TVA seeks public input on proposed facilities to process coal ash
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is considering building facilities in Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky to process coal combustion residuals (CCR) for beneficial use.
The TVA is seeking public comments on an environmental review for the facilities, which would be built at former and existing TVA coal-fired power plant sites. They are considering 10 of their 12 coal plants for the processing facilities, including Bull Run, Kingston, John Sevier, Gallatin, Cumberland and Johnsonville Fossil Plants in Tennessee, Shawnee and Paradise Fossil Plants in Kentucky and Colbert and Widows Creek Fossil Plants in Alabama.
THP: 2 dead after head-on I-81 crash in Greene Co.
Currently, only four TVA coal plants (Cumberland, Gallatin, Kingston, and Shawnee) are generating power. The Kingston Fossil Plan is in the process of moving from coal to natural gas.
Coal combustion residuals, or CCR, are byproducts from burning coal for electricity, including coal ash and gypsum. The facilities aim to reduce the amount of CCR stored in landfills by processing it for use in construction products like concrete and drywall. This is a part of TVA's efforts to use CCR instead of storing it in landfills. Over the past five years, TVA reports that nearly 70% of CCR produced were beneficially used.
A draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) is available for review. Public input is invited on options in the PEA, including no action or building processing facilities. Comments can be submitted online, by mail to Brittany Kunkle, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-11B-K, Knoxville, TN 37902, or via email to nepa@tva.gov through May 14, 2025. The TVA added that comments should specify the project as 'Beneficiation Processing Facility PEA' with submissions.
construction-and-operation-of-beneficiation-processing-facilities-draft-programmatic-environmental-assessmentDownload
'A design anchored in reality' Knoxville company one step closer to creating fusion power plant
This comes after President Donald Trump signed four executive orders to boost coal production. The president also recently fired two TVA Board of Directors members, leaving the board without five members. This means the board does not have a quorum and cannot 'direct TVA into new areas of activity, to embark on new programs, or to change TVA's existing direction.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Platinum Extends Gain as Market Shows Further Signs of Tightness
(Bloomberg) -- Platinum extended this year's surge to almost 40%, as the market strains under signs of tightness. Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire NYC Mayoral Candidates All Agree on Building More Housing. But Where? Senator Calls for Closing Troubled ICE Detention Facility in New Mexico California Pitches Emergency Loans for LA, Local Transit Systems The price of platinum — used in jewelry and autocatalysts, as well as in the chemical and glass industries — rose as much as 4.6% to $1,275.45 an ounce on Wednesday. After trading largely sideways at around $1,000 for the best part of a decade, that's taken the white metal to the highest in more than four years. The gains come as the physical platinum market heads for another year of deficit, boosted by strong Chinese demand for a cheaper alternative to gold jewelry. A dramatic outflow of platinum to the US in the first few months of 2025 — over fears that imports would be subject to President Donald Trump's tariffs — further tightened the availability of the metal in the largest spot trading hubs of Zurich and London. The implied cost of borrowing the precious metal for one month peaked in data going back six years at an annualized rate of 15%, while forward prices for platinum are trading a steep discount to spot, both indications of tightness. Platinum output in South Africa — by far the world's biggest producer — has declined this year amid heavy rains and other disruptions. That's helped to underpin the price gains, boosting the shares of miners such as Anglo American Plc spinoff Valterra Platinum Ltd. and its rivals Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. and Sibanye Stillwater Ltd. Those producers have come under pressure from the worldwide rollout of electric vehicles, which don't use either platinum, or its sister metals, palladium and rhodium. The biggest single source of demand for platinum is as an input into autocatalysts, which curb emissions from combustion engines in gasoline and diesel vehicles. That continues to weigh on the longer-term demand outlook. Meanwhile, gold edged higher even after the US and China said they had agreed on a plan to ease trade tensions during talks in London. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and China's trade representative Li Chenggang said the two sides had agreed in principle on a framework to implement the consensus they reached in Geneva. Bullion rose 0.2% to trade around $3,329.03 an ounce as of 12:03 p.m. in London. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index was steady. Silver fell, while palladium rose. The detente between the world's two biggest economies should be negative for haven assets like gold, and the lack of downward movement in bullion suggests investors are waiting for more developments. Investors are looking ahead to an auction of US Treasuries on Thursday, with weak demand potentially boosting gold's haven appeal. New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's the Emergency Fund You Need To Survive a Recession in Your State
