Should DOE’s Vision of an Ohio Valley CO2 Hub be DOA?

From the Blog of Sean O’Leary, Ohio River Valley Institute, 1/27/22

The Ohio River Valley Institute (ORVI) responds to a DOE request for information about carbon capture deployment.

Last year, a report titled, “Building to Net-Zero: A U.S. Policy Blueprint for Gigaton-Scale CO² Transport and Storage Infrastructure,” captured the imagination of the Biden administration and the US Department of Energy (DOE). The report envisions an energy system and manufacturing sector that can continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels because power plants and factories would be retrofitted with new technologies to capture their carbon emissions, which would then be transported through thousands of miles of pipelines to massive underground storage caverns.

The report is the product of a collaboration between the Energy Futures Initiative and the AFL-CIO, and it recommends the creation of three “CO2 Infrastructure Hubs” in Wyoming, along the Gulf Coast, and in the Ohio River Valley. The figure (image) above from “Building to Net-Zero: A U.S. Policy Blueprint for Gigaton-Scale CO² Transport and Storage Infrastructure”, Labor Energy Partnership, 2021.

The question is whether these hubs are effective and necessary solutions for the climate crisis or, as in the movie, a detour into financial and political opportunism that fails to solve the problem while inflicting immense financial and environmental costs. The Ohio Valley CO2 hub at least appears to be the latter. The Ohio River Valley Institute explained why that is the case in its response to a recent DOE request for information about the demonstration and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and direct air capture (DAC) technologies.

In its response, ORVI made three points, which it supported with research findings, to explain why the Ohio River Valley CO2 Hub is a fatally flawed vision.

1. Expanding or perpetuating Appalachian coal and natural gas activity, even if successful, will contribute little or nothing to job growth and prosperity in the region and may even be counterproductive.

2. Because fossil fuel resources do not contribute to increased prosperity and improved quality of life in host communities, any carbon management project DOE considers for funding must be justified purely on the basis of its market competitiveness and greenhouse gas reduction, which, given the technologies’ cost, precludes broad-based adoption in the electricity generating sector and narrows the viability window to niche applications and industries.

3. Because carbon management technology is viable in only niche applications and industries, massive infrastructure projects, such as region-wide pipeline networks and storage hubs for captured carbon and natural gas liquids, are not economically viable and cannot be cost-justified.

In support of these points ORVI cited the failure of recent fossil fuel expansion in Appalachia to deliver job growth despite investments in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We also pointed out that the incremental cost to retrofit coal and gas-fired power plants with CCS capabilities would be greater than the market value of the electricity they generate. That would make them either completely uncompetitive with clean, renewable resources or the wholesale price of electricity would more than double and potentially increase Americans’ utility bills by more than $100 billion per year.

Finally, pointing to the “Building to Net Zero” report’s observation that coal-fired power plants are responsible for over 90% of the region’s carbon emissions, ORVI’s response explained that, if implementing CCS isn’t financially viable in the electric generating sector, then any economic rationale for a massive pipeline and storage network that would cost tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to construct collapses.

These findings make the viability window for proposed carbon capture and sequestration and related carbon management projects quite narrow. For that reason, ORVI encouraged the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) to include in the range of carbon management technologies and projects it considers ones that are devoted to remediating the impacts of past and ongoing fossil fuel activities, which have long saddled the region. These burdens include hundreds of thousands of orphaned and abandoned mines, wells, and toxic waste sites the remediation of which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide large numbers of jobs in areas that struggle most, encourage economic development, and enhance quality of life, making the region more attractive to both businesses and families.

Whether DOE will apply the kind of stern criteria for economic competitiveness and viability that ORVI recommends when considering proposed carbon management projects is at least doubtful. In December the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), released a report that is highly critical of DOE’s past conduct in selecting and administering funding for carbon capture projects.

The GAO report found that, of eight coal carbon capture projects for which DOE provided $684 million in funding between 2010 and 2017, “Three projects were withdrawn—two prior to receiving funding—and one was built and entered operations, but halted operations in 2020 due to changing economic conditions.” Also, “DOE terminated funding agreements with the other four projects prior to construction.” In short, none of the power system carbon capture projects that DOE supported is alive today.

That’s in part because of a persistent failure to adequately take into account issues of market competitiveness and viability. But it’s also because of political pressure within the agency to waive standard project selection practices and bypass cost controls. The report makes multiple references to DOE “at the direction of senior leadership” failing to adhere to and enforce cost guidelines.

DOE will take a few months to process responses to its RFI and probably later this year will issue a request for proposals for projects that will be considered for funding.

View the full letter of Sean O’Leary here. >>>

https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/DOE-RFI-Response.pdf

>>> Sean O’Leary, senior researcher, energy and petrochemicals, is a native of Wheeling, WV. He has written about coal, natural gas, and their role in the economies of Appalachia in a book, a newspaper column, and blog titled, “The State of My State”.

