EC January 2016

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

8 participants
13 discussions

PBS Mine Wars documentary
by Paul Wilson 26 Jan '16

26 Jan '16

*Photo/Audios/Videos/Books* *PBS “Mine Wars” documentary tells a complex tale* - On Tuesday from 9 to 11 p.m., the Emmy Award-winning PBS history series “American Experience” will premiere a documentary called “The Mine Wars.” The documentary brings the early 20th century history of the conflict into more complete focus, through photos, archival footage (including film unearthed of the aftermath of the Battle of Blair Mountain) and interviews with a raft of historians, miners and others … more <http://listserv.steelworkers.org/t/277340/1028185/152900/18/> -- Paul Wilson Project Healing Waters Fly-fishing Sierra Club Military Outdoors 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle JUSTICE, ONLY JUSTICE, SHALT THOU PURSUE. Deuteronomy 16:20

1 0

Supreme Court supports demand response
by frank young 26 Jan '16

26 Jan '16

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20160125/supreme-court-rules-against-power -suppliers The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a group of power companies and several Republican attorneys general, including West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, in a case that deals with the federal government's ability to regulate regional energy markets. In a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court voted to overturn a lower court's opinion that challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ability to regulate what is known in the power industry as demand response. Demand response is a practice that allows large industrial or commercial electric customers - or larger groups of residential customers - to get paid for reducing the amount of power they use when electricity demand is at its highest.

1 0

Fw: [WV Sierra Club Energy Efficiency Leaders] FYI - a major victory for demand-side resources, ...
by James Kotcon 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

1 0

Our Clean Energy Future Moves Closer: D.C. Circuit Denies Petition to Stay the Clean Power Plan
by Duane 23 Jan '16

23 Jan '16

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sierra-club-environmental-law-program/our-cle… Our Clean Energy Future Moves Closer: D.C. Circuit Denies Petition to Stay the Clean Power Plan Sierra Club Environmental Law Program Legal Team, Sierra Club By Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Chief Climate Counsel and Alejandra Núñez, Sierra Club Staff Attorney, Huff Post, January 22, 2016 Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition by a coalition of fossil fuel industry interests and hostile states to suspend ("stay") implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan (Plan or rule) pending judicial review of its merits. The Clean Power Plan sets the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, which are responsible for almost 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in our country. EPA anticipates that carbon dioxide emissions from these plants will decrease 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 upon full implementation of these flexible, achievable standards. The standards will also help to significantly reduce the pollutants that cause soot and smog that harm our health. As a result of an unprecedented stakeholder process, the Plan includes important, hard-won provisions aimed at ensuring that minority and low-income communities that have historically been subject to harmful and toxic pollution from power plants do not experience any adverse impacts and that they actually receive the important health and economic benefits that will result from the rule's implementation. The stay was requested by fossil fuel industry interests, including utilities and coal mining companies, and allied states, who argued that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Court did not suspend the effectiveness of the rule; that they were likely to succeed on the merits; and that a stay would be in the public interest, among other requirements set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court under Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Petitioners submitted reams of briefing and declarations in support of their motions, unpersuasively predicting catastrophic results if the Clean Power Plan remains in place. EPA and numerous intervenors, including a coalition of 17 states and cities led by New York, clean energy interests, and health and environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, opposed these motions, showing that petitioners failed to satisfy every single one of these requirements. The Plan builds on existing trends in the power sector that have allowed many states around the country to reduce pollution at a rapid rate over the last decade. Once in effect, emissions reductions will phase in gradually through 2030, allowing each state to determine an optimal 'glide path' to reduce their carbon pollution. The intervenors also submitted expert declarations that forcefully countered the petitioners' declarations with persuasive evidence that the rule will be a boon not just to fighting climate change in this country and internationally, but also to creating jobs and a just clean energy economy. In one of the many declarations supporting the intervenors' brief, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright emphasized the international consequences of staying the Plan. A legal stay, she warned, "could derail" and even "irreparably harm" the international momentum to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, the primary driver of dangerous climate change. Black and Latino leaders responded to a report from the fossil fuel backed-National Black Chamber of Commerce that incorrectly alleges that the rule will cause increased poverty in environmental justice communities. On the contrary, these leaders warned that a stay would contribute to the continuation of the dangerous air pollution that causes respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses in their communities, and would prevent early action efforts to help reduce electricity bills and increase good jobs through investments in renewable clean energy and efficiency. Dr. Robert Bullard, Dean of the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs, Texas Southern University, stated, "The Clean Power Plan provides a historic opportunity for the enactment of just laws and regulations that address longstanding disparities . . . . The Clean Power Plan will not only enable our communities to transition toward clean energy; it will also set a precedent on how to integrate environmental justice into rule making and its implementation, both at the federal and state levels of government." Members of coal country communities also urged the Court to preserve the effectiveness of the rule, as its public participation requirements provides an opportunity to advocate for federal and state aid for the transition to clean energy that will improve their health, create good jobs, and allow the diversification of their economies. The Court agreed with EPA and the intervenors, reasoning that petitioners failed to meet the "stringent requirements for a stay pending court review." The parties are now moving on to the fast-track litigation on the merits of the rule, as the Court scheduled oral arguments for June 2, 2016. The D.C. Circuit Court's denial of petitioners' stay motion is fantastic news for the environment, public health, and for our nation. The most important implication of this order is that a procedural cloud of uncertainty over the implementation of the rule has now been lifted and states and utilities will continue their planning efforts to implement the rule. The decision is also a big win for environmental justice communities. The Plan requires states to ensure meaningful participation from communities in the state plan development process. The initial deadline for states to submit their plans is September 6, 2016, and any states seeking an extension beyond that deadline must still submit initial plans by September, demonstrating how they have engaged communities and explaining how they intend to ensure their continued involvement in the planning process. Sierra Club and our many environmental and community allies will be working hard to ensure the development of these plans and implementation of the rule benefits the communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution and by the transition away from coal, both in terms of reduced air pollution and increased economic opportunities. While we still have to wait for the full litigation on the merits to run its course for the success of the rule in the long-term, this is a big, positive development, which will help provide momentum as we accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy.

