by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill also would give state officials the authority to waive some requirements and would require the EPA to defer to them.

The Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group, said in a report Thursday that the legislation would allow new coal-ash landfills to be built that would leak up to five times more arsenic than the Safe Drinking Water Act allowed. It said the bill’s standards also were too low for lead and three other toxic pollutants, and that the bill would allow states to waive its requirements for water protection.

"Coal ash dumps across the country are poisoning drinking water supplies at hundreds of sites," Lisa Evans, an attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice, said in a statement. She said the bill "neuters the EPA’s effort to establish the first-ever federal regulation for toxic coal ash."

Supporters argued that the bill would save 316,000 jobs. They took that number from a study by a consulting company hired by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, a lobbying group that represents power companies opposed to federal regulation of coal ash.

However, Frank Ackerman, an economist for the Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center at Tufts University, said the study overcalculated the effects of a small increase in electricity rates and the alleged stigma of a hazardous waste. Ackerman instead calculated an increase of 28,000 jobs with EPA regulation of coal ash as hazardous waste.

© 2011 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Contact: Stephanie Cole, Sierra Club
Tom "Smitty" Smith, Public Citizen
Ilan Levin, Environmental Integrity Project
Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition

AUSTIN, TX - Texas environmental and public health groups welcome today’s new EPA safeguards to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollutants from the smokestacks of the nation’s aging fleet of coal and oil-fired power plants. The new public health protection has been developed over nearly twenty years and is required by law under the Clean Air Act, the landmark public health legislation passed during the Nixon Administration. The rules will be a significant benefit to public health and water quality in Texas since six of the top 10 worst mercury emitting power plants in the nation are in Texas. Twenty-three Texas lakes near coal plants are so contaminated with mercury that eating fish from those lakes could cause brain damage to unborn children. Information about the new health protection can be found at http://epa.gov/mats/.

"As a family doctor, I am regularly obligated to council young women to limit fish consumption. Mercury exposure during pregnancy can cause severe mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, and seizures in children. Kids who eat contaminated seafood have demonstrated deficits in attention, fine motor function, language, visual-spatial abilities, and memory. Prevention is key — I can’t fix a child’s brain that has been damaged by mercury. The costs both to those families that are affected by mercury toxicity and to our society as a whole are staggering. At last there is good news. I applaud the EPA standards which could go a long way to clean up our air and reduce unnecessary exposures to mercury and other dangerous toxins," said Dr. Lisa Doggett, a practicing Physician and co-president of Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility.

In July, more than 800,000 comments from across the country were delivered to EPA in support of the new mercury and air toxics rule, with more than 600,000 of these from Sierra Club members and supporters. Despite being the single largest industrial emitters of heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, and selenium, power plants have been exempt from Clean Air Act standards that apply to all other industry sectors.

"The only thing more shocking than the large amounts of toxic chemicals released into the air each year by coal and oil fired power plants is the fact that these emissions have been allowed for so many years," said Ilan Levin, Environmental Integrity Project Associate Director.

According to a report based on utility data by the Environmental Integrity Project (available at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org), Texas is by far the nation’s top power plant mercury polluter. Texas coal-fired power plants emitted 16.9 percent of the total U.S. mercury air emissions for 2010, and Texas is home to 11 of the top 50 mercury polluters in the nation. Dallas-based Luminant (formerly TXU) operates the nation’s dirtiest power plant for mercury emissions; the Big Brown coal plant, located about halfway between Houston and Dallas, pumped 1,610.1 pounds of mercury into the air in 2010. Three of Luminant’s other large coal-fired power plants are also ranked among the top 50 dirtiest power plants in the nation: Martin Lake (number three), Monticello (number seven), and Sandow 4 (a single coal-fired boiler ranked number 28).

Other Texas coal-fired power plants owned by American Electric Power, NRG, and the Lower Colorado River Authority and City of Austin are among the nation’s top 50 worst mercury air polluters. EPA’s new rule is intended to reduce the levels of toxic metals and acid gases that these electric power plants emit into the atmosphere.

