Bruce Mansfield plant in Beaver County to undergo $3.2 billion transformation into natural gas power plant
The Mansfield plant, which was the largest coal-fired power plant in Pennsylvania, closed about half a decade ago.
"That affected everybody, not only just this little town, but all throughout these little communities," said David Trevino, borough council president in neighboring Midland, which has a population of 2,400.
Many jobs were lost when the coal plant shut down, said Shippingport Mayor John Erickson. Both towns took a hit.
Shippingport went from a budget of $6 million in 2006 to a budget of around $1 million this year, Erickson said. They've had to cut back on city services like police.
It was part of a larger industrial trend.
"We took a beating, this town took a beating, every town has the same story," Trevino said.
That story, however, could soon be changing. The town has needed good-paying jobs, Trevino said. The new power plant, which is being built by Frontier Group, and what's built around it could offer that.
"It will financially help us out, and it will create some jobs down here," Erickson said.
The small town of just over 150 people is no stranger to big investments in power generation. The world's first nuclear power plant was built in the town in the 1950s
Three hundred jobs would be permanent, and there would be 15,000 construction jobs. The plant would use natural gas instead of coal. It's not as clean as the nuclear power plant down the street, but it would be an improvement over coal, Erickson said, explaining that at one point, a black material from the plant rained down on the town.
The plant will power the electric grid along with a new artificial intelligence data center.
In total, the redevelopment will create $6 billion in economic activity. Trevino used to work at the Bruce Mansfield plant and said he looks forward to seeing the new one.
"I'm going to see this thing reborn, and add an influx of money and opportunities for young people to come, and it's going to do nothing but enhance the whole community," Trevino said.
One neighbor who lives near the plant shared the concern that a representative of the power plant's property owner approached him about selling his property to them. He said he felt they were not offering him the amount of money his property is worth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
4 minutes ago
- CBS News
Pennsylvania Sunday hunting days set for 2025
Pennsylvania hunters now have 10 new Sunday hunting opportunities in 2025. After Pennsylvania lawmakers repealed the ban on Sunday hunting earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Game Commission announced on Monday that Sunday hunting begins Sept. 14 and runs every weekend through Dec. 7. The new Sunday hunting days are Sept. 14, Sept. 21, Sept. 28, Oct. 5, Oct. 12, Oct. 19, Oct. 26, Nov. 2, Nov. 9, Nov. 16, Nov. 23, Nov. 30, and Dec. 7. The dates were finalized by the Pennsylvania Game Commission during a meeting on Monday. Before, the only Sundays open to hunting were Nov. 16, Nov. 23 and Nov. 30. On July 7, Gov. Josh Shapiro signed House Bill 1431 into law, fully repealing the state's ban on Sunday hunting. The law allows the Pennsylvania Game Commission to set additional Sunday hunting opportunities. House Bill 1431 passed the state Senate on June 30 after passing the state House of Representatives on June 11. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Mandy Steele, then went back to the state House for a final vote on concurrence before it reached the governor's desk. "These additional days are just the beginning of what will be for Sunday hunting. I look forward to the years to come when Sunday hunting is fully incorporated and considered for the year's hunting season," Steele said in a news release on Monday. Pennsylvania previously didn't allow any hunting on Sundays — except for foxes, coyotes and crows during open season. In 2020, then-Gov. Tom Wolf signed a bill into law that dedicated three Sundays to hunting deer and bear during archery and gun seasons. The previously approved Sundays for foxes, coyotes and crows remain in place for the 2025-26 seasons, the Pennsylvania Game Commission said on Monday.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-EU's $250 billion-per-year spending on US energy is unrealistic
