US Coal Plant Stayed Open Amid Cost to Taxpayers Revealed
The Trump administration's decision to keep a Michigan coal-fired power plant online has come under scrutiny as the costs have been revealed, with taxpayers paying around $113 million so far. The 63-year-old JH Campbell coal plant was ordered to remain open by the US energy department in May, despite being slated for retirement.
The order, which has drawn criticism from consumer advocates and environmental groups, has been described as "arbitrary and illegal" by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Critics argue that the plant is expensive and emits high levels of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The costs are being spread across households in nine states, including Michigan, with each household contributing around $615,000 per day.
The utility giant Consumers Energy has said it did not ask for the plant to remain open, but was ordered by the Trump administration. CEO Gary Rochow stated that the order from the energy department "laid out a clear path to cost recovery," but many see this as an attempt to further line the pockets of the energy industry.
The coal plant's closure would save ratepayers around $600 million by 2040, according to Consumers Energy's plans. However, environmentalists point out that the continued operation of the plant is not only costly but also poses serious health and environmental risks. The plant emits high levels of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter into the air, as well as leaking arsenic, lead, lithium, radium, and sulfate into local drinking water and the Great Lakes.
The Trump administration's national energy emergency executive order has been challenged in court by multiple lawsuits, with two coal plants in Michigan being targeted. The other plant is not scheduled to close for another two years, but its continued operation has raised concerns about the impact on the environment and public health.
As the controversy surrounding this issue continues to grow, it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration's decision will stand or if it will be overturned by regulatory bodies.
The Trump administration's decision to keep a Michigan coal-fired power plant online has come under scrutiny as the costs have been revealed, with taxpayers paying around $113 million so far. The 63-year-old JH Campbell coal plant was ordered to remain open by the US energy department in May, despite being slated for retirement.
The order, which has drawn criticism from consumer advocates and environmental groups, has been described as "arbitrary and illegal" by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Critics argue that the plant is expensive and emits high levels of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The costs are being spread across households in nine states, including Michigan, with each household contributing around $615,000 per day.
The utility giant Consumers Energy has said it did not ask for the plant to remain open, but was ordered by the Trump administration. CEO Gary Rochow stated that the order from the energy department "laid out a clear path to cost recovery," but many see this as an attempt to further line the pockets of the energy industry.
The coal plant's closure would save ratepayers around $600 million by 2040, according to Consumers Energy's plans. However, environmentalists point out that the continued operation of the plant is not only costly but also poses serious health and environmental risks. The plant emits high levels of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter into the air, as well as leaking arsenic, lead, lithium, radium, and sulfate into local drinking water and the Great Lakes.
The Trump administration's national energy emergency executive order has been challenged in court by multiple lawsuits, with two coal plants in Michigan being targeted. The other plant is not scheduled to close for another two years, but its continued operation has raised concerns about the impact on the environment and public health.
As the controversy surrounding this issue continues to grow, it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration's decision will stand or if it will be overturned by regulatory bodies.
like what even is going on with these coal plants?!? so taxpayers are basically subsidizing these ancient power plants and it's just crazy 
the environmental impact alone is insane toxic air pollution greenhouse gas emissions...ugh 
like who benefits from this? consumers energy is making bank off this deal but at what cost to our health & environment? 
"arbitrary and illegal" - tell 'em, AG! 
. Anyway, back to this coal plant thing... I mean, $113 million for a 63-year-old plant? That's just crazy talk! And what really gets me is those households in nine states having to chip in around $615,000 per day. Like, can't they just use some of that money to build green energy infrastructure or something? 
I heard the CEO said it was about "cost recovery," but that sounds like corporate jargon to me. And let's not forget those toxins and greenhouse gases being released into our air. It's like, what's the point of saving a few bucks if we're just gonna pollute the planet? 
I mean, $113 million so far? And it's not like the plant is even doing any good... it's basically a money pit 
. I'm all for the environment and public health, but come on, can't we find a better way to address these issues? 
instead of looking towards sustainable energy sources like solar and wind power 
. the costs are being spread across households, that's just not right 
, can't believe our gov is helping big corps 
! They're basically profiting from taxpayers' money 
. It's so unfair 
. Those toxins are killing ppl 
. How much more proof do we need? 
. This is what happens when you put profits over people 
like its 2025 already & solar/pwind energy is way cheaper. plus, all these toxins in air & water? not cool at all 
. people r getting screwed by big corporations & gov 
. It's like throwing cash at the wind, literally. I mean, $113 million so far? What's next, paying people to breathe toxic air? 
. Can't they see that this is a recipe for disaster? The plant would've saved ratepayers $600 million by 2040, but noooo, let's keep it running and risk our health and environment instead 
. It's just crazy talk, if you ask me 
.
. And we're talking about people's health here - not to mention the environment! It's insane that taxpayers are footing the bill for this outdated industry 
. We need to make some serious changes and prioritize our health and the health of our planet - now more than ever 
meanwhile this coal plant is just sittin there spewin out toxic air pollution & greenhouse gases all over the place...like who thought this was a good idea???? 
this ain't no good fam 