Editorial

Washington Post

February 28, 2010

IN AMERICA’S climate debate, one of the most promising developments of recent months has been the growing recognition in Washington that natural gas may play a key role in curbing carbon emissions. The resurgence of gas comes through the discovery of massive deposits in Appalachian shale formations and elsewhere — a reserve that offers the prospect of stable domestic supplies and relatively low prices. Since burning natural gas produces half the emissions of burning coal, switching the two fuels could put a significant dent in America’s carbon footprint.

The rumor this month was that such arguments had swayed the White House and that President Obama would back policy aimed at discouraging coal and encouraging natural gas at a speech he delivered to the Business Roundtable on Wednesday. The rumors didn’t bear out. That’s too bad. With climate-change legislation still stalled in Congress, nudging gas forward is something that the government can do quickly and relatively cheaply to meet its medium-term emissions goals if current trends persist.

To be sure, America doesn’t want to depend too much on one commodity. Drastically ramping up the amount of natural gas burned to generate electricity would require infrastructure investments in certain regions as well as retrofits of certain plants or the construction of entirely new ones.

But existing gas-fired plants are running at only about 25 percent capacity, in part because many are switched on only when demand spikes. The Congressional Research Service reports that doubling the use of existing plants could replace about a third of coal-fired power, getting America a third of the way to its goal for 2020. For reasons of infrastructure, that might be too optimistic a scenario. But BP — which has a stake in natural gas — estimates that retiring the 80 dirtiest coal plants and replacing them with gas-fired power would get America 10 percent of the way to its 2020 emissions target and increase domestic gas consumption by only 5 percent.

Even if you don’t trust BP’s numbers, a range of attractive policy options is available, starting with tax incentives to decommission old coal plants. Natural gas is so competitive, it might not take much more than that. However, policymakers might also consider coupling that with some carrot to switch to gas.

States that demand that utilities derive a certain portion of their electricity from clean sources could also allow natural gas to count in such requirements, discounting for the carbon emissions it does produce. Federal legislators contemplating a similar, national standard might also consider this.

In the long term, natural gas is only a bridge fuel as America weans itself off carbon, since it still produces plenty of emissions. With a rising carbon price, natural gas will become too expensive to burn.

But it can provide the country some time to bring to market the cleaner technologies on which America eventually must run.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022702804.html

By Siobhan Hughes

A DOW JONES NEWSWIRES COLUMN

February 11, 2010

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–U.S. environmental regulators must soon decide whether burning natural gas to generate power counts as a means of cutting greenhouse gases, a ruling that could reshape the country’s industrial operations and edge the U.S. away from coal.

If the EPA decides that companies must consider gas as a tool to limit emissions, power companies with coal-burning power plants in the works might have to go back to the drawing board. Gas producers would find fresh demand for the abundant fuel. Gas releases about half the greenhouse-gas emissions of coal.

The Environmental Protection Agency is pursuing its own greenhouse-gas regulations because Congress has failed to act. The issue has been pending at the EPA since 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants and said that the EPA must determine whether to write regulations.

At issue is what counts as “best available control technology” to reduce emissions from power generation. Other methods under consideration are carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, whereby carbon dioxide emissions are piped into permanent underground storage, and energy efficiency measures. The EPA is working on that guidance as it finalizes rules requiring power plants and other stationary emissions sources to hold permits to emit greenhouse gases. States would implement the rules and approve permits that have the best available technology to control greenhouse-gas emissions.

Janet McCabe, the principal deputy assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said that the EPA hasn’t decided when greenhouse-gas permits will be required, but said that the EPA plans to provide control-technology guidance to states “in a timely way.” She said that while there is a consensus that energy efficiency is “a key consideration,” beyond that, the EPA hasn’t determined what technologies or operating procedures companies must consider when building new plants or upgrading existing facilities.

Some environmental lawyers look to a recent decision by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson as a sign that the EPA is already favoring natural gas. In December, the EPA chief held up a proposed plant in Kentucky that would convert coal into gas and produce electricity because the state regulator “has not provided a reasoned explanation that demonstrates why the option of using exclusively natural gas is not available for this facility.”

The EPA says that the decision was a “procedural matter.” The agency says it took no action in a similar case in August 2009 because state regulators had gone through appropriate procedures and considered whether alternate fuel should be used.

The EPA decision intensified an already heated debate within EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. After months of work on the subject, the panel’s climate-change work group last week failed to reach an agreement on how far the EPA could go in setting guidelines for a best-available control technology. The debate boils down to whether considering gas as a power source winds up forcing companies to build gas plants, fundamentally changing the nature of the power project.

