CHARLESTON, W. Va. – Consumer and citizen groups say a plan by First Energy to sell the Pleasants Power Station near Belmont, now before the Public Service Commission, is corporate welfare at the expense of ratepayers.

The groups say First Energy selling the Willow Island plant to Mon Power and Potomac Edison would cost the typical ratepayer $60 to $70 a year.

Emmett Pepper, executive director of the advocacy group Energy Efficient West Virginia, says First Energy wants to shift the big, coal-fired power station from a subsidiary – where the corporation has all the risk – to two subsidiaries where, by law, the companies can charge all costs to consumers.

"Instead of First Energy, which currently owns the plant, to go around the free market, and to make it so that they are guaranteed income, while we ratepayers take the risk," he points out.

First Energy argues that its projections indicate the need for more generating capacity.

Pepper says the company is using a higher standard for peak demand than grid regulators require.

At a hearing last week, the PSC chairman said the commission is looking at conditions for the sale that might change the result if the company's projections are overstated.

Power companies have moved to shift several coal plants from risky, deregulated markets to West Virginia's regulated market in recent years.

Soft demand for electricity, low-cost natural gas and cheap wind and solar is increasingly making big baseline coal plants such as Pleasants expensive white elephants.

Pepper argues that Pleasants is no longer competitive or valuable on the open market.

He says if First Energy were really concerned about meeting demand, there are easier gains to be made through energy efficiency.

"'Cause it's cheaper to incentivize people through rebates and such to become more energy efficient than it is to pay to produce electricity,” he explains. “This is one opportunity where, A – we don't think we need it at all, and B – if there is any kind of need in the near future, it's going to be very small."

The Public Service Commission looks likely to have a decision on the sale by the end of the year.





get more stories like this via email

Advocates for protecting the waters of the Straits of Mackinac are raising safety and financial concerns about a Canadian natural gas company's proposal for an underwater pipeline tunnel.

Enbridge Energy currently operates the Line 5 pipeline, which runs under the Straits of Mackinac, and now they're proposing to replace it with a tunnel to run the pipeline through.

But experts say the current plan has major safety flaws.

Sean McBrearty, Michigan legislative and policy director for Clean Water Action and campaign coordinator for Oil and Water Don't Mix, noted Enbridge filed papers with the federal Energy Regulatory Commission claiming they plan to depreciate all of their pipelines within 20 years. But he said the contract with the state to build and operate the pipeline in the tunnel is for 99 years.

"If Enbridge were able to build this tunnel and have it operable by 2028 or '29, which is about as soon as they'd be able to do something like this, that tunnel would only operate for 11 years before Enbridge would be done using their pipeline system," McBrearty explained.

Enbridge officials have said the report to the Energy Regulatory Commission is for determining the cost-of-service toll for investors, and does not necessarily reflect the lifespan of the tunnel. Oil and Water Don't Mix and other groups are calling on Enbridge to suspend activities on the tunnel project until the contract is reviewed.

Brian O'Mara, an environmental engineer with decades of tunneling experience, said the poor quality of the bedrock will make completing the tunnel challenging. He pointed out it is possible an explosion or fire would put workers at risk and many thousands of gallons of natural-gas liquids could be released into the Great Lakes.

O'Mara argued it could be prevented by filling the tunnel with concrete around the pipeline.

"You need air, you need a spark, and you need a fuel to create an explosion or a fire," O'Mara emphasized. "So if they would have adapted that method -- it's called a sealed annulus -- that essentially will eliminate the risks."

Enbridge has said there is no source of a release that could cause an explosion, but O'Mara contended they have identified dissolved methane in groundwater where the tunnel and pipeline would be constructed. And with flammable and explosive liquids and gas running through the pipeline, there is too much risk with the current design.

Minnesota is seeing a flurry of utility rate hikes either being considered or taking effect.

Those who support renewable energy warn there's some misleading information in the public sphere about what is behind the activity.

Xcel Energy has a pending rate hike before state regulators. If approved, it would boost electricity rates by 21% over three years. Minnesota Power also proposes a substantial increase.

Some policy groups opposed to renewable energy have launched campaigns suggesting the plans are solely caused by wind and solar projects.

Isabel Ricker, senior manager for clean electricity at Fresh Energy, countered it does not tell the whole story, noting there is aging infrastructure to be updated.

"The fundamentals of our electricity system; the poles, the wires, some of the larger equipment at substations," Ricker outlined.

Xcel Energy acknowledged upgrades would help the utility better transition to clean energy. And Fresh Energy contended a more modern system would make it easier for Minnesota to rely on such sources, also arguing they are still a less-expensive investment than traditional power plants.

Both utilities won approval for smaller, interim hikes late last year.

Annie Levenson-Falk, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) of Minnesota, pointed out while her group is fighting some rate hikes, utilities do see the need for investments in energy sources more economically viable in the long run.

"The sooner that utilities can move off of that old power generation, the more money that they are actually going to save for their customers," Levenson-Falk asserted.

Investment banking firm Lazard said wind and solar costs have declined by at least 70% over the past decade. As for rate hikes, CUB noted other factors, such as demand changes during COVID affecting utility revenue.

Fresh Energy emphasized there are still false claims being floated about the reliability of wind and solar.

Ricker stated in the Midwest, resources are managed in ways allowing them to function at a high-level in the winter.

"Wind turbines here are outfitted with winterizing equipment to ensure that they don't freeze, and they can operate at cold temperatures," Ricker stressed.

Ricker acknowledged other options, such as geothermal generators, will likely be needed to develop a robust renewable-energy system. Meanwhile, both groups say regulators traditionally try to keep rate hikes on the lower end, so customers are not paying for anything deemed unnecessary.

Iowa's tax credit for installing solar-energy systems is no longer in place, but lawmakers still face pressure to provide payments to those who were on a waiting list.

The credit was allowed to expire at the end of 2021 - and with the money set aside for residential installments already spent, those who applied but hadn't been paid were out of luck.

The Iowa Department of Revenue says more than 1,400 applications were ultimately denied. But Nick Summers - policy organizing assistant with the Center for Rural Affairs - said these property owners each made a substantial investment, hoping it would be offset by the credit.

"The state's failing to uphold its side of the deal," said Summers. "And we know the state has the means to pay this out, because the State of Iowa is sitting on a $1.2 billion surplus."

That surplus estimate was issued in the fall, and larger figures are now being floated as the legislative session gets underway.

The credit for installing a residential solar system averaged $3,200, with the average installation cost at more than $25,000. During debate about extending the credit, Republican lawmakers suggested it didn't align with need to implement broader tax relief.

Slater resident Lee Tesdell had received credits for solar-power installations on his farm, although he had to pursue legal channels to secure the second reimbursement. He called cutting off payments "shortsighted," noting that gains in renewable energy can't come only from large wind and solar farms.

"It seems to me that the state would be wise to encourage the distributed type," said Tesdell, "so that individuals can be manufacturing some of their own electricity at home."

He said combined with federal credits, the Iowa reimbursements covered a significant portion of his investments.

Meanwhile, the state says businesses on the waiting list will still get their credits, but no new projects can be added.