MVCAC August 2020

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1 participants
6 discussions

LONGVIEW POWER EMERGES FROM BANKRUPTCY
by Duane Nichols 24 Aug '20

24 Aug '20

https://longviewpower.com/news/longview-power-emerges-from-bankruptcy LONGVIEW POWER EMERGES FROM BANKRUPTCY August 3, 2020 By Longview Power LLC. Maidsville, West Virginia. Longview Power (the “Company”) emerged from bankruptcy on July 30th strategically positioned to build on its record as a low cost, highly reliable and clean coal fired power plant by expanding into a multi-fuel “all of the above” power producer. The last regulatory approval required for Longview Power’s emergence was received from the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission in mid-July, less than 100 days after the Company filed for bankruptcy protection in April. During this expedited bankruptcy, Longview Power extinguished more than $350 million of loans and now emerges well capitalized with new equity owners that have provided a $40 million 5-year term loan to support its operations and growth. The bankruptcy did not affect relationships with vendors or employees, and none of the Company’s 140 employee plant staff were furloughed during the case or on account of the ongoing global pandemic. Due to its low cost operations, the Company’s plant has continued to operate at high capacity factors notwithstanding the COVID-19 related electricity demand reductions that occurred in the spring. Longview Power management has continued to make substantial progress in the development of the 1200 MW natural gas combined cycle plant and a 70MW solar facility that will be built adjacent to the coal plant. The CCGT and solar facility received their final siting certificate from the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the CCGT is in the final stages for an air permit and interconnection agreement from PJM. Jeffery Keffer, CEO of Longview Power, commented that, “The power generation industry faces many challenges in these difficult times. There is no power plant better positioned to meet those challenges. We have state of the art technology and a world class plant staff able to attain and sustain the highest performance from the plant. Moreover, we are at the late stages of developing a cutting edge technology combined cycle gas fired turbine generation plant and solar facility next to the coal plant. These facilities will utilize abundant local high quality fuels and the sun to produce low cost energy for the region for years to come.”

1 0

Notes from Longview work session with Mon County Commission
by Duane Nichols 12 Aug '20

12 Aug '20

From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)gmail.com> > Date: August 7, 2020 at 9:22:03 AM EDT > > Subject: Notes from Longview work session with Mon County Commission > > Duane Nichols, Marge Batton (Ft. Martin Community), Betsy Lawson and I, had a one-hour work session Wednesday, August 5th, with the three commissioners, Ed Hawkins, Tom Bloom and Sean Sikora. Duane is getting a copy of the video recording so we can get the specific words down, but here are some of my notes. > > 1) The Mon County Commission (MCC) has not had communications with Longview for several months, and the PILOT Agreement (Bloom calls it a PILT) has not been a priority for MCC, as they deal with the COVID-19 crisis. They were aware that Longview has emerged from bankruptcy, but the status of air permits or the Longview I greenhouse gas permit appeared to be news to them. > > 2) The PILOT will not be made public until a final negotiated document is presented to the Commission. Public comment may be considered then, but they do not currently plan any extended public comment period, it would be handled the same as any other contract before the MCC. > > 3) The MCC acknowledged concerns about the traffic and road conditions affecting residents on Fort Martin road, and had taken a site visit last year. But > I think their real attitude was expressed when Hawkins said "That's the DOH" (as in it is DOH's responsibility) and a couple indicated that "There are lots of bad roads in Mon County". They (at least Sikora) were aware of the PSC Order that Longview should use the northern route where feasible, but did not seem to recognize that they could or should make that a mandate in the PILOT. > > 4) Preservation of the old Fort Martin school was discussed, but the MCC had taken over several old schools in the past and does not see a need for another museum or community center because the upkeep of those buildings is a significant budget strain. > > 5) Duane raised an issue of the excessive steam plumes in the neighborhood as well as GHG from three power plants in one community, but it did not really get a response from MCC. > > 6) When asked about climate change and carbon capture, MCC indicated that CCS is "not in our jurisdiction" and did not seem inclined to make it an issue for the PILOT. We came back to the greenhouse gas issues repeatedly, but it just was not getting through to MCC that they could or should consider it as a condition in the PILOT. > > 7) They do not like to think of the PILOT as a "tax break", as the current taxes on the land is only a few thousand dollars a year, and the PILOT would generate ~$3 million. But they were willing to acknowledge that the property taxes would be significantly higher without the PILOT. > > 8) They also do not see any tie between a PILOT for Longview II, versus the PILOT for Longview I, the need for Longview I, or the jobs there. I think Hawkins is resigned to the early closure of Longview I, and he went into a long description of the number of dairy farms in Mon County (which is now down to one, soon to be none), implying that those changes in the economy are inevitable and out of their hands. They do not seem to recognize the relevance of the low market demand for electricity, versus their policy decisions and the role of government tax breaks in driving those economic decisions. > > 9) They did not seem to respond to the idea that the PILOT statute may be unconstitutional. But they were aware of the change in the school funding formula, as it cost Mon County Schools ~$930,000 per year. They did not describe any alternative approaches, and we did not really get a chance to press them on their ideas (While I am sure they would like to capture the PILOT money AND keep their school funding from the state too, I don't know any mechanism to do that. We may need a tax expert if they try something other than a PILOT). > > 10) Betsy raised the concern about the noise, dust, pollution and trucks associated with fracking wells in her end of the county, but that did not seem to phase MCC. > > Two new points that I learned: > 11) The MCC does expect that the PILOT for Longview II will be distinct from the solar farm (Longview III, AKA Longview Renewable Energy). While the total dollar amount is fixed, those two will be separate in a PILOT. We had proposed this a year ago, but they seemed surprised when I thanked them for it. I expressed our concern that we need to phase out of fossil fuels and a gas-fired plant cannot be expected to pay off, whereas demand for solar is increasing and costs keep coming down, so it is a better long-term decision. They repeated the concern that solar is too expensive, and Bloom promised to send me his economic data demonstrating that. > > 12) The current proposal has a "5-year financing limit". I inferred this to mean that a PILOT expires if Longview does not get financing within five years, but Duane interpreted it that Longview has financing, which expires in five years. We need to get clarification, and probably cannot until a PILOT is made public. > > Conclusions: > 13) Tom Bloom clearly stated that a PILOT is in the best interest of Mon County, and he supports it. Hawkins also appeared to support a PILOT, but did not state it clearly, and tended to wander off into tangents that distracted from the main issue. Sikora seemed open minded and willing to consider new ideas, but is not clearly on our side. > > Jim Kotcon, Conservation Chair, WV Sierra Club > > >