With the ups and downs, and stops and starts, of President Donald Trump's controversial tariff policies, some economists have warned that an economic downturn is inevitable. Less clear, however, is whether or not such a downturn will lead to an actual recession — a downward economic spiral that lasts months and features large declines in employment and production. Should a recession hit, significant numbers of the American workforce could face job layoffs and terminations. Check Out: Learn More: Whether or not an actual recession will be triggered in 2025, having an emergency fund is always a safe bet. That said, it pays to know how much you need to have in an emergency fund in your state. That's why GOBankingRates recently devised a study to calculate just how much an emergency fund would carry citizens in each of the 50 states for three months, six months and 12 months total. Worried that you don't have enough set aside to survive in your state without a job? Hit the list to see how much you need in your emergency fund to survive a recession. Annual cost of living: $39,278 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,820 Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,639 Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,278 Find Out: Also See: Annual cost of living: $60,450 Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,113 Emergency fund for 6 months: $30,225 Emergency fund for 12 months: $60,450 Explore More: Annual cost of living: $56,087 Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,022 Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,043 Emergency fund for 9 months: $56,087 Annual cost of living: $37,609 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,402 Emergency fund for 6 months: $18,805 Emergency fund for 9 months: $37,609 Annual cost of living: $87,962 Emergency fund for 3 months: $21,990 Emergency fund for 6 months: $43,981 Emergency fund for 9 months: $87,962 Annual cost of living: $64,558 Emergency fund for 3 months: $16,139 Emergency fund for 6 months: $32,279 Emergency fund for 9 months: $64,558 Annual cost of living: $59,423 Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,856 Emergency fund for 6 months: $29,712 Emergency fund for 12 months: $59,423 Discover More: Annual cost of living: $53,343 Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,336 Emergency fund for 6 months: $26,671 Emergency fund for 12 months: $53,343 Annual cost of living: $53,687 Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,422 Emergency fund for 6 months: $26,843 Emergency fund for 12 months: $53,687 Annual cost of living: $47,888 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,972 Emergency fund for 6 months: $23,944 Emergency fund for 12 months: $47,888 Annual cost of living: $104,577 Emergency fund for 3 months: $26,144 Emergency fund for 6 months: $52,289 Emergency fund for 12 months: $104,577 Annual cost of living: $57,919 Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,480 Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,960 Emergency fund for 12 months: $57,919 See More: Annual cost of living: $44,778 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,195 Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,389 Emergency fund for 12 months: $44,778 Annual cost of living: $41,373 Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,343 Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,687 Emergency fund for 12 months: $41,373 Annual cost of living: $39,889 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,972 Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,945 Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,889 Annual cost of living: $39,916 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,979 Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,958 Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,916 Annual cost of living: $39,938 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,985 Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,969 Emergency fund for 12 months: $39,938 Read More: Annual cost of living: $37,550 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,388 Emergency fund for 6 months: $18,775 Emergency fund for 12 months: $37,550 Annual cost of living: $55,360 Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,840 Emergency fund for 6 months: $27,680 Emergency fund for 12 months: $55,360 Annual cost of living: $57,444 Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,361 Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,722 Emergency fund for 12 months: $57,444 Annual cost of living: $77,544 Emergency fund for 3 months: $19,386 Emergency fund for 6 months: $38,772 Emergency fund for 12 months: $77,544 Annual cost of living: $41,579 Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,395 Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,789 Emergency fund for 12 months: $41,579 Find More: Annual cost of living: $49,462 Emergency fund for 3 months: $12,365 Emergency fund for 6 months: $24,731 Emergency fund for 12 months: $49,462 Annual cost of living: $36,351 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,088 Emergency fund for 6 months: $18,176 Emergency fund for 12 months: $36,351 Annual cost of living: $41,219 Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,305 Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,610 Emergency fund for 12 months: $41,219 Annual cost of living: $57,517 Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,379 Emergency fund for 6 months: $28,759 Emergency fund for 12 months: $57,517 