“In the past, the EPA and the courts have always taken the position that the Clean Air Act cannot be used to force someone to switch from a coal plant to a natural-gas plant, but Administrator Jackson seems to want to change that rule,” said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator who represents companies at law firm Bracewell & Giuliani and who is a member of the EPA advisory committee. “It will certainly be litigated in court.”

The EPA says that companies will still have leeway to keep existing coal-fired power plants running because they may take the economics of a project into account when determining what technologies to use to control greenhouse-gas emissions.

“We would not anticipate that states would require an existing coal-fired plant that is seeking a permit for a major modification to switch to natural gas” since any analysis about what counts as the best available control technology “requires that costs be taken into consideration as part of the decision-making process,” McCabe said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100211-713458.html

By Staff

Brockton Enterprise

January 15, 2010

Braintree — Braintree Electric Light Department (BELD) has received the 2009 Build New England Award for the design and construction of the Thomas A. Watson Generating Station, BELD’s recently completed state-of-the-art power plant.

The award, presented by Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Massachusetts, recognizes the work of outstanding project teams that designed and built facilities in New England during 2009.

Receiving the award for the Watson project were BELD General Manager William Bottiggi; Roger Lemos, vice president of PB Power (design); and Gregory Oneglia, vice chairman of O & G Industries, Inc. (construction).

 “This was the most complex project attempted by BELD in recent memory,” Bottiggi said. “Everyone involved contributed, and our employees were critical in the final success of the project.”

The new plant is said to be one of the most modern and efficient in the country and will benefit Braintree for years to come by helping to stabilize electric rates and protecting residents from fluctuating market forces.   

http://www.wickedlocal.com/braintree/news/x370524008/Braintree-Electric-Light-Department-receives-award-for-power-plant-design-construction

A fossil fuel gains stature in global warming fight: natural gas changes power equation

By Mark Williams

Associated Press

December 21, 2009

An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It’s cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.

It’s natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It’s now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low. Long used to heat half the nation’s homes, it’s becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants.

Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks.

Natural gas’ abundance and low price come as governments around the world debate how to curtail carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to global warming. The likely outcome is a tax on companies that spew excessive greenhouse gases. Utilities and other companies see natural gas as a way to lower emissions — and their costs. Yet politicians aren’t stumping for it.

In June, President Barack Obama lumped natural gas with oil and coal as energy sources the nation must move away from. He touts alternative sources — solar, wind and biofuels derived from corn and other plants. In Congress, the energy debate has focused on finding cleaner coal and saving thousands of mining jobs from West Virginia to Wyoming.

Utilities in the U.S. aren’t waiting for Washington to jump on the gas bandwagon. Looming climate legislation has altered the calculus that they use to determine the cheapest way to deliver power. Coal may still be cheaper, but natural gas emits half as much carbon when burned to generate the same amount electricity.

Today, about 27 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow.

But the fuel has to be plentiful and its price stable — and that has not always been the case with natural gas. In the 1990s, factories that wanted to burn gas instead of coal had to install equipment that did both because the gas supply was uncertain and wild price swings were common. In some states, because of feared shortages, homebuilders were told new gas hookups were banned.

It’s a different story today. Energy experts believe that the huge volume of supply now will ease price swings and supply worries.

Gas now trades on futures markets for about $5.50 per 1,000 cubic feet. While that’s up from a recent low of $2.41 in September as the recession reduced demand and storage caverns filled to overflowing, it’s less than half what it was in the summer of 2008 when oil prices surged close to $150 a barrel.

Oil and gas prices trends have since diverged, due to the recession and the growing realization of just how much gas has been discovered in the last three years. That’s thanks to the introduction of horizontal drilling technology that has unlocked stunning amounts of gas in what were before off-limits shale formations. Estimates of total gas reserves have jumped 58 percent from 2004 to 2008, giving the U.S. a 90-year supply at the current usage rate of about 23 trillion cubic feet of year.

The only question is whether enough gas can be delivered at affordable enough prices for these trends to accelerate.

The world’s largest oil company, Exxon Mobil Corp., gave its answer last Monday when it announced a $30 billion deal to acquire XTO Energy Inc. The move will make it the country’s No. 1 producer of natural gas.

Exxon expects to be able to dramatically boost natural gas sales to electric utilities. In fact, CEO Rex Tillerson says that’s why the deal is such a smart investment.

Tillerson says he sees demand for natural gas growing 50 percent by 2030, much of it for electricity generation and running factories. Decisions being made by executives at power companies lend credence to that forecast.

Consider Progress Energy Inc., which scrapped a $2 billion plan this month to add scrubbers needed to reduce sulfur emissions at 4 older coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. Instead, it will phase out those plants and redirect a portion of those funds toward cleaner burning gas-fired plants.

Lloyd Yates, CEO of Progess Energy Carolina, says planners were 99 percent certain that retrofitting plants made sense when they began a review late last year. But then gas prices began falling and the recession prompted gas-turbine makers to slash prices just as global warming pressures intesified.

“Everyone saw it pretty quickly,” he says. Out went coal, in comes gas. “The environmental component of coal is where we see instability.”

Nevada power company NV Energy Inc. canceled plans for a $5 billion coal-fired plant early this year. That came after its homestate senator, Majority Leader Harry Reid, made it clear he would fight to block its approval, and executives’ fears mounted about the costs of meeting future environmental rules.

“It was obvious to us that Congress or the EPA or both were going to act to reduce carbon emissions,” said CEO Michael Yackira, whose utilty already gets two-thirds of its electricity from gas-fired units.

“Without understanding the economic ramifications, it would have been foolish for us to go forward.”

Even with an expected jump in demand from utilities, gas prices won’t rise much beyond $6.50 per 1,000 cubic feet for years to come, says Ken Medlock, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. That tracks an Energy Department estimate made last week.

Such forecasts are based in part on a belief that the recent spurt in gas discoveries may only be the start of a golden age for gas drillers — one that creates wealth that rivals the so-called Gusher Age of the early 20th century, when strikes in Texas created a new class of oil barons.

XTO, the company that Exxon is buying, was one of the pioneers in developing new drilling technologies that allow a single well to descend 9,000 feet and then bore horizontally through shale formations up to 1 1/2 miles away. Water, sand and chemical additives are pumped through these pipes to unlock trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that until recently had been judged unobtainable.

Even with the big increases in reserves they were logging, expansion plans by XTO and its rivals were limited by the debt they took on to finance these projects that can cost as much as $3 million apiece.

Under Exxon, which earned $45.2 billion last year, that barrier has been obliterated.

The wells still only capture only about a quarter of the gas locked in the shale formations. Future improvements could double that recovery rate. Bottom line: this new source of gas supply in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York and other states holds out the promise of as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of supplies. It is estimated that the U.S. sits on 83 percent more recoverable natural gas than was thought in 1990.

“The question now is how does this change the energy discussion in the U.S. and by how much?” says Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and chairman of IHS CERA, an energy consultancy. “This is domestic energy … it’s low carbon, it’s low cost and it’s abundant. When you add it up, it’s revolutionary.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jkOuIcimVaOGqCJzYDMNtgf5ELmgD9CNNU3O1

By Kyle Alspach

Brockton Enterprise

December 17, 2009

StumbleUpon

• Newsvine
• del.icio.us
• Digg

BROCKTON – The city Water Commission on Tuesday approved the sale of approximately 260,000 gallons of water per day to a proposed power plant.

The potable water will be used for bathrooms, kitchens and some machinery and equipment at the fossil fuel-burning plant, said water systems manager Brian Creedon. The water cannot be used for cooling at the plant, Creedon said.

An official estimate on the cost was not available, but under the city’s water fee structure the water would likely bring in more than $800,000 per year from project company Advanced Power Services of Boston.

The water commission voted 4-0 in favor of the water hookup, a prerequisite for gaining a city building permit, Creedon said.

“It’s another step forward,” said power company spokesman Wes Eberle.

Three people attended the morning meeting and all spoke in favor of the project, Creedon said. The sole city official at the meeting was Councilor-at-large Todd Petti, Creedon said.

“I support the project, and I went there showing my support,” Petti said Wednesday.

The 350-megawatt plant would generate electricity for more than 200,000 homes by burning natural gas and diesel. The project is slated to be built off Oak Hill Way on the city’s south side.

Project opponents said it was disappointing that no one spoke against the plant at the water commission meeting.

Ed Byers, a well-known critic of the plant, called it “unconscionable” that no other council members were there.

“It really sends the wrong message,” said Byers, whose salad dressing company, Cindy’s Kitchen, is located near the power plant site.

