"This is What Regulation Looks Like"

I lived along Lake Ontario east of these (and other) polluting plants. I can tell you first hand the devastation of acid rain and the heavy metals that rained down on Upstate New York because of plants like these that failed to keep up with the technology that would prevent the pollution they caused.

Just how much would it have cost to reduce emissions during the lifetime of these plants? How much would it have reduced the dividends paid to stockholders? Instead of demanding high payouts and increasing stock prices, they could have been demonstrating responsible ownership and demanding that the plants be maintained to safe standards (for their employees and those living downwind).

Do I feel bad for the 529 (plus) who will lose their jobs? Yes, absolutely, but not as bad as I feel and have felt for those who were in the path of their pollutants. . . and they number in the tens of thousands.

I've looked long, hard and wide for the "Government Office of Unnecessary Regulations" for years and have never found it. What I have found has been regulatory agencies and regulations that arose because of the lack of responsibility of those who ended up being regulated. It is because of the failure of citizens and corporations to be responsible in the management of their operations that our government has grown, not the other way around.

After 20 years of government Funds being send to these companies for them to upgrade there plants there is no excuse other then Greed for 40% of US coal fire plants to not be upgraded. Regulations isn't the problem the problem is the CEOs and executive who took all that Grant money from the US government and instead tried to lobby the law away. Where did Our taxpayer money go?

This has been 20 years in works this didn't blind side anyone. These Business had 20 years and untold billions in government tax credits and cuts and grants and so one to upgrade yet you want to get mad at the regulation? I think it's You Robert in Ohio that need to take a long hard look around Not the regulations and there makers.

Ron Francis YES it was before the 1st regulations the smog was so thick in most US cities that you couldn't go outside everything was coated with a thick silt from he coal plants.

For 20 years Now these plants have had a chance and untold billion from tax credits, cuts, and grants to upgrade there is no excuse but greed by the ceos and exuctives who thought they could suck off the government teet forever while they stall the regulations from taking effect

Ron Francis, Robert,

Is the enviroment any wores for wear? the enviroment will clean it self up. shutting down the plants is wrong obama the jobs killing president.

This is a completely bogus claim. As long as the polluters continue to pollute the damage continues to occur. It takes years after the damaging pollution stops before the environment can "clean itself up."

The high lakes in the Adirondacks were absolutely "pristine" because there was no life in them because of acid rain pollution. When I say no life, I mean no life, no fish, no plant life, they were as clear and empty as could be. It took from 1990 when the clean air (acid rain) act was passed until about 2005/2006 for the lakes to reach a point where they could start restocking them. The effort to reclaim them is a continuing one and a costly one but the results are economically sound.

I can assure you that there are many more than 530 jobs arising today in those lake areas because of the reduction in acid rain and the return of fish and wildlife in and around them.

Yes, you are right, those plant closings will have lasting effects. . . but the effects on the polluted areas are positive and will far outweigh the loss of the jobs of those employees.

Nothing is a perfect solution but I'll trade the jobs lost at those plants for the thousands of jobs gained to the east of them and the longterm improvement of the environment and health of the people living in the region.

Great article Robert,

My only question is where should the line be drawn? These coal burning plants were old and inefficient and probably due to be replaced since they were so behind the times. I think less criticism should be directed toward the regulation that caused the shut down of these plants and more blame put on the company that chose to not keep them up to speed. The power company was dragging their feet when it came to retrofitting these plants but what you posted seems to put more blame on the regulation itself. So where is the line when the regulation starts taking more blame than the company that chose to not update their equipment? It's not really as if the topic of pollution and green house gases just popped up yesterday and this company didn't have the time or money to do something to prevent the shut downs. They had time and the money but decided to sit on it instead of acting and doing the required work to keep these plants running. Plus it seems you fail to realize that them providing less power for more money and employing fewer people helps their bottom line. Because first and foremost, they are a business and out to make as much money as possible.

Well then these 500 people should sue the CEO and executives and demand to know where the funds to upgrade there plant went. It is not the government fault or responceablity when a Bussines refuses to do the right thing

And sorry But I don't buy for a second this idea that your not trying to decry this regulation. You are pushing this idea that these people are going to lose there jobs because of the regulation when in facts it's because the head of there business refused to use there profits and grants and such for there proper propose.

Ron Francis Obama didn't do this This is what so many of you don't get These regulations have been law for 20 years LONG before Obama. It's because these business used countless lobbing to deny that they took so very long to take effect.

Sorry as much you want you can't blame Obama for this.

Robert,

Always a pleasure commenting on your articles. While we don't always see eye to eye on some things, the one thing that I do love is that no matter how much your view differs from mine you always respond in a nice and respectful way. That alone will make me vote up your article.

I'm sorry but if your trying to make such a point there is no other way to see you as anything but decrying this regulation. Your takeing this event and ignoreing the true cause to shift blame onto "regulation".

Did this plant have 20 years yes or no to upgrade? Did this company partake like all energy company did in the Deportment of energy and US tax cuts ,credit, and grants to upgrade? If so it's Not the government fault or the regulation in question fault that a business did not invest in there plant. You asking us to ignore a business's responsibility to keep up with the times and instead blame a 20 year old law.

Do you blame the government when I mill closes down because they didn't upgrade the equipment and couldn't produce enough to meet demand?

I'm sorry that you feel this way I see it different this story has a clear message and the way you has portrayed it has that same message "regulation kills jobs". You can say all you want that your not taking a side but when the other message is so loud it's hard to ignore.

Perhaps you are right, but what we are hearing is that the capacity will need to be made up at other facilities and there has been no talk of prices going down and in fact some talk that they could go up

There is excess capacity and maintenance costs have remained the same. Shutting down a plant would be based on profitability over the next 10 years and clearly these plants do not fit that criteria. Its probable that the new regulations are part of that cost package, but if demand were at pre-recession levels, that cost might not require the shutdown of these plants. Therefore, imo, it is misleading to pin this decision entirely on a regulation. Again, imo, these plants would have been shutdown due to profitability, but the regulation issue has provided a cover. When dealing with the public's perception, it is always easier to point at some bogeyman, rather than make note of a good business decision.

Several factors, however, have made it easier for utilities to shut old coal plants in recent years. Power demand has been weakening in recent years because of the slow economy and energy efficiency programs. And natural gas prices, which have fallen to decade-low levels in recent weeks, have allowed utilities to switch from coal to natural gas without impacting customer bills.

Meanwhile, demand from China and elsewhere has driven up the price of coal. Source

So we can take our pick... the big bad government or those evil Chinese.