Annual cost of living: $42,993 Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,748 Emergency fund for 6 months: $21,496 Emergency fund for 12 months: $42,993 Also Read: Annual cost of living: $58,665 Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,666 Emergency fund for 6 months: $29,333 Emergency fund for 12 months: $58,665 Annual cost of living: $62,536 Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,634 Emergency fund for 6 months: $31,268 Emergency fund for 12 months: $62,536 Annual cost of living: $66,926 Emergency fund for 3 months: $16,732 Emergency fund for 6 months: $33,463 Emergency fund for 9 months: $66,926 Annual cost of living: $45,368 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,342 Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,684 Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,368 Annual cost of living: $59,403 Emergency fund for 3 months: $14,851 Emergency fund for 6 months: $29,701 Emergency fund for 12 months: $59,403 Also See: Annual cost of living: $48,054 Emergency fund for 3 months: $12,014 Emergency fund for 6 months: $24,027 Emergency fund for 12 months: $48,054 Annual cost of living: $43,844 Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,961 Emergency fund for 6 months: $21,922 Emergency fund for 12 months: $43,844 Annual cost of living: $40,788 Emergency fund for 3 months: $10,197 Emergency fund for 6 months: $20,394 Emergency fund for 12 months: $40,788 Annual cost of living: $38,398 Emergency fund for 3 months: $9,599 Emergency fund for 6 months: $19,199 Emergency fund for 12 months: $38,398 Annual cost of living: $62,701 Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,675 Emergency fund for 6 months: $31,351 Emergency fund for 12 months: $62,701 Check Out: Annual cost of living: $44,255 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,064 Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,128 Emergency fund for 12 months: $44,255 Annual cost of living: $61,901 Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,475 Emergency fund for 6 months: $30,950 Emergency fund for 12 months: $61,901 Annual cost of living: $45,362 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,341 Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,681 Emergency fund for 9 months: $45,362 Annual cost of living: $45,859 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,465 Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,929 Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,859 Annual cost of living: $45,776 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,444 Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,888 Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,776 Find Out: Annual cost of living: $45,505 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,376 Emergency fund for 6 months: $22,752 Emergency fund for 12 months: $45,505 Annual cost of living: $62,806 Emergency fund for 3 months: $15,701 Emergency fund for 6 months: $31,403 Emergency fund for 12 months: $62,806 Annual cost of living: $54,486 Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,622 Emergency fund for 6 months: $27,243 Emergency fund for 12 months: $54,486 Annual cost of living: $53,677 Emergency fund for 3 months: $13,419 Emergency fund for 6 months: $26,839 Emergency fund for 12 months: $53,677 Explore More: Annual cost of living: $71,722 Emergency fund for 3 months: $17,930 Emergency fund for 6 months: $35,861 Emergency fund for 12 months: $71,722 Annual cost of living: $35,406 Emergency fund for 3 months: $8,852 Emergency fund for 6 months: $17,703 Emergency fund for 12 months: $35406 Annual cost of living: $47,618 Emergency fund for 3 months: $11,905 Emergency fund for 6 months: $23,809 Emergency fund for 9 months: $47,618 Annual cost of living: $49,340 Emergency fund for 3 months: $12,335 Emergency fund for 6 months: $24,670 Emergency fund for 12 months: $49,340 Methodology: For this study, GOBankingRates analyzed each state to find the amount needed for an emergency fund. The cost of living was determined using data from Missouri Economic and Research Information Center, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, Zillow Home Value Index and the Federal Reserve. All data was collected on and is up to date as of April 21, 2025. More From GOBankingRates 7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement This article originally appeared on Here's the Emergency Fund You Need To Survive a Recession in Your State Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Big, beautiful bill' spurs Democratic plans for emergency actions to counter cuts
Democratic governors facing potential big budget problems exacerbated by the GOP megabill being fast-tracked in Washington are considering emergency measures to try to soften the blow. Blue state policymakers from Connecticut to California to New York are raising the specter that they will call lawmakers back for special sessions to tackle what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs as a result of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' And even some deep red states — like Florida — are taking steps to address the financial fallout. The preparations signal the depths of concerns about how the Republican package might reverberate in state capitals, even as passage is far from assured, especially given the recent vitriolic attacks on the spending bill from Elon Musk. State officials are scrambling to navigate the likely fiscal challenges in what's already the toughest budget year since before the pandemic in many states. 