Councilor-at-large Thomas Brophy, one of the major opponents on the council, said he wasn’t able to attend the meeting because it was held in the morning during his work hours.

“It’s unfortunate that no other officials were there,” he said. “But I don’t know if that would’ve prevented the board from taking the action they took.”

Creedon confirmed that the commission had no basis to deny the water, saying this would be considered discriminating against a business.

“It met all the conditions,” Creedon said. “I don’t think we had a legal ground to reject it, that’s my opinion.”

Advanced Power is also still planning to seek the sale of treated city wastewater for cooling at the plant, Eberle said.

The sale of the wastewater, which would be roughly 2 million gallons per day, needs two-thirds of the City Council to approve the sale.

In January, 10 of the 11 councilors who will take office are opponents of the plant — the same as the current council — suggesting the sale could be turned down.

“This battle’s going to be fought on all fronts, and eventually it’s going to be on the floor of the City Council,” Brophy said.

Opponents, including current Mayor James E. Harrington and Mayor-elect Linda Balzotti, point to studies showing that long-term exposure to air pollutants such as particulate matter are linked with health impacts, including respiratory and heart disease.

Advanced Power contends the plant will have no health impact since it will be powered mainly by natural gas, the least polluting fossil fuel, and points to approval by state agencies as evidence of this.

The Energy Facilities Siting Board approved a permit for the project this summer, but forced the project to win planning and zoning approvals from Brockton city boards, which the company is now pursuing.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/brockton/news/business/x967379101/Board-approves-potable-water-hookup-for-Brockton-power-plant

By Elaine Allegrini

Brockton Enterprise

December 15, 2009

BROCKTON — It will cost city homeowners another $1 a week for real estate taxes next year.

That’s the average estimated by Assessor Bernard Siegel when the City Council set the fiscal 2010 tax rate Monday.

The new rate is $13.77 per $1,000 valuation for residential property, up from $11.10 this year. The new commercial rate is $28.24 per $1,000 valuation, up from $22.84 this year.

The annual classification hearing followed past practice, a separate tax rate for commercial and residential. The new rates will be reflected in quarterly tax bills that will be mailed by Dec. 31 and due Feb. 1.

“This is one difficult situation we deal with every December,” said Ward 3 Councilor Dennis Eaniri. “This year, it’s more difficult because of the times we’re in. It’s not an easy decision. No matter what we did, no one’s going to be happy.”

Taxes are going up on nearly all properties.

The average residential increase of $51.97 is based on a house with a median value of $186,000. Last year, the median house value was $226,100.

“Values have gone down,” Siegel said. In general, the value of a single family home is down 15 to 20 percent; multi-family homes have dropped 30 to 40 percent, he said.

Siegel also said the higher valued homes in the city will see an increase greater than lower valued properties.

“The higher valued homes suffered less depreciation,” he said.

The city has 22,400 residential properties, ranging from single family to multi-family. Siegel said about 2 percent of those properties are in foreclosure.

Commercial properties haven’t seen the same decline, but the drop is up to 10 percent, according to Siegel.

As a result, commercial property will see a greater increase in taxes, estimated at $969.47 based on a median value of $254,000, he said. Last year, the median price of commercial property was $271,500.

“The value of commercial property hasn’t gone down nearly as much,” Siegel added.

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x1599180966/Brockton-tax-rate-up-values-down

December 12, 2009 

CONTACT:

For inquiries regarding Mr. McClendon

Brent Gooden

+1 405 818 1900 
bgooden@goodengroup.com  

In Copenhagen until 20 Dec.

Gregory Staple

+1 202 374 3067

gstaple@cleanskies.org 
 

NGO SAYS NATURAL GAS PROVIDES NEW OPTION FOR

IMMEDIATE U.S. CARBON CUTS

American Clean Skies Foundation Chairman, Aubrey K. McClendon, and

CEO, Gregory C. Staple, Issue Statements Following Major Copenhagen Side Event, Release of White Paper

COPENHAGEN – The American Clean Skies Foundation (ACSF), together with the UN Foundation and the Worldwatch Institute, today hosted a major side event in Copenhagen focusing on the ways natural gas – and, in particular, the discovery of vast reserves of unconventional, or shale gas – can accelerate the transition to a global low-carbon economy. Natural gas can generate electricity with 50-70 percent less CO₂ than coal per BTU.  As is the case in the U.S., many other countries have also recently discovered very large new unconventional reserves of natural gas, primarily in deeply buried shale rock formations.