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] Clean Power Plan stay motion denied! Full steam ahead on implementation!
by Jim Sconyers 21 Jan '16

21 Jan '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Mary Anne Hitt" <maryanne.hitt(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 21, 2016 4:25 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] Clean Power Plan stay motion denied! Full steam ahead on implementation! To: "#Coal" <coal-list(a)sierraclub.org>, "#Coal-Volunteers" < coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org> Cc: Hello Beyond Coal team, Fantastic news breaking this afternoon - the federal DC Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an industry-backed motion to stay, or block, the Clean Power Plan while the court reviews the merits of the case. They have also scheduled oral arguments on a fast track, for June 2. This means that a procedural cloud of uncertainty over states is now lifted, and they can proceed full steam ahead with drafting their implementation plans. While we still have to wait for the full litigation to run its course, this is a very big positive development, and will provide more wind at our backs as we accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy. Sample tweets and our press statement are below. If you have any questions, reach out to me or your nearest ELP contact. And give them an high-five while you're at it! Our legal team has been working hard for years to bolster up the Clean Power Plan, and today we are seeing the results of their hard work and dedication. Mary Anne ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rudhdi Karnik <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org> Suggested tweets: BREAKING: Federal Court Rejects Fossil Fuel Industry Effort to Delay # CleanPowerPlan <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23CleanPowerPlan> Implementation http://bit.ly/1SAb3wB NEWS: Federal Court Rejects Fossil Fuel Industry Effort to Delay # CleanPowerPlan <https://twitter.com/hashtag/CleanPowerPlan?src=hash> Implementation http://bit.ly/1SAb3wB <https://t.co/rVzax2Pmua> # ActOnClimate <https://twitter.com/hashtag/ActOnClimate?src=hash> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Rudhdi Karnik <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org > wrote: > FYI this just went out to reporters-- woo hoo, big win! > > > ### > > > > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > Thursday, January 21, 2016 > > Contact: Rudhdi Karnik, Rudhdi.Karnik(a)sierraclub.org, 202-495-3055 > > View as webpage > <https://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2016/01/federal-court-rejects…> > > Federal Court Rejects Fossil Fuel Industry Effort to Delay Clean Power > Plan Implementation > > Court rejects motions to block nation’s first-ever limits on carbon > pollution > > Washington D.C.-- Today, in a decision applauded by clean energy > companies, public health and environmental groups, and many states, the > D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the fossil fuel industry’s legal > attempt to block the implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection > Agency’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which sets the first-ever protections > against dangerous carbon pollution from U.S. power plants. > > Under the Clean Power Plan, states will have 15 years to fully implement > the new standards, which incorporate a broad array of flexible, > cost-effective compliance options to reduce dangerous pollution. The CPP > builds on existing trends in the power sector that have allowed many states > around the country to reduce pollution at a rapid rate over the last > decade. > > In response Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club’s Chief Climate Counsel, released > the following statement: > > “We applaud the Court’s denial of polluter-backed efforts to block the > Clean Power Plan. This decision clears the way for states to continue > implementing this common-sense standard. The only people who won’t be > cheering this decision are those who profit from pollution and their > political allies. > > “This is just the latest attack from the fossil fuel industry on the Clean > Power Plan to be rejected by a federal court, and it won’t be the last. The > fact is, the Clean Power Plan is based on legislation passed by Congress, > upheld by the Supreme Court, and implemented by the President. It's a > vital, lifesaving policy that draws on the strength and ingenuity of > American innovation to curb dangerous carbon pollution being dumped into > our air, while driving investment and creating jobs in energy efficiency > and clean energy. In limiting the pollution that is causing climate > disruption, the Clean Power Plan will also reduce pollution that causes > serious respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and premature death -- > effects that disproportionately burden communities of color and the most > vulnerable members of our society. > > “Today’s decision allows states, power providers, and clean energy > companies to continue building on the momentum from the Paris climate > summit, moving us closer to powering the nation with 100% clean energy.” > > -- > Rudhdi Karnik > Associate Press Secretary, Federal Affairs > Sierra Club, Beyond Coal Campaign > ( <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org>o) 202.495.3055 > > > > > -- Rudhdi Karnik Associate Press Secretary, Federal Affairs Sierra Club, Beyond Coal Campaign ( <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org>o) 202.495.3055 -- [image: photo] *Mary Anne Hitt* Director, Beyond Coal Campaign Office: 304-876-7064 Cell: 540-239-0073 Twitter: @maryannehitt <https://twitter.com/maryannehitt> www.sierraclub.org -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ To sign up for this list, email neha.mathew(a)sierraclub.org with the subject and message "SUBSCRIBE #coal-volunteer" --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org. To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org.

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] Clean Power Plan stay motion denied! Full steam ahead on implementation!
by James Kotcon 21 Jan '16

