TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Clean energy's cost

Daily Photo Galleries

Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
 

Clean energy's cost

I sympathize with families to be affected by the Mitchell and Hatfield's Ferry power-plant closings (“Mitchell Power Station slated to close,” July 10 and TribLIVE.com). But consider the big picture of FirstEnergy's decision to not spend $275 million to bring the plants in line with new federal air-quality rules.

As reported, FirstEnergy still plans to invest $650 million to update the rest of its system. After deactivation at Mitchell and Hatfield's Ferry, a little more than half of its system will be coal-fired plants, with a mix of nuclear, hydroelectric, gas and oil making up the rest.

I greatly value clean air and water, our most basic needs. I'm concerned that unregulated, high-carbon, greenhouse-gas-producing emissions are changing our climate and will cause the loss of more jobs and many lives in the future.

So if FirstEnergy closes dirty plants and invests in clean ones, and I pay what National Economic Research Associates estimated as $400 more annually for electricity because of federal regulations, then that's what it costs me to keep my air and water clean and save our future.

Are we going to progress and support clean energy only when someone else suffers to make it a reality?

James Manderino

Monessen

 

 
 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Appalling advice
  2. LCB: Asset to modernize
  3. Wrong on immigration I
  4. Wrong on immigration II
  5. PNC: New roles for helpers
  6. ATI’s broken promises
  7. Incumbents’ edge?
  8. Protesters not law-abiding
  9. Cops usually not problem
  10. A buck to pass?
  11. ‘Affordable’? Not for him
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.