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

A recently signed law expands New York City's solar property tax abatement. This four year tax abatement allows for the construction of solar generating systems with residential and commercial buildings in the city. Building owners would end up saving more than $62,000 per year. The new legislation expands the abatement from 20% to 30% starting in 2024.

Noah Ginsburg, executive director of the New York Solar Energy Industries Association, said this can help make up any lost progress in the city's goal to reach 1-gigawatt of solar by 2030.

"The city has made some good progress toward that goal, but I don't think they were on track to achieve that goal necessarily," Ginsburg said. "This expanded incentive we think puts us more on track to hit that goal. Our forecast is that this will help close that gap by about 95 megawatts, give or take."

While this bill has its own benefits, it can boost other climate legislation in the city. A bill has recently been proposed by City Councilmember Sandy Nurse to get 100 megawatts of solar on city-owned buildings by 2025. By 2030, the bill expands that target to 150 megawatts into private buildings.

Despite the benefits it poses, the abatement was only extended to 2034, at which point legislation will have to extend it again. Ginsburg said that is due to keeping the city's funding in line with federal programs, and added there are plans to introduce a bill to strengthen the state's residential solar tax credit.

"So, anywhere in New York State, today, if you install solar panels on your home, you're entitled to a tax credit of up to 25% of the cost of the system," he explained. "That incentive is capped at $5,000 per household, and that cap hasn't increased since 2006."

Ginsburg noted this proposed legislation would be an inflation adjustment to the incentive cap, and hopes to see the bill before the State Legislature in next year's session.


get more stories like this via email

New research from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found making hydrogen from natural gas, so-called "blue hydrogen," is not much better than burning fossil fuels, and will waste billions in federal government spending.

David Schlissel, director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and the study's co-author, said people should be paying attention to the issue because the federal government is banking on blue hydrogen technology he argued could worsen climate change instead of mitigating its effects.

"The government is planning to spend maybe upwards of $70 billion on subsidies related to hydrogen," Schlissel pointed out. "There are a lot of uncertainties with the technology, and with factors like how much natural gas, which is used in the production of blue hydrogen, how much is going to leak into the atmosphere."

In addition, the report found government agencies may be significantly understating the environmental impact of methane, the primary component of natural gas. Fossil fuel companies have said blue hydrogen produced from methane or coal can be manufactured cleanly and can be part of the solution to the climate crisis.

Schlissel contended U.S. Department of Energy models are also based on an extremely optimistic set of assumptions about future carbon-capture technology. Models currently estimate 95% or more of the carbon dioxide produced at blue hydrogen facilities will be captured.

"There is no facility in the world that captures anywhere near that much carbon dioxide," Schlissel countered. "And the testing that's gone on to date is relatively small scale."

According to the report, carbon dioxide emissions involved in fully compressing, storing and transporting the hydrogen to the site where it will be used is more than three times as much as the Department of Energy's clean hydrogen standard.

A proposal to allow utility-scale solar operations for Washington Township in Delaware County is meeting with some setbacks and one nonpartisan group thinks it is time for more discussion.

Almost 200,000 Indiana homes are powered by solar energy, but the Delaware County Commission issued a moratorium on solar development last year. It created a study committee for further review and then, the unexpected death of a commissioner delayed creation of a new ordinance.

Linda Hanson, spokesperson for the League of Women Voters of Muncie-Delaware County, said the community needs to use the city's resources economically and responsibly.

"We believe that natural resources should be managed as interrelated parts of life-supporting ecosystems," Hanson explained. "We need to conserve and protect those resources for future availability."

The League backs ending the moratorium and passing an ordinance to approve solar installations in the Muncie area, based on a responsible review of each proposal on its individual merits. Another hearing is scheduled for Oct. 2.

Landowners in towns from Gaston to Matthews are voicing concerns about their property values potentially dropping if more solar farms are built. Some are also upset they were notified about a 2021 ordinance for another solar project, Meadow Forge, after it had been approved.

Hanson thinks the commissioners are leaning toward lifting the moratorium and allowing more solar development, with sufficient review.

"You try and look at how this can work responsibly, and that seems to be where we're getting pushback," Hanson observed. "When we track it, it seems to be coming from people who have investments in coal and petroleum."

Indiana is already home to the Mammoth Solar farm in Starke and Pulaski counties. The 13,000 acre facility is the country's largest. Built in 2021, the farm is expected to bring $1.5 billion in investment into the state over the next five years.


get more stories like this via email