21 Jan '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mary Anne Hitt <maryanne.hitt(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] Clean Power Plan stay motion denied! Full steam ahead on implementation! To: #Coal <coal-list(a)sierraclub.org>, #Coal-Volunteers < coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org> Hello Beyond Coal team, Fantastic news breaking this afternoon - the federal DC Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an industry-backed motion to stay, or block, the Clean Power Plan while the court reviews the merits of the case. They have also scheduled oral arguments on a fast track, for June 2. This means that a procedural cloud of uncertainty over states is now lifted, and they can proceed full steam ahead with drafting their implementation plans. While we still have to wait for the full litigation to run its course, this is a very big positive development, and will provide more wind at our backs as we accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy. Sample tweets and our press statement are below. If you have any questions, reach out to me or your nearest ELP contact. And give them an high-five while you're at it! Our legal team has been working hard for years to bolster up the Clean Power Plan, and today we are seeing the results of their hard work and dedication. Mary Anne ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rudhdi Karnik <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org> Suggested tweets: BREAKING: Federal Court Rejects Fossil Fuel Industry Effort to Delay # CleanPowerPlan <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23CleanPowerPlan> Implementation http://bit.ly/1SAb3wB NEWS: Federal Court Rejects Fossil Fuel Industry Effort to Delay # CleanPowerPlan <https://twitter.com/hashtag/CleanPowerPlan?src=hash> Implementation http://bit.ly/1SAb3wB <https://t.co/rVzax2Pmua> # ActOnClimate <https://twitter.com/hashtag/ActOnClimate?src=hash> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Rudhdi Karnik <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org > wrote: > FYI this just went out to reporters-- woo hoo, big win! > > > ### > > > > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > Thursday, January 21, 2016 > > Contact: Rudhdi Karnik, Rudhdi.Karnik(a)sierraclub.org, 202-495-3055 > > View as webpage > <https://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2016/01/federal-court-rejects…> > > Federal Court Rejects Fossil Fuel Industry Effort to Delay Clean Power > Plan Implementation > > Court rejects motions to block nation’s first-ever limits on carbon > pollution > > Washington D.C.-- Today, in a decision applauded by clean energy > companies, public health and environmental groups, and many states, the > D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the fossil fuel industry’s legal > attempt to block the implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection > Agency’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which sets the first-ever protections > against dangerous carbon pollution from U.S. power plants. > > Under the Clean Power Plan, states will have 15 years to fully implement > the new standards, which incorporate a broad array of flexible, > cost-effective compliance options to reduce dangerous pollution. The CPP > builds on existing trends in the power sector that have allowed many states > around the country to reduce pollution at a rapid rate over the last > decade. > > In response Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club’s Chief Climate Counsel, released > the following statement: > > “We applaud the Court’s denial of polluter-backed efforts to block the > Clean Power Plan. This decision clears the way for states to continue > implementing this common-sense standard. The only people who won’t be > cheering this decision are those who profit from pollution and their > political allies. > > “This is just the latest attack from the fossil fuel industry on the Clean > Power Plan to be rejected by a federal court, and it won’t be the last. The > fact is, the Clean Power Plan is based on legislation passed by Congress, > upheld by the Supreme Court, and implemented by the President. It's a > vital, lifesaving policy that draws on the strength and ingenuity of > American innovation to curb dangerous carbon pollution being dumped into > our air, while driving investment and creating jobs in energy efficiency > and clean energy. In limiting the pollution that is causing climate > disruption, the Clean Power Plan will also reduce pollution that causes > serious respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and premature death -- > effects that disproportionately burden communities of color and the most > vulnerable members of our society. > > “Today’s decision allows states, power providers, and clean energy > companies to continue building on the momentum from the Paris climate > summit, moving us closer to powering the nation with 100% clean energy.” > > -- > Rudhdi Karnik > Associate Press Secretary, Federal Affairs > Sierra Club, Beyond Coal Campaign > ( <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org>o) 202.495.3055 > > > > > -- Rudhdi Karnik Associate Press Secretary, Federal Affairs Sierra Club, Beyond Coal Campaign ( <rudhdi.karnik(a)sierraclub.org>o) 202.495.3055 -- [image: photo] *Mary Anne Hitt* Director, Beyond Coal Campaign Office: 304-876-7064 Cell: 540-239-0073 Twitter: @maryannehitt <https://twitter.com/maryannehitt> www.sierraclub.org -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ To sign up for this list, email neha.mathew(a)sierraclub.org with the subject and message "SUBSCRIBE #coal-volunteer" --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org. To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org.

1 0

Fwd: From ClimateWire -- EXCLUSIVE: In the heart of coal country, calls for carbon trading
by James Kotcon 21 Jan '16