1 0

Kotcon, Campbell: Many winners in scrapped pipeline project (Opinion) | Op-Ed Commentaries | wvgazettemail.com
by Duane Nichols 06 Aug '20

06 Aug '20

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/op_ed_commentaries/kotcon-campbell-ma… Many winners in scrapped pipeline project (Opinion) Letter to Editor of Charleston Gazette-Mail by Jim Kotcon and Kevin Campbell, August 4, 2020 Doug Reynolds, majority owner of HD Media LLC, which owns the Charleston Gazette-Mail, questioned in a recent op-ed whether anyone wins from the cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline natural gas project. Unfortunately, he and a wide range of West Virginia leaders appear to be taking the wrong lessons from the cancellation. If West Virginia leaders want to promote economic development, they need to recognize what really happened here and what it means for the future. Developers, politicians and other industry leaders blame “regulatory uncertainty” and litigation by environmentalists for the cancellation. But West Virginians should not be fooled: The developers of the pipeline really have only themselves and their bad management decisions to blame. Courts tend to defer to regulatory agencies, so the court decisions halting the pipeline only could have happened because those violations were real. These were not the result of “regulatory uncertainty,” they were the result of developers trying to ignore the plain language of the law. For over five years, we have told developers that climate change is real, that building a pipeline on steep slopes with erodible soils requires very careful, site-specific plans to prevent water pollution and that the need for the pipeline was never really demonstrated. Instead of addressing these very real issues, developers continually tried to bulldoze over our objections. Those bad decisions resulted in dozens of violations, successful legal challenges, wasted money and continuous conflict. Water quality violations from Atlantic Coast are numerous. We saw it coming, we warned regulatory agencies in hundreds of public comments and complaints, and unfortunately, it happened as we forecast. This was not some big surprise, it was the inevitable and easily predictable result of trying to build on West Virginia’s steep slopes without adequate precautions. The lack of need for the pipeline may have been the real driver for the cancellation. It was dubious from the beginning, driven more by the greed of developers to capture guaranteed returns from ratepayers than from any realistic assessment of market demand. As prices for exported gas collapsed and plans for new power plants were shelved, the economic justification looked more and more contrived. We suspect that if there were a legitimate market need, Atlantic Coast would not have been canceled, regardless of the environmental concerns. Most importantly, climate change is real. We need to reduce use of fossil fuels quickly and be entirely out within 30 years. Investing billions of dollars in fossil fuel infrastructure would almost certainly never pay off. The passage in Virginia this spring of the state’s Clean Economy Act made that abundantly clear to developers, even if West Virginia politicians remain chained to the failed fossil fuel millstone of the past. Until we recognize the reality of climate change and adopt the needed policies to address it, economic development struggles will continue. And if West Virginians want jobs, dollars invested in renewables now produce more jobs than fossil fuels. West Virginia continues to miss real job creation opportunities by trying to save a dying fossil fuel industry. Every surrounding state has more jobs in renewables than West Virginia, primarily due to the renewable energy policies chosen by lawmakers. Reynolds asked, “Who won?” Well, landowners will get to use their property (we hope), so they won. West Virginia streams will be a little cleaner, so we all win that one. Ratepayers do not have to reward developers with billions of dollars for unnecessary costs, so they win big. Most of all, the greenhouse gases will not pollute the atmosphere for decades to come, so planet Earth wins.

