U.S. Coal plants cancelled in 2007

[bananas]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007

Coal plants cancelled in 2007

Between 2000 and 2006, over 150 coal plant proposals were fielded by utilities in the United States. By the end of 2007, 10 of those proposed plants had been constructed, and an additional 25 plants were under construction. But during 2007 a large number of proposed plants were cancelled, abandoned, or put on hold: 59 according to the list below. Several conclusions can be drawn from this tally.

Climate concerns have begun to play a major role in plant abandonments and cancellations: Concerns about global warming played a major role in 15 cases. These included five proposed Florida plants (Glades, Taylor, Seminole, Polk, and Stanton), seven proposals in Western states that have newly implemented strict carbon regulations on coal (Avista's unnamed unit, Sunflower's Holcomb unit 3; Idaho Power's unnamed unit; Energy Northwest's Pacific Mountain Energy Center; PacifiCorp's Intermountain Power, Bridger IGCC demonstration, and Bridger expansion); and Sunflower's Holcomb units 1 and 2.

Coal plants are being eliminated from long-range plans: Increasingly, coal plants are disappearing before they can even be named, due to increasing regulatory scrutiny of long-range integrated resource plans. In addition to the plants abandoned by PacifiCorp and Idaho Power Company, it is likely that other utilities around the United States have eliminated coal plants from their long-term planning rosters without public announcement.

Renewables are elbowing out coal: Regulators in several states have begun favoring utility-scale renewables over coal. In Delaware, regulators cancelled a coal power plant proposed by NRG Energy in favor of an alternative proposal that combined wind and natural gas. In California, the combination of a strict carbon emissions standard and a renewable portfolio standard has prompted utilities to enter into contracts for large thermal solar projects sponsored by Ausra, BrightSource, and Solel. Solar thermal companies have found success in recruiting top utility executives such as Robert Fishman, who left an executive VP position at CalPine to take the helm at Ausra.

More plants are being abandoned than rejected: Of the 59 projects listed below, only 15 were rejected outright by regulators, courts, or local authorities. In the remaining 44 cases, the decision was made by utilities themselves. Reasons for abandoning plants include (1) rising construction costs, (2) insufficient financing or failure to receive hoped-for government grants, (3) lowered estimates of demand, and (4) concerns about future carbon regulations.

59 Plants Cancelled, Abandoned, or Put on Hold in 2007

<snop>

[AndyTiedye]

1. Lowered Estimates of Demand Also Seems Like Good News

[diane in sf]

2. Good news, the economics are better for conservation and renewables.

[NNadir]

3. What planet are you living on?

The busbar internal costs of coal plants is about 3 cents per kwh. (The external costs are an entirely different matter - but there are zero "renewables will save us" fundies who know a damn thing about external costs.

If you would like to identify a single place on this planet where renewable energy is so economic that it is causing coal plants to shut, you are free to do so.

The whole matter is NIMBY in fact, and will last about as long as the first black out. No one can build any kind of power plant anywhere in the Western world, mostly because most people believe their electricity comes from a wall socket.

If the coal plants are not being built, it is hardly because fundie anti-nukes are doing anything more than they have ever done - pretending that the world supply of natural gas is infinite, that tankers will come to fill their cargo cult natural gas terminals out at sea - and that God will provide.

Basically the matter comes down, once more, to dumping responsibility for our actions on future generations.

[amandabeech]

4. The natural gas fantasy is particularly vivid in the Northeast.

New England gets a huge percentage of its electricity from natural gas, its solar resources are slim, and the wind available without NIMBY holds isn't much compared to demand. They also don't like nukes.

I don't see natural gas as a viable long-term source of electrical energy.

On another tangent, sometimes plans to build power plants of any kind get put on hold or abandoned when economic expectations are low.

Right now, the economic situation here in the U.S. is dicey. There is no expectation of growth in demand, and although some of that demand growth may have disappeared due to conservation, it may have disappeared due to belief that economic activity will be down, since more office computers means more demand.

[bananas]

5. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club have played a major role in stopping these coal plants

and they've been doing it by forcing externalities to be taken into account.
Yet you keep attacking them - seems clear which side you're on.


http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/victories.asp

Coal Victories Across the Nation!


Utah and Wyoming: PacifiCorp Pulls the Plug on Western Coal Plants
Washington: Proposed Coal Plant Put on Hold
Kansas: State Rejects Massive Coal Plant, Cites Global Warming Concerns
Iowa: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
Oklahoma: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
Arizona: Community Succeeds in Preventing New Coal Plant
Florida: Another One Bites the Dust
Kentucky: Court Says No to Peabody Coal
Florida: On a Roll Against Coal
Florida: In Landmark Decision, Florida Pulls the Plug on a Massive Coal-Fired Proposal
Missouri: Sierra Club and Utility Agree to Landmark Global Warming Plan
Texas: TXU Cancels Plans for 8 of 11 Proposed Coal-Fired Plants
Illinois: Major Clean Air Victory in Chicago
Illinois: Historic Settlement with Springfield Utility
Michigan: Community Succeeds in Keeping Polluting Coal Plant Out



Utah and Wyoming: PacifiCorp Pulls the Plug on Western Coal Plants
December 6, 2007

In yet another important victory in the fight against global warming, on December 6, 2007 PacifiCorp announced that they would scrap their plans to construct their proposed Jim Bridger coal-fired power plant in Wyoming and their proposed Intermountain Power Project coal-fired unit in Utah. PacifiCorp, owned by MidAmerican Energy Holdings and Utah's top energy producer, withdrew their filing to develop the plant "Because of the time-frame and the uncertainty around coal, based on climate change issues, (the company is) looking at a combination of natural gas and wind power projects," according to spokesman David Eskelsen. Combined, these two plants would have contributed an estimated 10 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming, into the atmosphere each year.

PacifiCorp's decision comes in the wake of extensive organizing by Sierra Club volunteers and leaders. Tim Wagner, director of the Utah Smart Energy campaign, heralded the company's decision to switch to a less environmentally harmful energy source. "The proponents of IPP Unit #3 were telling me just a short nine months ago that it was going to get built, no matter what," said Wagner. "So seeing this 950-megawatt, west-desert dinosaur go down after three years of hard work is, in my opinion, the best Christmas gift the state of Utah could ever receive."

Washington: Proposed Coal Plant Put on Hold
November 27, 2007

On November 27, 2007 the state of Washington put on hold plans for a massive proposed coal-fired power plant planned for Kalama, WA. Members of the state's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) unanimously voted to reject Energy Northwest's alleged plan for permanently sequestering some of its carbon dioxide emissions, as required by state law. The council vindicated the position of the coalition of groups working to oppose the plant, including the Sierra Club, the Northwest Energy Coalition, the Washington Environmental Council, and Earthjustice, ruling that the developer had not produced an adequate plan for how they would store greenhouse gas emissions.

Kansas: State Rejects Massive Coal Plant, Cites Global Warming Concerns
October 18, 2007

In a monumental global warming victory, on October 18, 2007 Kansas regulators denied an air permit for Sunflower Electric's proposed massive coal-fired power plant. The decision to not go forward with the 1400 megawatt plant marks Kansas a leader in the national surge of states rejecting coal power because of its major contribution to global warming.

"This decision clears the way for a bright, clean energy future in Kansas and across the Midwest," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "The Holcomb plant would have locked the state into another 50 years of dirty, polluting coal energy and eliminated the market for the renewable forms of energy that are the future. Kansas, and particularly West Kansas, is now perfectly positioned to develop its abundant clean energy resources, help solve global warming, and create thousands of new family-supporting jobs."

The plant, planned near Holcomb, would have mostly served out-of-state customers while emitting more than 10 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution a year. The pollution would have made it one of the three largest new sources of global warming pollution in the United States.

Iowa: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
October 11, 2007

Opponents of a massive new coal-fired power plant proposed in Waterloo, including the Sierra Club and the Iowa Farmers Union, won a major victory in their fight against a proposed 750 megawatt coal-fired plant. On October 11, 2007 Iowa's City Development Board rejected the City of Waterloo's application to annex the land of non-consenting owners for construction of LS Power's proposed 750-megawatt Elk Run Energy Station. Board officials noted that LS Power can still build the plant without the city annexing the property, but the project must be approved by the Iowa Utilities Board and apply for permits from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Oklahoma: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
September 10, 2007

In a step in the right direction, on September 10, 2007 the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) voted to reject a request for pre-approval of plans to build a massive coal-fired power plant near Red Rock, Oklahoma. The commission ruled that American Electric Power and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. did not prove that they had sufficiently explored alternative forms of energy in planning their proposed 950 megawatt power plant. This decision comes in light of a petition that the Sierra Club and Oklahoma Sustainability Network filed with the OCC stressing the need to exhaust demand side management opportunities, such as energy efficiency, before deciding whether the proposed Red Rock plant is really needed. In their 2-1 ruling the commission vindicated the Club's position, halting efforts to construct this proposed source of global warming and other hazardous pollutants.

Arizona: Community Succeeds in Preventing New Coal Plant
August 31, 2007

After undergoing months of pressure from local citizens and environmental groups, Southwestern Power Group announced on August 31 that the Company will burn natural gas instead of coal at its Bowie Plant's second unit. Cochise County Supervisor Paul Newman, a former state legislator, declared the decision as "a huge environmental victory for Cochise County and the state of Arizona." The plant was originally supposed to be comprised of two natural gas-fired plants, however after the first unit was built, Southwestern decided the second unit would run on coal as a result of increased gas prices. Southwestern's switch to coal ignited a local debate over the potential harmful impacts that the coal unit would have on residents, including increased pollution, excessive noise and other water and land changes. This move away from coal reflects growing trend of power companies acknowledging the major economic and environmental problems associated with coal burning. As Newman noted, "I do think that the energy industry in the West should take notice...the citizens don't want power plants that add to this greenhouse effect. We've reached a tipping point."

Florida: Another One Bites the Dust
August 21, 2007

In recent months, Florida has quickly become a leader in state efforts to combat global warming. Governor Charlie Crist has openly voiced his opposition to new coal plants; coal is a dirty energy source which releases a number of harmful pollutants that increase global warming and endanger human health. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection issued a decision on August 21 denying the site certification for Seminole Electric's proposed 750 megawatt coal-fired power plant. In its ruling, the DEP found that Seminole did not show that the project minimizes "the adverse effects on human health, the environment and the ecology of the land." Secretary Michael Sole concluded that "Seminole failed to demonstrate that, if constructed and operated in accordance with its application, the proposed project will serve and protect the broad interest of the public and the application should therefore be denied."

Kentucky: Court Says No to Peabody Coal
August 6, 2007

The Sierra Club Environmental Law Program has succeeded in stopping a massive proposed Kentucky coal-fired plant in its tracks. In this important victory, Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court ruled against Peabody's proposed Thoroughbred plant, citing it as a threat to public health. The 1500 megawatt plant, planned for Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, would have been one of America's largest and most polluting power plants- emitting thousands of tons of air pollutants that cause smog and are known to cause severe public health problems including asthma and cancer. In addition, this defeated coal plant would have been one of the largest new sources of global warming in the United States, emitting over 12,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. This is half of all the carbon dioxide reductions that that the seven Northeast states are proposing to cut from all of their power plants annually by 2020.

In the August 6 ruling the court remanded Peabody's Clean Air Act permit back to the Secretary of Environmental and Public Protection, noting that the lack of modern pollution controls would not only endanger public health, but also "effectively foreclose construction of any new sources of air pollution in the region, potentially stifling industrial growth for decades to come." The court's rejection of the Thoroughbred plant opens the door to a cleaner energy future for Kentucky. By not locking itself into 50 more years of polluting technology, the state now has a chance to invest in efficiency and renewable energy, like wind, which can save consumers money, protect air quality, create good-paying American jobs and fight global warming.

Florida: On a Roll Against Coal
July 3, 2007

Less than one month after the Florida Public Service Commission's landmark rejection of the proposed Glades coal-fired power plant, a consortium of Florida utilities decided to pull the plug on their plans to construct an 800 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Taylor County, Florida. Backers of the proposed Taylor Energy Center suspended their efforts to obtain permits for this plant due to concerns about global warming. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups had challenged the proposed power plant last year before the Florida Public Service Commission and raised the threat of global warming in opposition papers to the plant. In addition to emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, this plant would have used nine million gallons of water each day. Taylor Energy Center's decision marks a major victory for Florida activists working to shape Florida's energy future and promote smart energy solutions.

Florida: In Landmark Decision, Florida Pulls the Plug on a Massive Coal-Fired Proposal
June 5, 2007

For the first time since 1992, the Florida Public Services Commission voted to reject a proposal for one of the largest new coal-fired power plants in the United States. In a 4-0 vote the PSC denied Florida Power & Light's petition to build a massive 1960 megawatt coal plant next to Lake Okeechobee at the headwaters of the Everglades. The proposed plant would have been one of the largest single new sources of carbon dioxide in the nation, accelerating climate change that is already harming Florida, its residents, and its ecosystems. In rejecting FP&L's petition, the PSC agreed with the Sierra Club and other environmental intervenors that Florida can meet its energy needs with cleaner, less costly options. The PSC determined that the proposed plant was not cost-effective, particularly because it would expose Florida ratepayers to significant future costs for carbon dioxide emissions.

Sierra Club staff attorney Joanne Spalding lauded the PSC decision, stating, "In rejecting FP&L's Everglades coal plant, the PSC recognized that Florida residents cannot afford the costs of a massive new coal plant that will emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide and hundreds of pounds of mercury each year, harming the Everglades and exacerbating the impacts of climate change." Florida Governor Charlie Christ voiced his support for the PSC's landmark decision, stating that "As we seek to address the challenges presented by global climate change, leadership of the caliber demonstrated today by the Public Service Commission will be essential to our success."

Missouri: Sierra Club and Utility Agree to Landmark Global Warming Plan
March 20, 2007

In a groundbreaking agreement that can serve as a model for environmental groups and utilities working together, the Sierra Club, Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L), and the Concerned Citizens of Platte County (CCPC) have agreed on a set of initiatives to offset carbon dioxide (CO2) and reduce other emissions for the Kansas City-based utility. Under the agreement announced, KCP&L agreed to pursue offsets for all of the global warming emissions associated with its new plant through significant investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and cut pollution from its existing plants in order to improve air quality in the Greater Kansas City metro area.

The agreement proposes other investments in clean energy, significant decreases in emissions and resolves four appeals pending between the Sierra Club, CCPC, and KCP&L. The most significant element of the agreement is the unprecedented commitment by KCP&L to pursue the offset of carbon emissions from its proposed Iatan 2 generating station, located near Weston, Missouri. The estimated 6,000,000 tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions are targeted to be offset by adding 400 megawatts (MW) of wind power; 300 MW of energy efficiency; and a yet to be determined combination of wind, efficiency, or the closing, altering, re-powering or efficiency improvements at any of its generating units. These proposed offsets will be partially implemented by 2010 and fully implemented by 2012. The parties are also agreeing to work together on a series of regulatory and legislative initiatives to achieve an overall reduction in KCP&L's carbon dioxide emissions of 20 percent by 2020.

Texas: TXU Cancels Plans for 8 of 11 Proposed Coal-Fired Plants
February 24, 2007

As part of a$45 billion buyout by a team of private equity firms, TXU Corporation announced their plans to abandon plans to build 8 of 11 coal-fired power plants proposed across the state.Under TXU's agreement, they have pledged to: stop plans for building 8 of 11 new plants proposed for Texas, kill plans for new coal plants in Pennsylvania and Virginia, back federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade system, and double TXU spending to promote energy efficiency, to $80 million a year, for five years. This agreement comes in the wake of active litigation and opposition by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.

Illinois: Major Clean Air Victory in Chicago
September 20, 2006

In a huge victory for clean air, on September 28th, 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) overturned the air permit for Indeck Energy Services' proposed 660 megawatt coal-fired plant near Chicago. The EAB sided with the Sierra Club in finding the permit deficient in four ways, including its emissions control requirements and its environmental impact assessments. Indeck planned to locate the pollution spewing plant in the Greater Chicago non-attainment area, a region home to eight million people. In addition, it would also have been located immediately adjacent to the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, the nation's first prairie preserve. The Sierra Club has actively worked to oppose this plant for the past three years, engaging the community and forming important alliances, including with the City of Chicago and American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago. The EAB's decision serves as an excellent opportunity for the state of Illinois to move towards a clean-energy future that harnesses safe and affordable energy options, including new wind farms and large investments in energy efficiency.

Illinois: Historic Settlement with Springfield Utility
July 3, 2006

On July 3, 2006 the City of Springfield and the Sierra Club reached a historic and unprecedented settlement regarding the City's plans to build a new 250 megawatt coal-fired plant. This landmark agreement stipulated that the municipal utility retire one of the dirtiest coal plants in the nation, purchase 120 MW of wind, invest four million dollars in energy efficiency, and significantly decrease emissions of soot, smog and mercury pollution. In addition, all of the government buildings owned by the state of Illinois are to be powered with green electricity. The combined efforts of local, regional, and national Sierra Club groups yielded a settlement that will serve to promote clean energy, increase energy efficiency, and combat pollutants that cause global warming and threaten human health.

Michigan: Community Succeeds in Keeping Polluting Coal Plant Out
October 13, 2005

A small Lake Michigan community has succeeded in preventing a Texas-based corporation from constructing a massive coal-fired power plant in the heart of their town. Local officials originally rejected Tondu Corporation's permit application in 2004, acting to protect the town of Manistee from toxic pollutants such as mercury and to preserve the area's prized fisheries. However, Tondu responded to the town's attempt to protect its future by filing a major lawsuit in which they sought $59 million in “damages”. The Sierra Club joined the legal proceedings, working with the local community to ensure that the town would not have to pay for acting in its own best interest. On October 12, 2005 a federal judge threw out Tondu's lawsuit, vindicating Manistee residents' attempt to keep a major public health threat and global warming contributor out of their town.



http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/victories.asp

[GliderGuider]

6. I have this grimly amusing vision

Of the greens successfully stopping both evil coal power and evil nuclear power:

[losthills]

7. So...

You don't believe that renewables are stepping up to the plate?

[GliderGuider]

9. Yes, they're stepping up to the plate

But they're carrying a pretty light bat. They need to hit a home run, but they've only got the muscle for a single.

[losthills]

10. From my vantage point,

I see wind and solar power becoming mainstream. I see individual home owners, and new home builders and utility companies turning to these sources as a common sense and affordable choice. If the trends that are reported in this group almost every day continue, and I see no reason that they won't, then I think that wind and solar could become the main sorces of power in our lifetimes.

Couple that with the strides we are seeing in Auto design-- Hybrids that are getting 100 miles per gallon, all electric and even solar powered mini-trucks that are already on the road and available to anyone, then I think that the pathway out of this mess we're in is already opening up, and a sane energy future is not only possible but probable.

I applaud the "Greens" for standing in the way of more antiquated water boilers and the environmental destruction that goes along with them while the public and our elected representatives catch up to the new ideas and innovations that are currently gaining momentum. That's their job, and I'm grateful to them....

[bananas]

8. doomer porn. nt

[hunter]

11. 25 plants were under construction.

Exactly when is this "elbowing out" of coal plants by renewables supposed to occur?

If it was actually the case that renewables were displacing coal plants, we wouldn't be building new coal plants at all, and we would be shutting down the ones we already have.

I applaud the killing of coal projects that exist only on paper, but that's all it is -- killing a paper coal project. When to we get around to shutting down actual hardware, and how do we accomplish that?

I suspect the front line of this war is the coal mines themselves. Shut down the coal mines by legislation, by activism, etc., and you shut down the coal fired power plants.

But it seems we are never going to reach that place. As demand for electricity increases, coal plants will be built, and quite clearly renewable energy still hasn't got what it takes to stop this.

[bananas]

12. By the same flawed reasoning ...

Exactly when is this "elbowing out" of coal plants by nucular supposed to occur?

If it was actually the case that nucular were displacing coal plants, we wouldn't be building new coal plants at all, and we would be shutting down the ones we already have.