At the side event, ACSF released a comprehensive new working paper entitled “North America’s New Natural Gas Resources and their Potential Impact on Energy and Climate Security.” The paper shows why natural gas offers an immediate opportunity for climate action and describes the necessary U.S. legislative policies for pursuing this option. It is authored jointly by ACSF’s CEO, Gregory C. Staple, a respected climate policy expert, and Dr. Joel L. Swerdlow, author of the noted National Geographic Society Book titled Nature’s Medicine. Copies can be obtained from the Foundation at http://www.cleanskies.org/new-energy/.  Event details can be found at www.cleanskies.org/pdf/acsf-agenda-121209.pdf.

The Chairman and CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corp., Aubrey K. McClendon, who also serves as Chairman of ACSF, and Mr. Staple offered the following statements:

“We are in the midst of a natural gas renaissance in the United States – a renaissance that gives the U.S. an unprecedented means to demonstrate global economic and environmental leadership because gas is a much lower carbon fuel than coal or oil.

The U.S. boom in shale gas production also provides a historic opportunity to unite the business and environmental communities, since it may create hundreds of thousands of new jobs while producing large environmental benefits.There is no longer any debate about natural gas supply in America: we have an abundance of natural gas. Big shale plays have become a key part of America’s effort to gain a much greater degree of energy security, and we hope that in the next decade shale gas will also help Europe and Asia do likewise. What we need now is the political will to make sure that natural gas-based fuel switching is a leading part of our country’s CO₂ reduction strategy. The more successful we are at producing shale gas in North America, the more likely it is that the U.S. and the world will have a new roadmap for energy and climate security.”

Aubrey K. McClendon 

“Natural gas offers the U.S. a new energy option and a new path to reducing harmful emissions. By substituting natural gas for higher carbon fuels in the electric power and transport sectors, America has the ability to make large additional cuts in its CO₂ emissions. These cuts could enable the U.S. to meet a much larger portion of President Obama’s proposed 2020 emission targets from domestic sources rather than relying on non-U.S. carbon offsets. It is therefore critical that any climate legislation passed by the U.S. Congress provide a central role for natural gas. The pending legislation before the U.S. Congress does not do that. However, the Foundation has proposed specific options for addressing this oversight, and we are hopeful that the Obama Administration and the U.S. Senate will consider them.”

Gregory C. Staple  

# # #

About the American Clean Skies Foundation: ACSF (www.cleanskies.org) was founded in 2007 to advance America’s energy independence and a cleaner, low-carbon environment through expanded use of natural gas and renewables. The Foundation is a not-for-profit. The Foundation owns and operates Clean Skies News, a leading Web-based energy and environment news network. Programming is available on demand, 24/7 at www.cleanskies.com.

Reuters

November 3, 2009 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The natural gas industry looks to be a big winner in U.S. Senate legislation to tackle climate change on expectations it would lead to more gas demand and a new wave of gas-fired power plants.

After getting few breaks in the House of Representatives climate bill earlier this year, the industry stepped up lobbying as the Senate wrote its version.

The industry won the support of lawmakers as it trumpeted gas as abundant, cleaner than coal and more reliable than wind and solar as a constant energy source to cut greenhouse gases.

The Senate bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to help subsidize coal-fired power plants switching to fuels that emit much fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States, which was recently overtaken by China as the top greenhouse gas emitter, will meet in Copenhagen in December with world leaders from 190 nations to try to hammer out an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol on fighting climate change.

However, hopes of a binding global agreement are fading with the Senate bill still stuck in committee and Congress not expected to finalize legislation until next year.

In the Senate measure, the replacement fuel would have to result in at least 25 percent fewer emissions from 2007 levels through 2020. The reductions would rise to 40 percent and then 65 percent during the subsequent 10 years.

The bill does not mandate a specific fuel, but as the legislation is written, the energy source that would be able to meet the emission-reduction targets and also be the easiest for coal-fired power plants to switch to, especially in the early years, would be natural gas, analysts say.

“Clearly it was directed at natural gas, and natural gas would be the principal beneficiary of these subsidies,” said Mary Anne Sullivan, an attorney specializing in climate change and energy at the Washington law firm of Hogan and Hartson.

The gas industry has acknowledged it was asleep at the switch as the House crafted its legislation to tackle global warming. There were incentives to help coal and renewable energy companies prepare for a clean energy economy but precious little for gas.

Sullivan said the Senate bill does not actually provide money for the EPA program, which would have to be approved by lawmakers under separate legislation.

