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

SALT LAKE CITY -- A researcher at the University of Utah said plans for generating renewable energy should include a power source right under our feet.

Whether by plan or accident of geology, Utah has some of the highest potential in the nation for generating geothermal energy. Across the state, super-heated geothermal water is already being used to make electricity, as well as for spas, space heating, agriculture and aquaculture.

Joseph Moore, principal investigator for the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (Utah FORGE) at the University of Utah Energy and Geoscience Institute, said if you can dig a deep enough hole, you can capture heat from the earth's mantle to make sustainable, reliable power.

"The goal is to be able to generate electricity or direct use anywhere in the world," Moore explained. "We can drill deep enough, the heat's there; it's just extracting that heat. We put the hot water, after it's been used, back in the ground - so, it is renewable."

Utah FORGE is a Department of Energy (DOE) funded project tasked with developing the technologies and tools needed for Enhanced Geothermal System reservoirs.

Moore said Utah now has three geothermal power plants that generate a combined 72 megawatts of electricity, enough to supply about 72,000 homes.

He pointed out once fully developed, geothermal has virtually limitless potential across the region.

"Right now, we find the hottest temperatures at the shallowest depths in the West, so that's Utah, Nevada, California," Moore outlined. "A little bit to the north - Idaho, Oregon. A little bit to the south - New Mexico, Wyoming."

He cautioned natural geothermal resources are not currently sufficient to reach the DOE's 2050 goal, but he predicts once the technology being developed in Utah matures, it could potentially generate enough power to run the entire country.

Sarah Wright, executive director of Utah Clean Energy, agreed geothermal power could become a major addition in the fight to counter climate change. She added it does not cost much, in terms of cents per kilowatt-hour.

"It is affordable," Wrights stressed. "It's less than 10 cents, and probably around 8. And it's a pollution-free, carbon-free resource that provides energy all day and all night."

HARRISBURG, Pa. - Some environmental groups are formally requesting that Pennsylvania's Environmental Quality Board raise the bond amounts companies pay to drill oil and gas wells.

The Sierra Club, the Clean Air Council and four other groups have sent two petitions, asking the board to adopt full-cost bonding, both for conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells. Drillers currently pay only a fraction of the bond amount needed to clean up and plug abandoned wells, which leak methane and raise environmental concerns.

Ankit Jain, associate attorney with the Sierra Club's environmental law program, said this increase is a critical way to hold companies accountable for the impacts they leave on communities nearby.

"We want the amount of money that you'll get back from plugging the well to be the same amount of money as it would actually cost to plug the well itself," he said. "So now, you have every incentive to plug the well, because you just get that money back anyways. And it's not left unattended to pollute the environment and eventually, for taxpayers to spend money cleaning up."

The groups are asking the board to raise the bond amount to $38,000 per conventional well, and $83,000 per fracked well. Pennsylvania has more than 6,000 so-called "orphan" gas wells, with hundreds of thousands yet to be found, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

About 5% to 8% of all methane emissions in Pennsylvania are caused by abandoned oil and gas wells, according to a study by Stanford and Princeton universities.

Alex Bomstein, a senior litigation attorney for the Clean Air Council, said this pollution risk can have major consequences for residents living around well sites.

"So it's a huge and essentially unquantified problem that we're all experiencing the consequences of, in terms of the results of exposure to toxins," he said, "often without people realizing that part of the reason they're sick is because of the pollution from these abandoned wells."

The state Department of Environmental Protection is required to respond to the petitions within 30 days about whether they meet the legal requirements for the board to consider them.

DES MOINES, Iowa -- This fall, the Iowa Utilities Board is hosting meetings to inform the public about a proposed underground pipeline, which would transport carbon emissions for sequestration.

Supporters argued it can help reduce harmful emissions in the atmosphere, while environmental advocates countered the risks are far greater than any proposed benefits.

The line, which would run across 30 Iowa counties, would feed into a larger underground system moving carbon dioxide captured from biofuel plants to North Dakota, where it would be stored.

Carolyn Raffensperger, of the Science and Environmental Health Network, said while it sounds like a noble idea, it's counterproductive.

"It requires so much more energy to collect the CO2 from, say, an ethanol plant, that you're going to increase the emissions in carbon dioxide simply through the increased need for power," Raffensperger asserted.

And if there's a leak, she pointed out, there could be serious health risks with transporting and storage of the carbon dioxide, which also could be compressed into liquid form for renewable fuels.

Summit Carbon, the company behind the project, said construction and operations will create jobs, but opponents said the firms benefit from federal tax breaks at the public's expense. The hearings for impacted counties began this month and run through mid-October.

While the company insists the storage would be safe and secure, Raffensperger, who is based in Iowa, emphasized landowners near the proposed route should know it would be classified as a hazardous liquid pipeline. She added there are better ways to spend resources to combat harmful emissions.

"This is a solution for the fossil-fuel industry to keep doing business as usual," Raffensperger remarked.

Instead, she urged policymakers to focus on expanding clean-energy projects, such as wind and solar, while bolstering infrastructure that aims to improve water quality. Her group claims there would be just as many job opportunities with such investments.

Meanwhile, public comments can be submitted to the Iowa Utilities Board either online or through the mail.