The list of the most polluting plants and states can be found here:
http://www.environmentamerica.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-air/clean-air/americas-biggest-polluters-how-cleaning-up-the-dirtiest-power-plants-will-protect-public-health

"Today’s new health protection will reduce mercury pollution in our air and water substantially over the next decade," said Jen Powis, Senior Regional Representative with the Sierra Club. "Reducing mercury pollution will have a significant impact for Texans’ health, and all Texas power generators should look forward to the opportunity to promote the health of women, babies, and young children in our state."

In addition to lowering mercury emissions, the rule will reduce other fine particle heavy metals like arsenic, chromium, and lead, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars each year. EPA has estimated that the power plant air toxics rule will avoid between 6,800 and 17,000 premature deaths each year, and will result in annual savings of $48 to $140 billion.

"The hidden costs of toxic pollution from power plants far exceed the pennies that cleanup will cost each consumer. For every dollar spent on pollution controls we will get $5 to $13 in health benefits. Coal-fired power plants are also the single largest source of toxic mercury air pollution in Texas and the rest of the United States. Besides mercury, coal-fired power plants emit a suite of other toxic air pollutants, which can cause serious health effects, especially for children and developing fetuses. Studies by the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio have found correlations between high levels of mercury emissions and kids with autism in schools in Texas," said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.

Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen said, "For decades, the electric power industry has delayed cleanup and lobbied against public health rules designed to reduce pollution. They have decided that it was cheaper to invest in politicians than pollution controls and we see the result here in Texas. The technology and pollution control equipment necessary to reduce emissions of mercury and other dangerous air toxics are widely available and are working at some power plants across the country. There is no reason for Americans — and Texans in particular — to continue to live with risks to their health and to the environment."

Stacy Guidry, Director of Texas Campaign for the Environment, Austin office, said, "The City of Austin has a "green" reputation, but our very own Fayette Power Plant is right up there among the dirtiest – number 49 out of more than 450 coal fired power plants nationwide, in terms of sheer pounds of mercury emitted into the air. In 2010, the Fayette power plant, owned by the Lower Colorado River Authority and Austin Energy, reported spewing 360 pounds of mercury out of the smokestacks. Airborne mercury falls to the ground and contaminates water and soil. That’s not my definition of "green" and the City of Austin can do better."

EPA Information on the new rule:

• Final Rule (PDF) (1,117pp, 2.4MB)
• Fact Sheet Overview (PDF) (3pp, 134k)
• Fact Sheet: Summary of the Rule (PDF) (6pp, 32k)
• Fact Sheet: Clean Air and Reliable Electricity (PDF) (6pp, 147k)
• Fact Sheet: Benefits and Costs of Cleaning up Toxic Air Pollutants (PDF) (3pp, 190k)
• Fact Sheet: Adjustments from Proposal to Final (PDF) (2pp, 114k) 

Technical Information

• Regulatory Impact Analysis (510pp, 8.3MB)
• Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Analysis
• Mercury Risk Assessment (PDF) (196pp, 3.7MB)
• Emissions Overview Memorandum (PDF) (19pp, 2.5MB)
• Enforcement Response Policy for CAA 113 (PDF) (7pp, 2MB)

By BRENDAN CASE – Staff Writer
bcase(at)dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News

Texas’ largest power generator can shut down two coal-fired units without jeopardizing the state electrical grid?s transmission stability, the grid’s operator said Monday.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas said it could keep the lights on without two generation units in Titus County that belong to Luminant, a unit of Dallas-based Energy Future Holdings.

ERCOT has completed its analysis and determined that Monticello Units 1 and 2 are not needed to support ERCOT transmission system reliability, the council said Monday.

Luminant has said it needs to close the two units to comply with new federal pollution rules. The move would cut its generating capacity about 8 percent.

The Environmental Protection Agency?s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule goes into effect Jan. 1 and requires coal plant operators to significantly cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. The rule is designed to reduce premature deaths from asthma and other health problems related to air pollution.

A group of utilities and states have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to delay the rule’s implementation. If the court does not grant a stay, Luminant will close the two Monticello units, said Allan Koenig, a spokesman for the company.

Luminant said in September that in addition to idling the two units, it would close three mines and cut 500 jobs to comply with the rule.

The company is also awaiting the finalization of proposed revisions to the air pollution rule, which are expected after Jan. 1. Luminant will not make personnel decisions until the revisions are finalized, Koenig said.