Nonetheless, the industry could still claim a big win.

“That is a very important step forward, because it provides an economic incentive to switch from coal to gas,” said Dan Weiss, energy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

If the funding comes through, it could result in about 140 new 500-megawatt power plants running on gas, said William Durbin with the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm.

“It will add about 5 to 6 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas demand. That’s a big number,” he said. The Energy Department forecasts U.S. gas demand will average about 62 billion cubic feet a day next year. 

KING COAL

Still, the industry has a tough sell as coal accounts for half of U.S. power generation.

“Electric generators have shown a preference for coal,” said Roger Cooper, executive vice president of the American Gas Association.

Coal has generally been cheaper than natural gas to run power plants. Any financial incentive to use natural gas in the climate change bill could cause power generators to switch to gas.

The industry argues natural gas is more reliable than solar and wind for electricity generation as these sources can be slowed by weather-related factors, such as cloudy skies or when there is little breeze.

Supporters also point to rising supplies of natural gas in the United States, which has increased its natural gas reserves by 40 percent over the last few years from gas trapped in shale rock thanks to advanced drilling techniques.

The industry also argues gas is a good fuel for national security. While America must import about 65 percent of its oil supply, nearly 90 percent of its gas is drilled domestically.

While environmental groups see natural gas as a better alternative to coal, they prefer using more renewables for future electricity generation. Green groups also oppose the gas industry efforts to expand offshore drilling.

“We do believe natural gas will be the winner in any reasonable carbon-constrained legislation,” said Cooper of the American Gas Association.

Herald News

November 5, 2009

SOMERSET — Forty employees will lose their jobs when NRG Energy shuts down its circa 1925 power plant on Riverside Avenue in January.

According to NRG spokesman David Knox, the company will deactivate the plant on Jan. 2.

“Market forces are part of the reason,” Knox said. “Also, the requirement that we close down or repower kicks in in September of 2010. We are obeying that.”

Knox said NRG will continue to move ahead with plans to convert the plant from burning coal to a plasma gasification process, which breaks down coal into its component parts before converting it into energy. Knox did not provide a timeframe for the completion of that conversion.

The conversion to gasification has been steadily opposed by citizens groups, including the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmentalist group. Those groups believe the Department of Environmental Protection should not have allowed the conversion because it violates a 2001 agreement between DEP and NRG Energy that would have required the plant to significantly reduce emissions or close. The CLF claimed that converting to synthetic gas violates the spirit of the original accord because it will not reduce carbon emissions sufficiently.

Owner NRG claims the gasification process allows for a 95 percent reduction in both mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions and a 60 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide.

“I’m a little shocked,” said CLF attorney Shanna Cleveland. “My reaction is that this is what we’ve been asking for all along.”

Cleveland said her group would continue to oppose any attempt to convert the plant to coal gasification.

“It doesn’t make sense to bring this plant back from the dead to emit more greenhouse gasses,” Cleveland said. “We’re hoping this serves as a recognition that coal-fired plants are no longer environmentally or economically feasible.”

Knox said union workers would be laid off according to union contracts and nonunion workers would receive standard company severance pay.

The announcement came as a surprise for many.

“I can’t comment,” Somerset Board of Selectmen Chairman William Meehan said Wednesday afternoon, shortly after NRG announced plans to close. “I haven’t heard anything.”

“I’m thrilled,” said Boston-based Toxics Action Center Lead Organizer Silvia Broude, who has participated in many local demonstrations against the the power plant.

“I’m going to call it a victory,” Broude said. “Organizing works.”

Broude said her group will continue to oppose coal gasification at the site.

Local Coalition for Clean Air member Al Lima, who has participated in numerous demonstrations against the plant and against plans to convert to coal gasification, was guardedly happy.

“Good,” Lima said. “They said they would clean it up or shut it down.

“We’re still concerned about gasification,” Lima said. “It’s not over yet.”

Energy Facilities Siting Board – Final Decision (APPROVED)

 Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J¼, the Energy Facilities Siting Board (Siting Board‖ or “EFSB”) hereby APPROVES, subject to the conditions set forth below, the petition of Brockton Power Company LLC (”Brockton Power”) for approval to construct a 350 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle, dual fuel (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur diesel oil (ULSD)) electric generating facility (the “proposed facility” or “project”) in Brockton, Massachusetts. Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 72, the Siting Board also APPROVES the petition of Brockton Power to construct an electricity transmission line connecting the proposed facility to the regional transmission grid.