ShareThis Page

Two Ohio coal-fired plants to close, deepening industry decline

| Monday, March 20, 2017, 5:42 p.m.

NEW YORK — Electricity company Dayton Power & Light said Monday it would shut down two coal-fired power plants in southern Ohio next year for economic reasons, a setback for the ailing coal industry but a victory for environmental activists.

President Trump promised in his election campaign to restore coal jobs that he said had been destroyed by environmental regulations put into effect by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.

Dayton Power & Light, a subsidiary of The AES Corporation, said in an emailed statement that it planned to close the J.M. Stuart and Killen plants by June 2018 because they would not be “economically viable beyond mid-2018.”

Coal demand has flagged in recent years because of competition from cheap and plentiful natural gas.

The plants along the Ohio River in Adams County employ about 490 people and generate about 3,000 megawatts of power for coal.

The closure is a result of negotiations between Dayton Power & Light, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and stakeholders like the environmental group the Sierra Club over whether the company should be allowed to raise electricity prices to pay for upgrades to keep the plants open.

“They are by far our largest employer and it will absolutely be devastating to our community here in Ohio,” said Michael Pell, president of First State Bank in Winchester, Ohio. Pell, one of several local community leaders who have lobbied to keep the plants going, has become a spokesman for Adams County on the issue.

He said that as the industry moves away from coal, state and federal authorities should help the county create other jobs and clean up environmental damage from the plants.

The Sierra Club, which has been advocating coal plant closures for years to help combat pollution, argued that they were a bad investment. The group's “Beyond Coal” campaign director, Bruce Nilles, said the planned closures would bring the total number of coal plants due to be retired to 250.

“This milestone is a testament to the commitment Americans have to cleaner air and water — and the power of grassroots action to create healthier communities,” Nilles said in an email.

The plants sit at the heart of a region Trump vowed to revitalize with more jobs and greater economic security during his 2016 campaign. As part of his pledge to reinvigorate the area, Trump said he would “bring back coal.”

A White House spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dan Sawmiller, the Sierra Club's “Beyond Coal” representative involved in the negotiations on the plants, said he would stay in contact with local authorities to try to minimize the impact on jobs in the area.

“We like to see the pollution coming offline, but we really are keenly focused on the impact to the community,” he said.

Cheap natural gas from record shale production over the past several years has kept power prices low, making it uneconomical for generators to upgrade older coal plants to meet increasingly strict environmental rules.

U.S. power companies retired or converted over 14,000 MW of coal-fired plants in 2016 after shutting a record of over 17,000 MW in 2015, according to Thomson Reuters data.

In 2015, coal used to produce electricity fell to its lowest level since 1984, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission data showed. That year, coal-fired generators produced 33 percent of the nation's total generation, down from over 50 percent in 2003.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.