COLUMBUS, Ohio - Environmental groups in Ohio say a proposed plan to bail out failing coal and nuclear plants is a raw deal for consumers.

The White House is considering an order that would force grid operators to purchase electric power from struggling coal and nuclear plants. Neil Waggoner, Ohio Beyond Coal Campaign representative for the Sierra Club, contended that such a bailout would be expensive and is unnecessary. He said grid operators, industry experts, utilities and consumer advocates - including the Ohio Public Utilities Commission - have said many times that there is no energy shortage and no reliability concerns if economically challenged plants retire.

"This is Trump clearly trying to do anything he can to help his millionaire coal and nuclear executive buddies by trying to demand Americans and Ohioans pay more every month to prop up these uneconomic coal and nuclear plants," he said. "That's not right, it's not good policy and it just doesn't make any sense."

It's estimated that a bailout of failing coal and nuclear plants could cost consumers somewhere between $311 million and nearly $12 billion annually. A draft policy memo from the Department of Energy stated that the proposal is needed to help safeguard the energy grid amid national security and defense concerns.

Waggoner added that in a modern energy market - where solar, wind and energy efficiency are cheaper - coal and nuclear power plants strapped with high operating costs are becoming obsolete.

"Right now, investment dollars are going into energy-efficiency programs and into new clean energy," he said. "That's where businesses want to go. That's where the public wants to go. They don't want to be spending more to bail out plants that have been paid for over and over and over again for decades."

The plan would use the Federal Power Act and the Cold War-Era Defense Production Act, a wartime law that essentially allows the president to secure scarce resources for national defense. However, Waggoner and other opponents have argued there's no evidence of an energy emergency. He also noted that federal regulators earlier this year said any threats to the grid from extreme weather events provide no basis to subsidize noncompetitive coal and nuclear plants.

Cost data is online at energyinnovation.org.


get more stories like this via email

A round of public testimony wrapped up this week as part of renewed efforts by a company seeking permit approval in North Dakota for an underground pipeline carrying carbon emissions. Economic benefits were again touted but the plan still has opponents.

Last year, North Dakota's Public Service Commission denied a permit request from Summit Carbon Solutions, which wants to build a maze of pipelines in several Midwestern states. Emissions from ethanol plants would be captured for underground storage in North Dakota.

Skott Skokos, executive director of the Dakota Resource Council, said they remain unconvinced it would be a worthwhile project.

"It felt like déjà vu," Skokos observed. "I don't think Summit did anything to relax the concerns of the public."

Company officials have submitted a new application with a revised route as they try to ease concerns about safety and landowner rights. During comment periods, Summit leaders and other speakers discussed how the project would provide economic boosts, including corn prices. However, skeptics restated their concerns about potential ruptures and lasting negative effects on the landscape.

Skokos pointed out large carbon-capture projects like these have yet to prove themselves, noting smaller initiatives are not as likely to rile up opponents. He pointed to the Red Trail ethanol plant in North Dakota.

"They're storing it, basically, almost on-site, next to the facility and they're not affecting a bunch of landowners in the process," Skokos emphasized.

The Summit regulatory case has two upcoming public hearings in North Dakota, one scheduled for May 24 and the other on June 4. The company has run into similar opposition and permitting headwinds in other states, including South Dakota.

Leaders concerned about pollution and climate change are raising awareness about a ballot measure this fall on whether the state should mandate buffer zones around new oil and gas wells.

Voters will be asked to uphold or revoke Senate Bill 1173, which would require a 3,200-foot setback around any new well near schools, neighborhoods and hospitals.

Meghan Sahli-Wells, former mayor of Culver City and a leader with the group Elected Officials to Protect America, fought to phase out the Inglewood oil field and said no community should be a sacrifice zone.

"A study from Harvard found that in California, 34,000 people died in 2018, prematurely, from fossil fuel air pollution," Sahli-Wells pointed out. "These figures are three times higher than other studies."

The Stop the Energy Shutdown campaign, supported by the California Independent Petroleum Association, opposes the setback rule, arguing it could constrict local supply and cost jobs in the industry. A court put the bill on hold pending the outcome of the November election. A "yes" vote would keep the setbacks. A "no" vote would rescind them.

Clean energy advocates are also speaking out against companies operating older low-producing wells rather than pay to shut them down and seal them up properly.

Ahmad Zahra, a city council member in Fullerton, said Assembly Bill 2716 would incentivize their closure by charging companies $10,000 a day to operate so-called "stripper wells."

"We have over 40,000 oil wells currently sitting orphaned or idle, leaking methane and volatile organic compounds into the air, water and soil," Zahra emphasized.

Other states are following California's lead. Rep. Debbie Sariñana, D-Albuquerque, New Mexico, is sponsoring a bill to require setbacks near sensitive locations since more than 32,000 children in the state attend school within a mile of an oil and gas extraction site.

"Over 80 schools in northwestern New Mexico - the San Juan Basin and southeastern New Mexico, the Permian Basin - are within one mile of an oil and gas well," Sariñana noted. "Some schools are surrounded by dozens and even hundreds of wells within a single mile."

The construction of more solar farms in the U.S. has been contentious but a new survey shows their size makes a difference in whether solar projects are favored by neighbors.

South Dakota's largest solar installation, the Wild Springs project in New Underwood, began operations in March and covers more than 1.5 square miles. The survey showed projects under 100 megawatts are generally favored by neighbors, while larger ones like Wild Springs are unpopular.

Kristi Pritzkau, finance officer for the City of New Underwood, said the construction traffic was tough on the town of just over 600 but the project's builder, National Grid Renewables, is giving back to the community.

"They had to use our well, so they paid for the water, and they paid for a new pump for it, too," Pritzkau pointed out. "They've been really great with the city."

Prtizkau noted the company donated to the town's pool and Lions Club and has created a school scholarship program, all part of the more than $500,000 of charitable giving it has promised in the project's first 20 years of operation. It is also expected to bring in $12 million of tax revenue to the county in the same time frame.

Sioux Falls-based Missouri River Energy Services has plans to build a new solar project near Brookings and build a transmission line from South Dakota into Minnesota.

Tim Blodgett, vice president of member services and communications for the company, said federal grant programs and tax credits provide incentives and South Dakota produces more energy than it can use.

"With the development of more wind, the development of solar, there's a lot planned right now to get these resources out of this area," Blodgett explained. "Into Minneapolis and other places where there's larger demand for the energy."

Currently, more than half the state's power generation comes from wind, followed by hydropower.


get more stories like this via email