Below are comments from myself and Vickie Wolfe (Chair of WVEC's Renewable Energy Committee) on the Gov's AREPS bill (attached).

Jim Sconyers asked if this bill was legit. I am more pessimistic than Vickie because, although the bill defines "Advanced Coal Technology" to mean carbon capture or advanced high efficiency technologies to reduce carbon emissions, the actual portfolio standard also allows existing plants that burn coalbed methane, coal waste, or even tire-derived fuels, to qualify for the credits. That means that 20-year-old plants like the MEA Beechurst Avenue plant in Morgantown would qualify as generating these credits.

I also re-read the text of the speech, and it is not clear if Manchin is even aware that WV already has net metering rules in place. If he is, his bill would actually weaken current rules under the guise of expanding them. If not, it makes me wonder how competent his staff is.

JBK

...

...

Vickie Wolfe ibtreehugger@gmail.com 2/12/2009 2:28 AM >>>

First to address the question Danny posed to just a few of us, I too have not yet studied the bill, just read it briefly--it's too late in the day for my brain to work well. But the bill does not specify how much energy must come from each source. As I understand it from my cursory reading, utilities are required to acquire credits (one credit = one mwh) equal to 25% of the electricity they sold in the preceding year. They receive one credit for each mwh purchased from an "alternative energy resource facility" (see definition (c), p. 4); two credits for each mwh purchased from a "renewable energy resource facility;" and three credits for each mwh purchased from a "renewable energy resource facility" that's sited on a reclaimed surface mine.

To be honest with you, I'm not too worried about many of those "alternative" sources; I think the gov might've outfoxed himself. I think "advanced coal technology" (see definitions) will be too expensive. So will coal gasification/IGCC. In case you're not aware, currently there exist only TWO IGCC facilities in the whole U.S. FutureGen--which was an IGCC facility that was to include CCS--was shelved because it was too expensive. So I guess I'm more optimistic than Jim. No, there's no requirement for renewable energy per se; but there is a requirement for energy that comes from "alternative" sources that INCLUDE renewables; and I'm thinking market forces may actually drive these credits toward renewables. (Please feel free to argue with me, Jim.)

The provision I saw that concerned me most was that there's an "out" on p. 17: the portfolio standards may be "eliminated if the commission determines that alternative or renewable energy resources are not reasonably available."

----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@wvu.edu To: Duane330@aol.com; "Kathryn Stone" XKatwalkx@aol.com; "Denise Poole" deniseap@earthlink.net; kgrubb@fairmontstate.edu; "Matt Sherald" matt@getpimby.com; "Vickie Wolfe" ibtreehugger@gmail.com; "Trevor Swan" levelingAppalachia@gmail.com; "matt noerpel" mnoerpel@gmail.com; "Rory McIlmoil" rorygep@gmail.com; "Daniel Chiotos" trouserdude@gmail.com; "Vivian Stockman" v.stock@gmail.com; "Vernon Haltom" vernoncrmw@gmail.com; "Mary Wildfire" mwildfire@hotmail.com; pjgrunt@lycos.com; "Heather N Sprouse" sprouse15@marshall.edu; "Mel Tyree PhD" tyree13@marshall.edu; "Frank YOUNG" fyoung@mountain.net; "Bill Price" bill.price@sierraclub.org; haning2@verizon.net; jkotcon@wvu.edu; unclesteve197@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:17 PM Subject: Re: Manchin's "alternative energy" bill online now

I have read over this bill twice, and I cannot see any requirement for renewable energy. As I read this, a utility could achieve its entire portfolio standard from "alternative" sources, which could include existing coal-fired power plants that use pressurized fluidized bed boilers, or from an IGCC boiler. The could use coalbed methane, tire-derived fuels, or a "pump-storage" hydro facility, in which the original energy comes from coal.

I am concerned that the net-metering provisions appear to open up our current rules to allow coal for net-metering incentives.

It also appears to me that this bill would offer fewer credits for carbon emissions offsets to sequester carbon in trees, etc., than are generated from the coal in the first place. My calculations suggest that a utility would get 4-6 "credits" for burning a ton of coal in an approved power plant, thereby releasing something like 2 tons of carbon dioxide, but would only get two credits if they fix those two tons of carbon dioxide in trees. Unless my math is wrong (and it is late, so somebody double check this before you quote me), a utility gets more credits for polluting the air than they get for cleaning it up.

(1 BTU = 0.293 W-hours) 1 pound of coal is 8,000-12,000 BTU If coal is 60 % carbon, 1 ton of coal yields 2.2 tons Carbon dioxide

It looks like this "standard" would put West Virginia seriously out of compliance with any of the RPS standards in surrounding states, and would likely lead us down a blind alley, setting up a system that would not meet the requirements of any likely national Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Am I missing something, or is this worse than nothing? I keep looking for the pony, but I just don't see it.

Jim Kotcon

...

...

Vickie Wolfe ibtreehugger@gmail.com 2/12/2009 12:07 AM >>>

Everyone, Didja watch the State of the State address? Ken Ward has posted the draft text of Manchin's "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard" on his blog: http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vickie L. Wolfe PHONE: (304) 744-8777 E-MAIL: IBTreehugger@gmail.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Think coal-derived electricity is "cheap"? Visit http://www.alternet.org/story/70475/?page=entire