"Our compliance plan, as announced in September, is still the plan unless the rule is stayed before Jan. 1 and/or until we have some clarity on the proposed revisions," he said.

If ERCOT had found that the Monticello units were needed for grid stability, it could have struck a deal with Luminant to continue operating them in emergencies.

Under such a reliability must-run agreement, ERCOT would pay Luminant the units operating costs during periods when they were needed. Luminant would still be responsible for meeting EPA rules.

ERCOT said Monday that it would work with transmission company Oncor to ensure transmission security without the need for reliability must-run agreements with the two Monticello units.

Regulators are also focused on the need for power generation. ERCOT released estimates earlier this month indicating that power reserves the extra capacity used to avert rotating outages will likely fall below the minimum target beginning next summer.

The EPA has disputed Luminant’s position that it has no other option to comply with the new rule other than shutting down facilities.

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said it applauded ERCOT ?for calling Luminant?s bluff to shut down the aging Monticello coal fired plant in North Texas, and finding that we don?t need to pay a premium to run one of Texas? dirtiest coal plants to keep the air conditioners running.

By DINA CAPPIELLO
MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON — More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.

Together, those plants — some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country — produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found. But their demise probably won’t cause homes to go dark.

The fallout will be most acute for the towns where power plant smokestacks long have cast a shadow. Tax revenues and jobs will be lost, and investments in new power plants and pollution controls probably will raise electric bills.

The survey, based on interviews with 55 power plant operators and on the Environmental Protection Agency’s own prediction of power plant retirements, rebuts claims by critics of the regulations and some electric power producers.

Tables: Plants closing and ones that may close.

They have predicted the EPA rules will kill coal as a power source and force blackouts, basing their argument on estimates from energy analysts, congressional offices, government regulators, unions and interest groups. Many of those studies inflate the number of plants retiring by counting those shutting down for reasons other than the two EPA rules.

The AP surveyed electricity-generating companies about what they plan to do and the effects on power supply and jobs. It was the first survey of its kind.
The estimate also was based in part on EPA computer models that predict which fossil-fuel generating units are likely to be retired early to comply with the rules, and which were likely to be retired anyway.

The agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts, enough power for more than 11 million households, will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the two new rules take effect.

The first rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. The second, expected to be announced Monday, would set the first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plant smokestacks.

Combined, the rules could do away with more than 8 percent of the coal-fired generation nationwide, the AP found. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.

These plants have been allowed to run for decades without modern pollution controls because it was thought that they were on the verge of being shuttered by the utilities that own them. But that didn’t happen.

Other rules in the works, dealing with cooling water intakes at power plants and coal ash disposal, could cause the retirement of additional generating plants. Those rules weren’t included in the AP survey.

While the new rule heralds an incremental shift away from coal as a power source, it’s unlikely to break coal’s grip as the dominant domestic electricity source. Most of the lost power generation will be replaced, and the coal-fired plants that remain will have to be cleaner.

"In the industry we retire units. That is part of our business," said John Moura, manager of reliability assessment at the North American Electric Reliability Corp. NERC represents the nation’s electrical grid operators, whose job is to weigh the effect a proposed retirement will have on reliability.

With so many retirements expected, that process could get rushed. "We are getting a little hammered here, because we see multiple requests," Moura said.
NERC, along with some power plant operators, is pressing the Obama administration to give companies more time to comply with the rules to avoid too many plants shutting down at once.

In addition to anticipated retirements, about 500 or more units will need to be idled temporarily in the next few years to install pollution controls. Some of those units are at critical junctions on the grid and are essential to restarting the electrical network in case of a blackout, or making sure voltage doesn’t drain completely from electrical lines, like a hose that’s lost its water pressure.

"We can’t say there isn’t going be an issue. We know there will be some challenges," Moura said. "But we don’t think the lights are going to turn off because of this issue."

That hasn’t stopped some critics from sounding alarms.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said in a letter to the White House this month that the EPA mercury rule could "unintentionally jeopardize the reliability of our electric grid." At a speech in New Hampshire in November, GOP presidential candidate and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman predicted summer blackouts. A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad said a single EPA regulation "could threaten America’s energy supply."

