Comments about ‘Could new EPA rule shut down West's biggest coal plant?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 25 2012 10:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
SME
Bountiful, UT

The primary issue is the uncertainty that the operators face. A common problem under the Obama administration. No one knows what Obamacare is really going to cost. Another uncertaintly is what Obama is going to do next, particularly if he wins the election and "has more flexibility".

Makid
Kearns, UT

The CBO knows what Obamacare will cost and have stated that it will reduce the deficit a net savings. Repealing it will add to the deficit.

The issue is not the EPA or Obama, it is the Navajo tribe that hasn't stated if they will extend the lease. If they won't extend the lease, the plant will close. This has nothing to do with the EPA other than to say that there are requirements for the plant to stay in operation.

The company wants to put in the requirements from the EPA but they won't without a lease agreement with the Navajo tribe.

That means that this whole thing is on the Navajo tribe, not the EPA, not Obama nor anyone/anything else. If the tribe has a lease agreement, there is no issue, without it, the plant closes.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

California helped elect Obama. They should reduce the power generated to meet the polution standards and cut power to California while maintaining current service levels elsewhere.

Let the Obama supporters experience the consequences of their actions.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I remember when this plant and one near Farmington, NM first fired up their boilers back in the early 1970's. Literally within days visibility in the area south and east of there (near Flagstaff) dropped from over a hundred miles to less than 30 on any given day.

This was just before the Clean Air Act was signed by Nixon. We heard the same kinds of threats from the plant owners back then. But the plants cleaned up their stacks and are still operating.

Scare tactics. Unnecessary then and not needed now.

Fly ash from the plant at Farmington was so thick one day that I was unable to land a small plane at the local airport. Visibility was less than one mile. Below minimums for a visual approach. I had to fly on to Cortez and rent a car to return to a meeting. Visible pollutants may have been eliminated now, but the invisible ones are just as harmful.

We didn't believe the lies from the companies then and we shouldn't believe them now.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@The Rock

"Let the Obama supporters experience the consequences of their actions."

You mean like Washington State, which voted solid "blue" during the last Presidential election.

jsf
Centerville, UT

The real issue is the plant owned by investors will not invest such a large sum without a guarantee they will recover. The Navajo Nation, an independent nation will not extend the lease past the cost recovery period. In effect they will nationalize ownership of the plant at the end of the lease term. The navajo nation will be in a position to invest the needed costs to operate the plant under EPA rules. In the mean time the plant will go dark from 2017 to 2019. By making allowances the EPA could allow the plant to operate until 2019 and then shut it down until the needed changes are made by the Navajo Nation. In 1969, the Navajo Nation was declared as a sovereign state.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Just make a list of everyone who objects to this plant, or tries to force new restrictions on it in any way.

Then, let them pay for the costs, if they decide to go ahead and make the changes demanded. Or, of that is not economically desirable, make sure the whiners get their power cut off and not restored until everyone else has new sources of power at the same or lower prices than the Navajo plant.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments