Evidentiary hearings are underway for AEP's proposed IGCC plant in Mason County. The Chapter has not yet, to my knowledge, filed any comments on this facility. The major issue being debated is the cost of the facility, as it is considerably more expensive than any plant ever built by AEP, and AEP is asking the ratepayers to pay for it.
The issue is difficult because IGCC plants have much lower emissions of SO2 and PM than pulverized coal boilers like Longview or Western Greenbrier. In addition, AEP has argued that the plant is needed to replace plants scheduled for shut-down in the recent settlement with Sierra Club, et al. And an IGCC plant would make Carbon Capture and Sequestration easier than retrofitting an old plant. In the Longview case, I argued that IGCC should be used, so I am hesitant to now say that is not good enough.
At the same time, nothing actually commits AEP to shutting down old plants, so this facility may become an "add-on", rather than a replacement and net reduction of, air pollution emissions.
Just to make matters even more complicated, the Clean Air Task Force recently filed comments to the PSC in support of the plant. These are usually the guys who oppose coal-fired power plants, but here they are in West Virginia.
So what should we do next?
JBK
P.S. I think we may want to take a position commending AEP for their innovation but say "Not Good Enough" We need to do better. In particular, I think that AEP stockholders are assuming that we ratepayers will be paying all the carbon costs, and we should ask the PSC to condition the plant on AEP's stockholders assuming that risk. If they think coal is going to be profitable for the next 50 years, let them pay for it, not us.
Just to make matters even more complicated, the Clean Air Task Force recently filed comments to the PSC in support of the plant. These are usually the guys who oppose coal-fired power plants, but here they are in West Virginia.
So what should we do next?
Let me offer these two related considerations....
1. We believe that the full environmental costs of power plants needs to be born by the plant owner. For new technology, carbon dioxide must be fully considered in this regard.
2. It is our position that carbon dioxide is now recognized as a pollutant, or a special case of a substance that must be substantially limited as an emission because of the global climate change problem now extant, so a complete plan for accounting for carbon dioxide is necessary including provisions for collecting the carbon dioxide, following it to its ultimate destination, and ensuring its removal from impact on the environment at any future time.
________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
I emailed Pat Gallagher and Aaron Isherwood about this and here below is Pat's response. Bruce is Bruce Nilles who chairs the National Coal Campaign. Is the coal to come from Mason Cty mine sites? And if so are they MTR or Deep-well mines? thanks, paul **************************************************************** Paul - I'm pulling Bruce into this discussion; he's been up against this CATF dilemma. We are in fact opposing IGCC plants in several other states and I recommend that we do so here also - the key issue is carbon emissions. Also - will it be burning MTR coal ?
On Dec 11, 2007 4:20 PM, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
Evidentiary hearings are underway for AEP's proposed IGCC plant in Mason County. The Chapter has not yet, to my knowledge, filed any comments on this facility. The major issue being debated is the cost of the facility, as it is considerably more expensive than any plant ever built by AEP, and AEP is asking the ratepayers to pay for it.
The issue is difficult because IGCC plants have much lower emissions of SO2 and PM than pulverized coal boilers like Longview or Western Greenbrier. In addition, AEP has argued that the plant is needed to replace plants scheduled for shut-down in the recent settlement with Sierra Club, et al. And an IGCC plant would make Carbon Capture and Sequestration easier than retrofitting an old plant. In the Longview case, I argued that IGCC should be used, so I am hesitant to now say that is not good enough.
At the same time, nothing actually commits AEP to shutting down old plants, so this facility may become an "add-on", rather than a replacement and net reduction of, air pollution emissions.
Just to make matters even more complicated, the Clean Air Task Force recently filed comments to the PSC in support of the plant. These are usually the guys who oppose coal-fired power plants, but here they are in West Virginia.
So what should we do next?
JBK
P.S. I think we may want to take a position commending AEP for their innovation but say "Not Good Enough" We need to do better. In particular, I think that AEP stockholders are assuming that we ratepayers will be paying all the carbon costs, and we should ask the PSC to condition the plant on AEP's stockholders assuming that risk. If they think coal is going to be profitable for the next 50 years, let them pay for it, not us.
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
-
duane330＠aol.com -
James Kotcon -
Paul Wilson