By Kate Abnett and Arathy Somasekhar BRUSSELS/HOUSTON (Reuters) -The European Union's pledge to buy $250 billion of U.S. energy supplies per year is unrealistic because it would require the redirection of most U.S. energy exports towards Europe and the EU has little control over the energy its companies import. The U.S. and EU struck a framework trade deal on Sunday, which will impose 15% U.S. tariffs on most EU goods. The deal included a pledge for the EU to spend $250 billion annually on U.S. energy - imports of oil, liquefied natural gas and nuclear technology - for the next three years. Total U.S. energy exports to all buyers worldwide in 2024 amounted to $318 billion, U.S. Energy Information Administration data showed. Of that, the EU imported a combined $76 billion of U.S. petroleum, LNG and solid fuels such as coal in 2024, according to Reuters' calculations based on Eurostat data. More than tripling those imports was unrealistic, analysts said. Arturo Regalado, senior LNG analyst at Kpler, said the scope of the energy trade envisioned in the deal "exceeds market realities." "U.S. oil flows would need to fully redirect towards the EU to reach the target, or the value of LNG imports from the US would need to increase sixfold," Regalado said. There is strong competition for U.S. energy exports as other countries need the supplies - and have themselves pledged to buy more in trade deals. Japan agreed to a "major expansion of U.S. energy exports" in its U.S. trade deal last week, the White House said in a statement. South Korea has also indicated interest in investing and purchasing fuel from an Alaskan LNG project as it seeks a trade deal. Competition for U.S. energy could drive up benchmark U.S. oil and gas prices and encourage U.S. producers to favour exports over domestic supply. That could make fuel and power costs more expensive, which would be a political and economic headache for U.S. and EU leaders. Neither side has detailed what was included in the energy deal - or whether it covered items such as energy services or parts for power grids and plants. The EU estimates its member countries' plans to expand nuclear energy would require hundreds of billions of euros in investments by 2050. Its nuclear reactor-related imports, however, totalled just 53.3 billion euros in 2024, trade data shows. The energy pledge reflected the EU's analysis of how much U.S. energy supply it could accommodate, a senior EU official said, but that would depend on investments in U.S. oil and LNG infrastructure, European import infrastructure, and shipping capacity. "These figures, again, are not taken out of thin air. So yes, they require investments," said the senior official, who declined to be named. "Yes, it will vary according to the energy sources. But these are figures which are reachable." There was no public commitment to the delivery, the official added, because the EU would not buy the energy - its companies would. Private companies import most of Europe's oil, while a mix of private and state-run companies import gas. The European Commission can aggregate demand for LNG to negotiate better terms, but cannot force companies to buy fuel. That is a commercial decision. "It's just unrealistic," ICIS analysts Andreas Schröder and Ajay Parmar said in written comments to Reuters. "Either Europe pays a super high non-market reflective price for U.S. LNG or it takes way too much LNG volumes, more than it can cope with." U.S. PRODUCTION The United States is already the EU's top supplier of LNG and oil, shipping 44% of EU LNG needs and 15.4% of its oil in 2024, according to EU data. Raising imports to the target would require a U.S. LNG expansion way beyond what is planned through 2030, said Jacob Mandel, research lead at Aurora Energy Research. "You can add on capacity," Mandel said. "But if you're talking about the scale that would be necessary to meet these targets, the $250 billion, then it's not really feasible." Europe could buy $50 billion more of U.S. LNG annually as supply increases, he said. REPLACING RUSSIA The EU has said it could import more U.S. energy as its plan advances to end Russian oil and gas imports by 2028. The EU imported around 94 million barrels of Russian oil last year - 3% of the bloc's crude purchases - and 52 billion cubic metres (bcm) of Russian LNG and gas, according to EU data. For comparison, the EU imported 45 bcm of U.S. LNG last year. Higher EU fuel purchases would, however, run counter to forecasts for EU demand to decline as it shifts to clean energy, analysts said. "There is no major need for the EU to import more oil from the U.S., in fact, its oil demand peaked a number of years ago," Schröder and Parmar said. ($1 = 0.8571 euro) Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-EU's $250 billion-per-year spending on US energy is unrealistic
By Kate Abnett and Arathy Somasekhar BRUSSELS/HOUSTON (Reuters) -The European Union's pledge to buy $250 billion of U.S. energy supplies per year is unrealistic because it would require the redirection of most U.S. energy exports towards Europe and the EU has little control over the energy its companies import. The U.S. and EU struck a framework trade deal on Sunday, which will impose 15% U.S. tariffs on most EU goods. The deal included a pledge for the EU to spend $250 billion annually on U.S. energy - imports of oil, liquefied natural gas and nuclear technology - for the next three years. Total U.S. energy exports to all buyers worldwide in 2024 amounted to $318 billion, U.S. Energy Information Administration data showed. Of that, the EU imported a combined $76 billion of U.S. petroleum, LNG and solid fuels such as coal in 2024, according to Reuters' calculations based on Eurostat data. More than tripling those imports was unrealistic, analysts said. Arturo Regalado, senior LNG analyst at Kpler, said the scope of the energy trade envisioned in the deal "exceeds market realities." "U.S. oil flows would need to fully redirect towards the EU to reach the target, or the value of LNG imports from the US would need to increase sixfold," Regalado said. There is strong competition for U.S. energy exports as other countries need the supplies - and have themselves pledged to buy more in trade deals. Japan agreed to a "major expansion of U.S. energy exports" in its U.S. trade deal last week, the White House said in a statement. South Korea has also indicated interest in investing and purchasing fuel from an Alaskan LNG project as it seeks a trade deal. Competition for U.S. energy could drive up benchmark U.S. oil and gas prices and encourage U.S. producers to favour exports over domestic supply. That could make fuel and power costs more expensive, which would be a political and economic headache for U.S. and EU leaders. Neither side has detailed what was included in the energy deal - or whether it covered items such as energy services or parts for power grids and plants. The EU estimates its member countries' plans to expand nuclear energy would require hundreds of billions of euros in investments by 2050. Its nuclear reactor-related imports, however, totalled just 53.3 billion euros in 2024, trade data shows. The energy pledge reflected the EU's analysis of how much U.S. energy supply it could accommodate, a senior EU official said, but that would depend on investments in U.S. oil and LNG infrastructure, European import infrastructure, and shipping capacity. "These figures, again, are not taken out of thin air. So yes, they require investments," said the senior official, who declined to be named. "Yes, it will vary according to the energy sources. But these are figures which are reachable." There was no public commitment to the delivery, the official added, because the EU would not buy the energy - its companies would. Private companies import most of Europe's oil, while a mix of private and state-run companies import gas. The European Commission can aggregate demand for LNG to negotiate better terms, but cannot force companies to buy fuel. That is a commercial decision. "It's just unrealistic," ICIS analysts Andreas Schröder and Ajay Parmar said in written comments to Reuters. "Either Europe pays a super high non-market reflective price for U.S. LNG or it takes way too much LNG volumes, more than it can cope with." U.S. PRODUCTION The United States is already the EU's top supplier of LNG and oil, shipping 44% of EU LNG needs and 15.4% of its oil in 2024, according to EU data. Raising imports to the target would require a U.S. LNG expansion way beyond what is planned through 2030, said Jacob Mandel, research lead at Aurora Energy Research. "You can add on capacity," Mandel said. "But if you're talking about the scale that would be necessary to meet these targets, the $250 billion, then it's not really feasible." Europe could buy $50 billion more of U.S. LNG annually as supply increases, he said. REPLACING RUSSIA The EU has said it could import more U.S. energy as its plan advances to end Russian oil and gas imports by 2028. The EU imported around 94 million barrels of Russian oil last year - 3% of the bloc's crude purchases - and 52 billion cubic metres (bcm) of Russian LNG and gas, according to EU data. For comparison, the EU imported 45 bcm of U.S. LNG last year. Higher EU fuel purchases would, however, run counter to forecasts for EU demand to decline as it shifts to clean energy, analysts said. "There is no major need for the EU to import more oil from the U.S., in fact, its oil demand peaked a number of years ago," Schröder and Parmar said. ($1 = 0.8571 euro) 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