Particularly at the older, less efficient plants most at risk, coal already was at a disadvantage because of low natural gas prices, demand from China and elsewhere that was driving up coal’s price, and weaker demand for electricity.

For many plant operators, the new regulations were the final blow. For others, the rules will speed retirements already planned to comply with state laws or to settle earlier enforcement cases with the EPA. In the AP’s survey, not a single plant operator said the EPA rules were solely to blame for a closure, although some said it left them with no other choice.

"The EPA regulation became a game changer and a deal changer for some of these units," said Ryan Stensland, a spokesman for Alliant Energy, which has three units in Iowa and one in Minnesota that will be retired, and four in Iowa that are at risk of shutting down, depending on how the final rules look. "Absent the EPA regulations, I don’t think we would be seeing the transition that we are seeing today. It became a situation where EPA broke the back of coal."

Some believe the change is long overdue. The two rules will cut toxic mercury emissions from power plants by 90 percent, smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution by half, and soot-forming sulfur dioxide by more than 70 percent.

"Many of them are super old. They’ve either got to be brought up to code, fixed with the best available technology, or close them down," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "You can’t keep on going."

The impact is greatest in the Midwest and in the coal belt — Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia — where dozens of units probably will be retired.
Coal "is the fuel that is local to this area," said Leonard Hopkins, the fuel and compliance manager for the Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, which serves rural electric customers in 25 counties in the state. "We are scrambling to find ways to comply."

His options: switch to a lower sulfur coal, install additional pollution controls or retire the oldest boiler and buy cheaper power from elsewhere.
For many of the country’s oldest coal-fired plants, retirement is the cheapest option.

"It is more expensive to retrofit these plants than retire them and build new generation," said Chris Whelan, spokeswoman for Kentucky Utilities, which announced in September that it was retiring three coal-fired power plants in the state. The plants, which came on line in 1947, 1962 and 1950, employ 204 people.

Whelan said the company is "going to do everything we can to reallocate the work" by shifting employees to a new gas-fired power plant.
In some places, a job at the power plant is the best thing going.

Thirty people work at the Central Electric Power Cooperative plant in Chamois, Mo., where EPA regulations have put the plant in danger of shutting down. Some employees are looking to see if there are other power plants where they could find work.

"We always knew there was a chance we could get shut down," said Robert Skaggs, who has worked at the 50-year-old power plant for 10 years and is also an alderman in the town of 400. "It’s pretty obvious. Our plant is an old plant."

Chamois Mayor Jim Wright saw the sewing factory leave and doesn’t understand why coal has to do the same.

"Coal’s coal. If you are going to dig and ship it to China, you might as well burn it here," he said.

Electricity bills are also a concern.

Kentucky Utilities expects its customers to see as much as a 14 percent rate increase to make up for the $800 million it is spending to replace what will be retired, and the $1.1 billion it plans to spend on anti-pollution upgrades. Other power companies have applied to recoup the cost of retrofits or of building new gas-fired power plants. The EPA estimates that industry will spend $11 billion complying with the two rules by 2016.

For others, the biggest issue with plant retirements is the loss of property taxes. As plants wind down and close, their assessed value drops, reducing what they pay to local governments.

In Salem, Mass., Dominion plans to retire two units at the Salem Harbor Station later this year, a move that could halve the plant’s workforce in a town famous for its 17th century witch trials and where the major business is tourism.

Tables: Plants closing and ones that may close.

The loss of its 50-year-old power plant poses two dilemmas: how to replace its biggest taxpayer and what to do with the 60 acres of waterfront property when the plant is gone.

"It’s not like losing a Dunkin’ Donuts," said Mayor Kim Driscoll, noting that attractions such as Baltimore’s Inner Harbor took decades to redevelop from abandoned industrial property.

For the next five years, Salem will make up for Dominion’s dwindling $4.75 million tax bill with state money, but after that the future is unclear.
"It’s a big chunk of change when you’re looking at we still have the same number of kids in school, we still have the same number of calls for police and fire, we have the same number of parks and resources that need to be maintained and kept up," Driscoll said. "That’s not to say there aren’t folks locally that are happy with the fact that a coal-based plant won’t be here forever. There are certainly folks here that see it as a way for Salem to flourish in other ways."

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.