'The bill is destructive and risks destabilizing the entire network of supporting programs,' said New Mexico Treasurer Laura Montoya, a Democrat whose governor has all but guaranteed a special session will be necessary. The bill, which cleared the House last month and now awaits Senate action, would cut some $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, largely by forcing states to pay into the program for the first time. It would also kick 7.6 million people off Medicaid and save $800 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The special session threat could be a way for Democratic governors, some of whom enjoy large legislative majorities, to respond to pressure from constituents angry about cuts to health care and food benefits — even if there's little they can do to combat Trump's agenda. The details of what the governors would even ask the lawmakers to do are scant given the high degree of uncertainty around the final bill. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, referencing potential cuts to education, school meals and Medicaid, warned earlier this year that 'nothing prohibits us from coming back in a special session to deal with anything that comes our way from the federal government.' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said last month 'we will definitely be back in a special session to deal with' the reconciliation package if the House-passed version is adopted. There could be immediate substantive reasons for a special session in response to the GOP bill, even though provisions like sharing the costs of the nation's largest food aid program with states wouldn't take effect until 2028. The vast majority of states start their fiscal years on July 1 — meaning that their budgets have been crafted based on current conditions even as officials leave the door open to make changes later and minimize the pain in response to the final federal legislation. 'Bottom line is states will not be able to absorb all the costs, and decisions will have to be made,' said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the nonpartisan National Association of State Budget Officers. 'All states will be impacted.' Some Republicans have also expressed concern at the downstream impacts of the GOP megabill. Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries Rick Pate, a Republican who recently announced a bid for lieutenant governor, previously told POLITICO that in his state 'there would be very little interest in us generating the dollars it would take to fund something huge as SNAP.' Others are using the special session chatter as a cudgel to hammer Democrats in blue states for being in a precarious fiscal situation to begin with. 'I would say that our priorities have been on the goofy side,' California Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican on the budget committee, said in an interview regarding his state's poor fiscal outlook, pointing specifically to massive spending to attack homelessness that's failed to dent the problem. 'We're trying to offer too much to too many people when we can't even offer basic services.' Still, states would be impacted across the board even if it's only Democrats that have the political incentive to publicly oppose the reconciliation bill. That means states will need to turn to unpopular choices like cutting benefits or raising taxes to fill as much of the gap left by the federal cuts as possible, in addition to other maneuvers like drawing from their rainy day funds, said Sigritz. Some legislators are accepting that they will likely return to their statehouses for special sessions. Connecticut Treasurer Erick Russell, a Democrat, said in an interview that a special session will likely be necessary if the federal budget significantly shifts costs to states to ensure that lawmakers are 'building in some flexibility to try to make whatever adjustments we may need to safeguard residents of our state.' Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont's office told POLITICO that he and legislative leaders are considering declaring a fiscal emergency in order to raise the spending cap, a move that it argues would be necessary to pay for the costs shifted to states under Republicans' megabill. New York state Sen. Gustavo Rivera, a Democrat who chairs the chamber's health committee, said he fully expects to return to Albany in a special session if the reconciliation bill clears Congress — and that he will push to 'raise taxes on the wealthy' to cover some of the Medicaid spending the federal government plans to cut. In California, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said there is 'a scenario where lawmakers come back later this year' to deal with new budget realities brought by federal cuts. 'I'll come back any day,' said California Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Silicon Valley Democrat. 'This is our job. And if we have to come back in the fall, I will gladly come. In fact, if it means protecting some of these programs, then I think we should come back in the morning, noon, weekend, holidays.' And in deep-red West Virginia, Mike Woelfel, minority leader in the state Senate and one of the 11 Democrats in the entire Legislature, said he wants his Republican governor Patrick Morrisey to call a special session if the federal cuts are adopted. 'This is the kind of thing that should trigger special sessions if we get into this hellhole that this legislation would put our most vulnerable citizens in,' Woelfel said. 'But there's political risk in (the governor) doing that.' Eric He and Katelyn Cordero contributed to this report.