21 Jan '16

I got a call from this E&E reporter late yesterday, they had done a records request at DEP and got the comments filed on the CPP. Here is the story they ran today. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060030942 Of greatest interest to me is the side bar, which has links to the comment letters posted by the utilities, the WV Dept of Commerce, UMWV and the Attorney General. I would really love to see what the WV Coal Association filed, but it is not up there. Most feel (and Tom Clarke of DEP says) that DEP cannot go outside the fenceline and therefore cannot file a compliant SIP without changes to HB 2004. That sounds like they agree with Mark Kresowick's interpretation of the language, although I still think the word "may" means it is discretionary, not restrictive. I am swamped today, but will read through these tomorrow. Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: eharball <email_this(a)eenews.net> Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:21 AM Subject: From ClimateWire -- EXCLUSIVE: In the heart of coal country, calls for carbon trading To: jkotcon(a)gmail.com In the heart of coal country, calls for carbon trading *This ClimateWire story was sent to you by:* eharball(a)eenews.net *Personal message:* Here you go! Thanks again for your time yesterday. We will definitely be in touch. [image: ClimateWire] <http://www.eenews.net/cw> AN E&E PUBLISHING SERVICE EXCLUSIVE: In the heart of coal country, calls for carbon trading Elizabeth Harball <http://www.eenews.net/staff/Elizabeth_Harball> and Emily Holden <http://www.eenews.net/staff/Emily_Holden>, E&E reporters Published: Thursday, January 21, 2016 Major electricity providers and some government officials in West Virginia, the state leading the charge against federal climate change regulations, want to use carbon trading to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to public records obtained by *ClimateWire*. More than a dozen documents reveal for the first time that despite political pushback against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, key interests in the state are searching for ways to comply in case legal challenges fail. Image removed for email: E&E Power Plan Hub Logo West Virginia's politicians are among the loudest critics of the climate regulation. The state attorney general, Patrick Morrisey (R), is leading a 24-state lawsuit to kill it, and the state Legislature last year passed a law <http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=HB2004%20SU…> that limits the kind of plan that the state's environment agency, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), can write to meet federal goals. But comments filed to the agency show that important players in West Virginia -- including utilities and a member of the governor's Cabinet -- want the flexibility to use carbon trading to comply. They say trading is the cheapest option for companies and consumers, and argue that they cannot meet EPA's goals under the current state law. "If the [Clean Power Plan] is implemented in West Virginia, credits or allowances will be required for coal plants to continue to operate," said Longview Power LLC, which boasts it owns the cleanest coal plant in the state, during a December presentation. Longview Power CEO Jeff Keffer said in an interview that feedback the environment agency has received from power companies likely reflects broad agreement from the power sector that the state can't meet EPA's targets without legislative changes. "The first step DEP has is to develop a feasibility study," said Keffer. "I suspect that feasibility study will highlight the conflicts between the preparation of a [state compliance plan] and that state statute and the limitations that they have enacted." 'We just can't get there' The missives come as West Virginia, many other states and numerous trade groups are fighting in court to stall or nix the Clean Power Plan. They show how companies affected by the rule are encouraging entrenched opponents of EPA to make backup plans to comply in case legal attacks don't succeed. EPA requires states to cut their power plant carbon dioxide emissions rates by varying amounts by 2030. West Virginia -- which relies almost entirely on coal power and also depends on mining to drive the state's economy -- must make a reduction of 37 percent. EPA's rule allows states to ramp up renewable energy and natural gas usage to reach goals. It also lays out guidelines for carbon trading, which lets power generators buy allowances or credits from cleaner electricity sources to meet required CO2 levels. Power companies in many states are looking to use carbon trading to comply (*ClimateWire* <http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/01/19/stories/1060030764>, Jan. 19). But opponents, including Morrisey and members of West Virginia's Legislature who crafted H.B. 2004, argue that EPA legally can only require specific changes to make coal plants run more efficiently. The law restricts West Virginia's environment agency to writing a carbon-cutting plan based on efficiency improvements that can be made at plants. It calls on DEP to analyze the Clean Power Plan and tell legislators whether the standards are feasible in light of the law's restrictions. DEP finished collecting comments late last month to conduct that analysis. Inspired by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the law also requires the Legislature to approve any plan before state officials send it to EPA (*ClimateWire* <http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060014519>, March 5, 2015). Asked if West Virginia's coal units can meet EPA's carbon targets under the state law, DEP senior policy adviser and counsel Thomas Clarke said, "We just can't get there." "Other than capturing carbon, which has yet to be shown to be feasible ... there's really not anything else you can do at the unit," Clarke said. West Virginia's power companies agreed. Utility American Electric Power said "the obvious conclusion" is that developing a state plan to meet EPA standards is "not feasible given the constraints imposed by H.B. 2004." "The legislation limits West Virginia's ability to craft an implementation plan that would meet the targets in the Clean Power Plan and be approved by the EPA," AEP spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said in an emailed statement. "The state could then be subjected to a federal plan, which if finalized as proposed, would take a 'one size fits all' approach that will not be tailored to the unique infrastructure, economic needs or policy objectives of individual states." Opponents call Clean Power Plan 'illegal' Power company Dominion, which operates three coal-fired units subject to the Clean Power Plan in West Virginia, recommended that the state develop a carbon-cutting plan that uses interstate trading. Officials argued that there are "very limited economically viable options for achieving the CPP standards" otherwise. And "in general, market-based approaches are the most cost effective if properly constructed," said holding company FirstEnergy Corp. on behalf of its subsidiaries Monongahela Power Co., Potomac Edison and Allegheny Energy Service Corp. FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young said in an emailed statement, "responding to West Virginia's questions regarding West Virginia House Bill 2004 was the first step in what will likely be a lengthy process and conversation about the state's implementation plan." West Virginia's attorney general interpreted the comments to DEP as evidence that the state can't comply with EPA's rule without changing state laws and reaching beyond the coal plant "fence line," allowing for carbon trading or relying on cleaner sources of power. Morrisey said in an emailed statement that the comments to DEP "further demonstrate the need for an immediate stay of the illegal Power Plan, a plan already causing real and irreversible changes on the ground in the states." State Sen. Gregory Boso (R), chairman of the West Virginia Senate's Energy, Industry and Mining Committee, did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication, and neither did other members of the West Virginia Legislature, including co-sponsors of H.B. 2004. Even mine workers union calls to study trading Despite current law, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) is requiring that the state write a blueprint to cut emissions, rather than be forced to comply with a federal version (*ClimateWire* <http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060027050.>, Oct. 28, 2015). To retain West Virginia's role as an electricity exporter to other states, to limit job losses and to keep power prices low for customers, the state should "maximize whatever flexibility is offered under the Clean Power Plan," stated comments from Commerce Department Secretary J. Keith Burdette, who works under the governor. That flexibility should include allowing utilities to purchase allowances in a carbon trading system, Burdette wrote. [image: Miner statue] As West Virginia battles federal climate change regulations in court, its utilities and coal miners -- made famous in this state sculpture -- are quietly seeking ways to comply. Photo courtesy of the West Virginia Legislature. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), which is also suing EPA, said it is confident that legal challenges will halt the rule. The union doubts the merits of interstate trading but nonetheless called for more comprehensive analysis into various compliance approaches "to determine the best course for West Virginia in the event that it must comply with the final rule." UMWA President Cecil Roberts wants the state to seek a two-year extension to submit a plan, which means filing a status report to EPA in September. "This would allow WV DEP to proceed with stakeholder meetings in the meantime to assess the merits of alternative compliance pathways," Roberts wrote to the state. Greens blast 'war on coal' rhetoric Meanwhile, environmental advocates with the Sierra Club's West Virginia Chapter interpreted the law differently than both the power companies and DEP. In their comments, activists said that while H.B. 2004 requires "unit-specific" standards for coal plants, that does not prohibit carbon emissions trading. "We recommend that DEP conclude that compliance is technically feasible, because it is," the Sierra Club said. The West Virginia Chapter's Energy Committee chairman, Jim Kotcon, acknowledged in an interview that other legal experts might disagree. "If read in its most restrictive way, then DEP is probably unable to construct a [state plan] that would comply with EPA's rule," Kotcon said. "I certainly do not want to discount the political influence of our utilities and electric generating industries with the Legislature -- they far exceed my limited influence," Kotcon said. "At the same time, so many of our West Virginia legislators have been so locked onto the friends of coal and the 'EPA war on coal' rhetoric that it is going to be interesting to see if they can backpedal enough to actually vote for a [state implementation plan]." But DEP senior policy adviser and counsel Clarke said in a December interview that the law's language may leave it open to changes down the road. H.B. 2004 "asks us to analyze the need for legislative or other changes to state law. And so what we may do is tell the Legislature, 'Gee, if you want to submit a plan, some of these things that you've put in House Bill 2004 that limit what we can do in a state plan need to come out of state law,'" Clarke said. Want to read more stories like this? Click here <http://www.eenews.net/trial?r=emailed_story_1060030942> to start a free trial to E&E -- the best way to track policy and markets. ABOUT CLIMATEWIRE – The politics and business of climate change ClimateWire is written and produced by the staff of E&E Publishing, LLC. It is designed to provide comprehensive, daily coverage of all aspects of climate change issues. From international agreements on carbon emissions to alternative energy technologies to state and federal GHG programs, ClimateWire plugs readers into the information they need to stay abreast of this sprawling, complex issue. [image: E&E Publishing, LLC] <http://www.eenews.net/> E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C St. NW, Ste. 722, Wash., D.C. 20001 Phone: 202-628-6500 Fax: 202-737-5299 www.eenews.net All content is copyrighted and may not be reproduced or retransmitted without the express consent of E&E Publishing, LLC. Click here <http://www.eenews.net/eep/learn_more/privacy_policy> to view our privacy policy.