I applaud the killing of coal projects that exist only on paper, but that's all it is -- killing a paper coal project. When to we get around to shutting down actual hardware, and how do we accomplish that?

I suspect the front line of this war is the coal mines themselves. Shut down the coal mines by legislation, by activism, etc., and you shut down the coal fired power plants.

But it seems we are never going to reach that place. As demand for electricity increases, coal plants will be built, and quite clearly nucular energy still hasn't got what it takes to stop this.

[hunter]

15. You think I'm pro-nuke, which is not the case.

I'm indifferent-nuke and anti-coal.

I'm also against further hydro development, and that includes tide and wave power. I don't think natural gas will be viable much longer, and I oppose large scale agriculture development for energy because it seems likely climate change is going to make it difficult to feed everyone in the world, much less grow crops for energy.

So let's shut down the coal industry, and see what develops. If you think solar and wind and geothermal can take up the load, fine, you have nothing to worry about. If these renewable energy sources cannot take up the load then we will have to resort to nuclear power even while we embark upon a large scale program of mandatory energy conservation.

But of course all these scenarios are unrealistic. We will continue to use coal and go on our merry way until some horrible civilization-ending catastrophe is upon us, and all these wonderful renewable energy schemes will have served only to prop up an usustainable economic system for a few more years, and a hundred years from now they will litter the landscape to be poked around in with morbid curiousity like all the other trash we leave behind.



http://www.nps.gov/pefo/parknews/new-route-66-exhibit-and-pull-out.htm

[bananas]

13. Nonviolent direct actions against coal

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nonviolent_direct_actions_against_coal

Nonviolent direct actions against coal

Contents
1 Definition and history of nonviolent direct action
2 Direct actions against coal industry
2.1 Nov. 10, 2004: Chesapeake Climate Action Network blockade of Dickerson Power Plant
2.2 Aug. 15, 2005: Earth First!/Mountain Justice Summer blockade of Campbell County mountaintop removal site
2.3 July 10, 2006: Earth First!/Rising Tide blockade of Clinch River Power Plant
2.4 Aug. 31, 2006: Drax Power Plant blockade attempt
2.5 June 5, 2006, and Nov. 3, 2007: Rising Tide boat blockades of Newcastle port
2.6 Feb. 27, 2007: Rising Tide blockade of New South Wales Labor Party
2.7 Mar. 16, 2007: Occupation of West Virginia Gov. Manchin's office
2.8 Apr. 13, 2007: Blockade of Asheville Merrill Lynch
2.9 June 8, 2007: ASEN blockade of New South Wales Department of Planning
2.10 July 3, 2007: Greenpeace blockade of New South Wales Department of Planning
2.11 Aug. 13, 2007: Earth First! occupation of Asheville Bank of America
2.12 Sept. 3, 2007: Occupation of Loy Yang Power Plant
2.13 Sept. 4, 2007: ASEN Occupation of Newcastle coal port
2.14 Oct. 8, 2007: Greenpeace occupation of Kingsnorth Power Plant
2.15 Nov. 5, 2007: Rainforest Action Network blockade of D.C. Citibank branch
2.16 Nov. 15, 2007: Rainforest Action Network day of action against coal finance
2.17 Nov. 15, 2007: Student blockade of Duke Energy headquarters
2.18 Nov. 15, 2007: Greenpeace occupation of Munmorah Power Station
2.19 Nov. 19, 2007: Rising Tide Kooragang Coal Terminal rail blockade
2.20 Dec. 5, 2007: Blockade of Ffos-y-fran coal mine construction site
3 Resources
3.1 References

<snip details>

[losthills]

14. Greenpeace???

You mean the group that the pro-nuke propagandists here are always trashing?

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. What percentage of Surplus applications are normal?

Real question is to what extent does the industry file more applications than it intends to ever build. Just to see which sites will generate more opposition than others and hence would have a higher cost/ longer time to build.

[hunter]

17. Nah, electric utilities wouldn't do that... would they?

Good call, OLTG.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. So, 10 have been finished...

...25 are under construction, and according to my calculator at least 56 more are still going ahead.

Gosh, that is good news.
:eyes: