HOMER CITY, Pa. (AP) -- A massive coal-fired power plant in western Pennsylvania is turning from one of the worst polluters in the country to a model for how such a facility can clean up its act.
Homer City Generating Station is expected to make the transformation in a few years. When it does, it will end four decades of nearly limitless pollution from two of its units that had long escaped regulation.
Three years ago the plant was the first to sue the Obama administration over a rule to force it to reduce its sulfur dioxide pollution, arguing it would spike electricity prices and cause "immediate and devastating" consequences. None of those dire predictions came to pass, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's rule in the case initiated by the plant.
The story of the Homer City plant reflects the precarious position of older coal-fired plants these days, squeezed between cheap and plentiful natural gas and a string of environmental rules the Obama administration has targeted at coal, which supplies about 40 percent of the nation's electricity.
The latest regulation, the first proposal to curb earth-warming carbon dioxide from power plants, is due next week and will pose yet another challenge to coal-fired power plants. Dozens of coal-fueled units have already announced they would close in the face of new rules.
Homer City also shows how political and economic rhetoric sometimes doesn't match reality. Despite claims by Republicans and industry critics that the Obama administration's regulations will shut down coal-fired power plants, Homer City survived -- partly because it bought itself time by tying up the regulation in courts. Even environmental groups that applaud each coal plant closing and protested Homer City's pollution now say the facility is setting a benchmark for air pollution control that other coal plants should follow, even if it takes decades.
"If there is a war on coal, that plant won," said Eric Schaeffer, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project and a former enforcement official at EPA.
The owners of the western Pennsylvania power plant -- it releases more sulfur dioxide than any other power plant in the U.S. -- have committed to installing $750 million worth of pollution control equipment by 2016 that will make deeper cuts in sulfur than the rule it once opposed.
GE Energy Financial Services, the plant's majority owner, now says it can do it -- and without electricity bills increasing for the 2 million households it provides with power.
"We believe in the plant's long-term value, and that installing equipment will enable it to comply with environmental regulations," said Andy Katell, a spokesman for GE, which has been the plant's primary owner since 2001 and did not participate in the litigation.
The operator of the facility, Edison Mission Energy, couldn't raise the money to pay for the pollution controls and filed for bankruptcy before the case made it to the Supreme Court. Numerous states, environmental groups and other companies operating power plants joined the litigation keeping it alive.
Not all have fared so well. The parent company of Luminant, another challenger to the EPA rule and Texas' largest power generator, filed for bankruptcy in April after it was faced with more stringent environmental regulations and cheap natural gas prices that made it difficult to pay down its debt.
For more than 40 years, Homer City has spewed sulfur dioxide from two of its three units completely unchecked, and still does because it is largely exempt from federal air pollution laws passed years after it was built in 1969. Last year, the facility released 114,245 tons of sulfur dioxide, more than all of the power plants in neighboring New York combined.
"It is an emblem, a poster child of the challenge of interstate air pollution," said Lem Srolovic, the head of the Environmental Protection Bureau for the New York Attorney General's Office, in an interview with The Associated Press.
New York, along with New Jersey and Pennsylvania and the EPA, sued Homer City in 2011, arguing it was operating in violation of the Clean Air Act because it failed to install pollution control technology in the 1990s, when it made upgrades that increased emissions. A federal judge dismissed the case, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations.
But U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry said in his opinion that he appreciated the frustration "that society at large continues to bear the brunt of significant sulfur dioxide emissions from that grandfathered facility."