1 0

Today's Editorial in WVU Daiily Athenaeum
by James Kotcon 15 Jan '16

15 Jan '16

This may be a sign for the Power Plus campaign. JBK http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/article_698b302e-bb37-11e5-9cfc-97286551… [http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/thedaonline.com/content/tncms/a…]<http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/article_698b302e-bb37-11e5-9cfc-97286551…> Securing W. Va.'s economic future<http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/article_698b302e-bb37-11e5-9cfc-97286551…> www.thedaonline.com With decreasing profits from prominent industries like natural gas and coal, Tomblin urged people to consider reinvesting in West Virginia's mining communities. Like President Barack Obama, West Virginia governor Earl Ray Tomblin is reaching the end of his second and final term. In his final State of the State address on Wednesday, Tomblin addressed current issues in West Virginia and offered potential solutions to the problems. With decreasing profits from prominent industries like natural gas and coal, Tomblin urged people to consider reinvesting in West Virginia's mining communities. He also advocated for an increase in taxes, as the state continues to see budget gaps that are projected to only increase in size over time. Though coal is West Virginia's most notable industry, it's no surprise that this state will eventually run out of all minable resources. The decline in both the national gas and coal industries in the state indicates the beginning of what can only be a continuous economic fall. Without any other industry to support this state's residents, families will end up in poverty if an alternate source of jobs for unskilled workers isn't found. West Virginia is too mountainous to hold any true farmland, and though the tourism industry draws many fisherman, hikers and whitewater rafters, it may not be enough to support this state's economy. However, If miners can currently remove entire mountaintops as a way to harness energy, building wind turbines on untouched mountaintops and training workers to maintain them should solve both our energy needs and create new sources of jobs and revenue in West Virginia. In 2014, West Virginia only had 327 wind turbines while Pennsylvania had 720. Wind energy jobs are already found in every state, and looking into the possibility of expanding our wind energy output may be the start of a slow transition away from relying upon mining onto permanently utilizing renewable energy. Tomblin should stop hanging onto the ways of the past and start spearheading the search for new industries and livelihoods able to support West Virginians permanently. Getting this process started for our next governor to continue during his or her time in office is critical in ensuring the protection of West Virginia's economic future.

1 0

Fw: Sign up for our Webinar on home energy efficiency Jan. 20
by James Kotcon 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

________________________________ From: Autumn Long <autumnlong11(a)gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:28 PM To: Laura Yokochi; John Bird; David Sturm; James Kotcon Subject: Sign up for our Webinar on home energy efficiency Jan. 20 Thought the EE team might be interested in this. I'm signing up for it. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth Payne <lee.payne(a)appvoices.org> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 Subject: Sign up for our Webinar on home energy efficiency Jan. 20 To: autumnlong11(a)gmail.com [http://appvoices.org/images/AppVoicesemailheader.jpg]<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=6xg52fT6LSwb5FBZtMBu%2BwBHlc4M…> [http://appvoices.org/images/uploads/2016/01/webinar2016_energyefficiency.jpg]<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=AqofcVUxxbgPbgPZsshYvfhOHf36FO…> Dear Autumn, Appalachian Voices will host the first in our free four-part webinar series about environmental issues facing the Appalachian region on Wednesday, January 20, at 2 p.m. "Improve the Efficiency of Your Home" will focus on energy efficiency since waste is a key source of energy usage. Most homes use - and pay for - at least 20% more electricity than they need to due to energy lost through such things as inefficient appliances and drafty windows. >> Register for the webinar now!<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7j3EerRmdoWmMxrjZ7mXJPhOHf36FO…> Energy efficiency provides a way to use less energy without changing your lifestyle, because it reduces the amount of electricity wasted in our daily lives. And by using less electricity you can lower your utility costs, while reducing your consumption of fossil fuels. This means more money in your pocket and less pollution in our air and water! This webinar will provide information about the importance of energy efficiency, offer suggestions for how you can improve the efficiency of your homes, and introduce programs that can help finance and promote greater energy efficiency. Join our discussion and share your questions with our featured panelists: [http://appvoices.org/images/uploads/2016/01/webinar2016_1.jpg] * Jennifer Alldredge, the education program manager for the Alliance to Save Energy, a national coalition advocating energy efficiency as a solution to global energy needs. * Marcus Renner, owner and project manager of Conservation Pros, an Asheville-based business that specializes in providing energy efficiency and weatherization solutions for homeowners and businesses in western North Carolina. * Rory McIlmoil, the energy policy director for Appalachian Voices, an environmental nonprofit focused on reducing the impact of coal in central and southern Appalachia and working toward a * cleaner energy future. Learn more and register now!<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jfJoO7oJ9YrD1GsC0%2FY70wBHlc4M…> [http://appvoices.org/images/staff/lee_payne_sm.jpg] Thanks and I hope you'll be able to join us! [http://appvoices.org/images/staff/lee_sig.jpg] Elizabeth E. Payne AmeriCorps Project Conserve Communications Associate [Facebook]<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=F79f5WCKImxZ1UTJ4AtTVfhOHf36FO…> [Twitter] <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ff8ucTjWLgTt3g%2F5aP3kfPhOHf36…> You are receiving this message because you signed up to receive general email alerts from Appalachian Voices. AppVoices.org<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KHOLdlDx0txKS8l6T7l7l%2FhOHf36…> | Contact Us<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2BY%2BTizJWg9fXCe9VOWEmEPhOHf…> | Unsubscribe<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2BlaELPw9ZNTIuUayMEd49PhOHf36…> -- Autumn

1 0

Re: [EC] [Coal Volunteers List] Helpful post on "self-bonding" by coal companies, by Peter Morgan
by Paul Wilson 13 Jan '16

13 Jan '16

Tomorrow's Diane Rehm Show on NPR will have a "Future of Coal Industry" discussion on the first hour. IF you do not get that show on your NPR station. listen online at drshow.org or wamu.org. fyi, paul w. On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Mary Anne Hitt < maryanne.hitt(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > In the wake of the Arch Coal bankruptcy announcement today, I wanted to be > sure everyone had seen this blog post by our very own Peter Morgan, with > the Environmental Law Program, which explains the racket that is > "self-bonding" by coal mining companies. It's a very concise, accessible > summary of how we taxpayers may be left footing the bill for the mess these > companies leave behind. > > I always found this whole process rather confusing, and this post is one > of the most clear explanations of how it works that I've come across, so I > wanted to pass it along. We're lucky to have Peter and Aaron Isherwood > navigating us through the murky world of coal company bankruptcies. > > Mary Anne > > > http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/2016/01/big-coal-mining-companies-want-gam… > > January 6, 2016 > Big Coal Mining Companies Want to Gamble on the Coal Market -- Using Your > Money > By Peter Morgan <http://www.sierraclub.org/other/authors/peter-morgan> > > [image: Mountaintop removal coal mining at Berry Branch Mine, Ohio.] > *Berry Branch Mine, West Virginia. Photograph by Vivian Stockman, Ohio > Valley Environmental Coalition <http://ohvec.org/>.* > > The coal mining industry in the United States is undergoing a historic > shift. Coal prices, and coal production, continue to decrease. Major mine > operators, many of whom over-leveraged and took on massive debt when the > coal market was at its peak just a few years ago, are being swept up in a > wave of bankruptcies. Rather than give in to these market conditions and > fold, some mine operators are seeking to reorganize and emerge from > bankruptcy. How do they plan to do this? By underwriting their risky > gambles with taxpayer money -- *your* money –- in the form of > self-bonding. > > One of the major contributors to the downward force pressing on the coal > industry is the continuing oversupply of coal. A recent report from > McKinsey consultants dubbed this phenomenon "zombie mines": mines that lose > money, but that keep operating because it is too expensive to shut them > down. But the cost of shuttering these mines isn't the only factor in play. > Each of the major mine operators wants to be the last man standing. Some > market for coal will persist in the U.S., and each company wants to secure > the major share of that market. > > But how can a bankrupt coal company hope to scrape together the funding > necessary to emerge from their dire financial straits and gamble on future > coal mining profits? Easy: they'll use your money. One of the most > fundamental components of state and federal surface mining laws is the > requirement that before coal removal can start, a mine operator must post a > bond sufficient to cover the costs of reclaiming the site should it go out > of business. That reclamation cost can be in the tens of millions of > dollars for a single site. For big companies that hold a lot of permits –- > like Alpha Natural Resources and Arch Coal –- the total reclamation > obligation is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So what does a mine > operator do if it doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars to secure > those bonds? It convinces state regulators to let it off the hook from > these reclamation bonding obligations by authorizing the use of > "self-bonds" –-essentially an unenforceable promise from the company to the > regulator that the company will complete reclamation. That means that if > the company liquidates or abandons a mine site before it completes > reclamation there will be no money left to pay for the cleanup. Instead, > taxpayers –- you and me –- will shoulder that cost. > > This exact scenario is playing out right now. In August, Alpha Natural > Resources –- one of the largest coal producers in the country –- filed for > Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Despite the significant decline of the > coal industry and Alpha's plummeting stock value, state regulators in > Wyoming and West Virginia had allowed Alpha to keep operating its mines > under self-bonds. In Wyoming, Alpha's self-bonded reclamation liability is > $411 million. In West Virginia, the self-bonded liability is $244 million. > When the inevitable came to pass and Alpha filed for bankruptcy, state > regulators opted to allow Alpha to keep operating under its now worthless > self-bonds rather than require the company or its funders to provide > substitute bonds. This means the state regulators are choosing to place the > risk on the backs of their own citizens rather than on the company or the > big banks currently propping it up. > > Alpha and the state regulators claim that continued self-bonding is > necessary only during the bankruptcy process itself and that Alpha will > substitute those reclamation bonds when it emerges from bankruptcy. Neither > Alpha, the regulators, or anyone else has made any attempt to explain where > the bankrupt company will come up with the more than $650 million in > funding that would be required to provide complete and secure reclamation > bonds. Much more likely, and consistent with recent events, is that the > regulators will allow Alpha to keep mining based on less-than-complete > reclamation bonding. In other words, Alpha will be mining -– disturbing > more land that will need to be reclaimed –- while taxpayers bear the risk > of paying for that reclamation. Because Alpha will be operating in the > current market of low coal prices and high production costs, the chance of > further defaults and a return to bankruptcy are quite high. And when that > happens, the company will be forced to liquidate its assets and will cease > to exist. But Alpha need not worry about that: once it's time to pay for > the reclamation, Alpha won't be around anymore. You and I will be the ones > left holding the bill. > > -- > [image: photo] > *Mary Anne Hitt* > Director, Beyond Coal Campaign > Office: 304-876-7064 > Cell: 540-239-0073 > Twitter: @maryannehitt <https://twitter.com/maryannehitt> > www.sierraclub.org > > -- > To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: > https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ > > To sign up for this list, email neha.mathew(a)sierraclub.org with the > subject and message "SUBSCRIBE #coal-volunteer" > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "#Coal-Volunteers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org. > To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org. > -- Paul Wilson Project Healing Waters Fly-fishing Sierra Club Military Outdoors 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle JUSTICE, ONLY JUSTICE, SHALT THOU PURSUE. Deuteronomy 16:20

1 0

IRP Review
by James Kotcon 10 Jan '16

10 Jan '16

Here is my quick summary of the Mon Power, ApCo, and Wheeling Power IRPs Top Ten Talking Points on Mon Power & Potomac Edison's IRP 1. MP/PE ignores the CPP. No specific plans until DEP imposes requirements. 2. Since Mon Power provides all generation for PE, these are combined under Mon Power. 3. MP projects a capacity shortfall by 2016, with the shortfall growing to 850 MW by 2027. 4. Propose two options: A) Purchase 850 MW of new capacity in 2017, or B) Retrofit existing plants (Harrison and Fort Martin) to co-fire with up to 30 % gas. Cost of conversion would be $55-80 million at each plant.. (What happened? I though the purchase of Harrison was supposed to provide excess capacity for decades!) 5. Current Capacity is 1984 MW from Harrison, 1098 MW from Fort Martin, 488 MW from Bath County pump-storage ; 50 MW from MEA, 80 MW from Grant Town, and 31 MW from New Martinsville Hannibal Hydro Project. 6. Actual peak growth 2010-2014 was 3.1 %, mostly from growth in the natural gas drilling and processing sector. Projected peak load forecast is 2.2 % per year for 2015-2020. 7. Mon Power apparently did not consider ANY new EE or DR options for meeting new capacity needs. Existing Phase I and Phase II EE Plans will reduce energy use by cumulative 1 % by 2018. 8. Claims the Mercury rule was a key factor in closing Albright, Rivesville and Willow Island Sept. 1, 2012. 9. Concludes that solar, geothermal, and new hydro are not cost-effective, but wind or biomass co-firing are most viable options for renewable generation. 10. New generation could be acquired by building or buying an additional power plant. Co-firing would add "fuel diversity" at existing plants. (It is not clear to me how co-firing helps resolve the capacity shortfall?) Top Ten Talking Points on ApCo's IRP (Based on a review of the Executive Summary) 1. ApCo Ignores the CPP. No specific plans until DEP imposes requirements. Models assume a "cost of carbon dioxide" of $15-20/ton over a 30-year period. 2. FERC Capacity requirements (Peak Demand & Reliability assurance) differ from expected generation (actual energy requirements of customers), both will be important. Intermittent sources such as wind and solar will have limited "capacity" potential, driving ApCo to retain more base load and peaking facilities. ApCo expects a slight capacity shortfall between available generation versus expected demand by 2021, based on PJM's Capacity Performance rule (reserve margin requirements). 3. ApCo assumes average growth in demand of 0.3%, with peak demand increasing 0.2 % annually. 4. ApCo continues operation of Amos and Mountaineer plants. 5. Convert Clinch River Units 1 & 2 from coal to gas, but retires them in 2026. 6. Additional Demand side resources in the form of EE and Volt-Var Optimization = 3.1 % of energy needs, reducing capacity requirements by 118 MW by 2025. 7. Add 10 MW of large-scale solar by 2018. 8. Add 150 MW in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2025 (750 MW total). 9. Assumes customers add distributed solar increasing by 5 % annually, totaling 14 MW by 2025. (The analysis assumed the ITC expired in 2016, so I think we can expect faster growth. For example, the average growth rate in residential solar for the last 10 years has been around 40 % per year, so continuing that rate should get us over 200 MW). 10. Adds 10 MW of battery storage by 2025. Four Talking Points on Wheeling Power's IRP Based on a review of the Executive Summary) 1. Ignores CPP 2. Assumes growth in demand of 0.4 % and in peak Demand of 0.5 % per year. 3. All of WPCo's capacity comes from 50 % ownership in Mitchell plant. 4. No new resources are proposed, but some demand-side management options may be proposed in the future.