1 0

A bold plan to slow the melt of Arctic permafrost could help reverse global warming
by Duane Nichols 02 Aug '20

02 Aug '20

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-30/bold-plan-slow-melt-arctic-permafros…

1 0

The Cautionary Tale of the Largest Coal Ash Waste Site in the U.S. - The Allegheny Front, November 2019
by Duane Nichols 02 Aug '20

02 Aug '20

The Cautionary Tale of the Largest Coal Ash Waste Site in the U.S. - The Allegheny Front, November 2019 This story was first published on June 22, 2018. The US EPAannounced proposed rules for coal ash impoundments on November 4, 2019. LISTEN: “The Cautionary Tale of the Largest Coal Ash Waste Site in the U.S.” Audio Player Chester, West Virginia, is a small town of about 3,000 people, just a stone’s throw from Pennsylvania to the east and Ohio to the north. The region’s rolling hills are dotted with family farms and the “world’s largest teapot” proudly welcomes visitors into downtown. But the area is also home to another object of record-breaking size: the largest coal ash waste site in the United States. https://www.alleghenyfront.org/the-cautionary-tale-of-the-largest-coal-ash-…

1 0

Bruce Mansfield Power Plant of Western Pennsylvania
by Duane Nichols 02 Aug '20

02 Aug '20

Bruce Mansfield Power Plant at Shippingport, PA, was closed in November 2019. Language Watch Edit Bruce Mansfield Power Plant was a 2.49-gigawatt (2,490 MW), coal power plant located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The plant was operated by FirstEnergy. It began operations in 1976 and was shut down in November 2019. Construction of Bruce Mansfield commenced in 1970. The plant was operated by Pennsylvania Power (a subsidiary of Ohio Edison). Its ownership was a consortium of Pennsylvania Power, Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric Illuminating, Toledo Edison, and Duquesne Light to form the Central Area Power Coordination (CAPCO). Bruce Mansfield began commercial operations of Unit 1 in 1976 with Units 2 and 3 following suit in 1977 and 1980 respectively. All three of the units generated 830 MW each with a nameplate capacity of 2490 MW. The plant was named after D. Bruce Mansfield, a former chairman of Pennsylvania Power. Murray Energy was the primary supplier of coal for Bruce Mansfield. The coal was shipped from West Virginia. FirstEnergy Solutions announced in August 2018 that they were closing Bruce Mansfield by June 2021. FirstEnergy Solutions blamed the wholesale market system, which PJM Interconnection operates on, for not relying on coal and nuclear plants. PJM Interconnection conducted an analysis and concluded the plant's closure would not affect grid reliability. The closure was moved back to November 2019 due to, "a lack of economic viability." Environmental mitigation Units 1 and 2 were installed with a flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) system to prevent sulfur dioxide (SO 2) from being emitted into the atmosphere. Its chimney is 950 feet (290 m) tall. The sludge was then transported 7 miles (11 km) by pipe to Little Blue Run Lake between Beaver County, Pennsylvania and Hancock County, West Virginia.[3][8] When Unit 3 was constructed in 1980, an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) system, designed by the Weir Group, was installed instead for the unit to curb particulate emissions. Its chimney is 600 feet (180 m) tall. To reduce waste disposal from scrubbers at Bruce Mansfield, National Gypsum constructed a nearby plant in 1998 to process synthetic gypsum from the plant to produce drywall. To deliver the gypsum for the nearby manufacturer, a forced-oxidation gypsum (FOG) system was built. A $200 million dewatering facility was completed in 2016 in response to a 2012 settlement that prohibits the further disposal of byproduct at Little Blue Run Lake. The facility would separate byproduct from water and then be properly disposed of in a lined impoundment at Murray Energy's mine in Marshall County, West Virginia. The dewatering facility began operations in January 2017, but problems at the new facility forced the plant to go offline the following month. The plant restarted two weeks later. Incidents A release of hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) during repair work on a pipe killed two and injured four workers in August 2017.[16] The workers' families who experienced casualties in the accident filed lawsuits against FirstEnergy in November 2017 seeking damages. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined FirstEnergy $77,605 for workplace hazards and also fined subcontractor Enerfab $129,340 for failing to provide “appropriate respiratory protection”. FirstEnergy ultimately settled by paying a fine of $65,963. On January 10, 2018, Bruce Mansfield caught on fire causing damage to its roof and duct work. In a filing later that month, FirstEnergy revealed that the fire caused significant damage to the equipment for Units 1 and 2. The damage was severe enough that deactivation of both units were accelerated from June 2021 to February 5, 2019.] Sent from my iPad

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC August 2020