4 7

Fw: Links to IRPs
by James Kotcon 06 Jan '16

06 Jan '16

A few more filings, including the original order can be found by searching for General Order # 184.35 The links from Dave below take you to the actual cases filed by the utilities. To see the filing, click on the case number, then click on "Activities" at the top of the page. To find the complete listing of filings for a case: Go to the PSC web page, then click on "Case Information" in the column on the left side of the page. This opens the "web Docket" page. Then click on "Case: under "Search by" on the left side. Enter the case number (e.g. 15-2002) in the box after "Case Number contains" and click "Search" This takes you to the Case List. Click on "Activities" and a full listing of all filings under that case will appear. The actual IRP will open in a new page and is fairly large, so it will take a few minutes to download. JBK ________________________________ From: David Sturm <davidsturm(a)ymail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 10:00 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: Links to IRPs These are from the Activities pages (where filings are kept), from links on the case number pages. With my browser, Download is much quicker. 15-2002-E-P<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/viewCaseForWebViewForm.cfm?Cas…> 12/30/2015 Incoming Document View PDF<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…> / Text<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewText.cfm?CaseActivityID=44…> / Download<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDownload.cfm?CaseActivityI…> Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company 15-2003-E-P<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/viewCaseForWebViewForm.cfm?Cas…> 12/30/2015 Incoming Document View PDF<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…> / Text<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewText.cfm?CaseActivityID=44…> / Download<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDownload.cfm?CaseActivityI…> Appalachian Power Company 15-2004-E-P<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/viewCaseForWebViewForm.cfm?Cas…> 12/30/2015 Incoming Document View PDF<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…> / Text<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewText.cfm?CaseActivityID=44…> / Download<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDownload.cfm?CaseActivityI…> Wheeling Power Company 15-2004-E-P<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/viewCaseForWebViewForm.cfm?Cas…> 12/30/2015 Incoming Document View PDF<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…> / Text<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewText.cfm?CaseActivityID=44…> / Download<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDownload.cfm?CaseActivityI…> Wheeling Power Company 15-2009-E-P<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/viewCaseForWebViewForm.cfm?Cas…> 12/31/2015 Incoming Document View PDF<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…> / Text<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewText.cfm?CaseActivityID=44…> / Download<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDownload.cfm?CaseActivityI…> City of New Martinsville 15-2010-E-P<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/viewCaseForWebViewForm.cfm?Cas…> 12/31/2015 Incoming Document View PDF<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…> / Text<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewText.cfm?CaseActivityID=44…> / Download<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDownload.cfm?CaseActivityI…> Harrison Rural Electrification Association, Inc.

1 0

Could the Hatfield's Ferry plant see a reboot?
by Duane 05 Jan '16

05 Jan '16

http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies/2016/01/05/Hatfie… Could the Hatfield's Ferry plant see a reboot? By Anya Litvak, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 5, 2016 Although few in the electric power industry could believe that FirstEnergy Corp. would follow through on its promise to close Hatfield’s Ferry — a huge coal power plant in Greene County with $700 million worth of relatively new pollution control equipment — the company shut the doors in October 2013 and stamped the plant retired. But quietly, the Ohio-based utility has been making plans for a possible reboot. In a process begun in 2014, FirstEnergy is now asking the region grid operator for permission to start supplying power from Hatfield’s back into the grid in summer 2019. The future of the 1,700-megawatt plant may depend on the price of natural gas, or how the current menu of environmental regulations shakes out in court, or on any other factors currently being considered by engineers and number crunchers to determine if restarting the plant makes sense. Hatfield’s Ferry is the only shuttered plant out of 11 that FirstEnergy has closed across Appalachia since 2011 that the company is evaluating for a restart and it’s the one with the most potential for future use, according to spokeswoman Jennifer Young. She said FirstEnergy is working through an engineering study to, once again, consider retrofitting Hatfield’s Ferry to burn natural gas along with coal. If it decides to go through with that plan, the plant won’t be ready until June 2019. The company is also studying restarting it as a coal plant or converting it entirely to gas. “This really was about keeping the options open,” Ms. Young said. “We haven’t done any work to restart that plant.” Hatfield’s, near Masontown, was shuttered at the same time as a smaller, 370-megawatt Mitchell Power Station in Courtney, with FirstEnergy blaming low electricity demand, cheap natural gas and environmental compliance costs for the closures. About 380 people lost their jobs at the facilities, though the company found many of them replacement work at other sites. Andy Sinclair was one of them. He worked as an instrument controls technician at Hatfield’s before it shut down. He now works at West Penn Power, which is also owned by FirstEnergy. A few months ago, when Mr. Sinclair was invited to have breakfast with FirstEnergy’s CEO Chuck Jones, he said he asked Mr. Jones what the company had in mind for Hatfield’s and was told there were no plans to reopen the power station. He didn’t know about the company’s current studies or about its request to the grid operator. “I can’t believe I didn’t hear about this until today,” Mr. Sinclair said. But he had heard of rumors of engineers wandering through the plant last winter to assess the possibility of restarting it to run on coal and gas. “I heard they got up to so much money that it was out of control,” he said. FirstEnergy said as much two years ago. Jim Lash, president of FirstEnergy Generation, told legislators in 2013 that the company had already evaluated adding natural gas to the mix at Hatfield’s and determined it wouldn’t be economical. On at least one occasion, Mr. Lash said it would be cheaper to build natural gas power plants from scratch than to convert a coal plant to co-fire with gas. “That was a snapshot in time and things do change over time,” Ms. Young said this week. It could be that retrofitting makes more sense now, she said, but the company isn’t far enough along in its evaluation to make that call. “It’s been three years now and market conditions have changed,” she said. What also changed was how PJM Interconnection Inc., the regional grid operator that coordinates the flow of electricity for 13 states including Pennsylvania, ensures that there is enough generation in the grid to feed demand in future years. After a push by generators, with FirstEnergy at the front of the pack, PJM revamped its process to favor more predictable, baseload generation. The PJM changes are a positive for FirstEnergy, but Ms. Young said that hasn’t been enough to compel the company to buy new generation or think about restarting shuttered plants quite yet. Hatfield’s Ferry was outfitted with scrubbers before it was acquired by FirstEnergy in 2011 as part of the Ohio company’s takeover of Greensburg-based Allegheny Energy Inc. The scrubbers were designed to keep sulfur dioxide emissions from the air and have the added effect of reducing mercury emissions. Ms. Young said that in order to comply with the mercury emissions rules that went into effect last year, the plant would need additional investment. She said an exact figure isn’t available. “Conversion to another fuel type would require significant investments as well,” she said. “It’s too soon to speculate what future operation of the plant might entail.” www.FrackCheckWV.net

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC January 2016