The new wind turbines in Grant & Mineral counties

From a Special Article of the Mineral (County) Daily News – Tribune, December 3, 2021

CURRENT—NEWS—UPDATE: The new Black Rock Wind Farm went online today providing enough electricity for over 50,000 homes. (2/10/22)

KEYSER, WV – Clearway Energy Group has hired five recent graduates of the Wind Energy Technology program at Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College in Moorefield.

The five new wind techs will support the operations and maintenance of Clearway’s new 115-megawatt Black Rock Wind Farm near Elk Garden and its 54-megawatt Pinnacle Wind Farm near Keyser. Pinnacle was repowered just this year with new turbine technology.

Along with Clearway’s 240-megawatt Mount Storm Wind Farm, Clearway is now the largest owner-operator of wind farms in the Mountain State, having invested nearly $460 million this year alone.

The five new Clearway wind techs are: Andrew Cosner, 20, of Petersburg — Ian Guckavan, 22, of Moorefield — Austin Locklear, 22, of Petersburg — Logan Reel, 24, of Keyser — Tyler Simmons, 21, of Keyser

“We are excited to welcome five new wind techs into the Clearway family who were hired right here from the local community,” said Doug Vance, Clearway’s plant manager for Black Rock and Pinnacle.

“Our wind energy sites do more than just power homes and businesses, they are also economic engines for the region, creating hundreds of construction jobs as well as long-term operations jobs. Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College has been a great partner for Clearway and we look forward to expanding that partnership with an apprenticeship program next spring.”

One of the new wind techs, Logan Reel, was hired through Clearway’s West Virginia Wind Energy Apprenticeship Program, which helps workers displaced from the coal industry (as well as their family members) find new employment opportunities in renewable energy.

“I grew up looking at the turbines on the mountains in the area and found them inspirational,” said Reel, who grew up in Moorefield. “Wind turbines are a step in the right direction towards a better future. Working in the renewable energy field has given me the opportunity to be a part of something bigger than myself.”

Eastern offers a two-year associate degree in applied science as well as a one-year certificate option for students looking to work in the renewable energy industry. Students in the Wind Energy Technology program learn the skills necessary to service and troubleshoot modern wind power generation equipment while acquiring the background knowledge needed to advance their careers in the power generation field. Eastern has also designed its programs to comply with all American Clean Power Association (ACPA) standards and capitalize on West Virginia’s position as a new leader in the wind industry.

“We are delighted that Clearway has chosen to partner with Eastern and deepen its roots in the Mountain State,” said Curtis Hakala, dean of teaching and learning at Eastern. “As West Virginia continues to diversify and strengthen its economy, it’s wonderful to be able offer programs that provide students the tools to work in this innovation industry and help them secure good-paying jobs close to home.”

######++++++######++++++######

See Also: Citizens Where We Serve: Renewable Energy’s Long-Term Success Begins in Local Communities, Clearwater Energy Group, December 5, 2021

Workers prepare solar panels for installation on Huguenot High School in Richmond

From an Article by Sarah Vogelsong, Virginia Mercury, December 2, 2020

For many years, that notion would have been unthinkable in Virginia, where fairly competitive electric rates, a lack of incentives and what one solar developer described as “extreme utility control of the legislature” made most companies think twice before putting down stakes.

“We fondly referred to Virginia as the dark state,” said the same developer, Tony Smith of Staunton-based solar company Secure Futures Solar. “We always thought if we could succeed in Virginia, we could succeed anywhere.”

Now, however, that’s all changed. A flood of legislation easing barriers for residents to put solar on their own roofs and in their own backyard has led to what installers, developers and trade organizations describe as a sudden rush of interest in the commonwealth.

“Virginia is kind of like the Wild West,” said Nolie Diakoulas of Virginia Beach-based installation company Convert Solar, which has been in business since 2012. Now national companies, he added, are “coming in and knocking on the doors and spreading the good word of solar.”

However, David Murray, executive director of the Maryland-DC-Delaware-Virginia Solar Energy Industries Association, a leading industry group, said that despite the uptick in interest, new laws encouraging solar development “didn’t exactly turn Virginia into a California or New England market,” he said.

“Other markets have historically had much more robust incentives for solar,” he said. “I think part of the advantage Virginia has is it’s been untapped for a little bit. It’s had such a tough market, especially for distributed generation.”

While the massive utility-scale farms cropping up in the state’s more rural areas might be the most visible aspect of Virginia’s shift to solar, new state laws have carved out a special role in Virginia’s clean energy transition for a different application of the technology.

“Distributed generation” is the term used by industry players to refer to any kind of electric power that’s produced outside of large traditional plants. But while the definition applies as much to the propane-fueled backup generators used by businesses as it does to renewables, in Virginia energy policy right now, it means one thing: rooftop solar.

Solar panels designed to be mounted on a single-family residence’s roof have been around for decades. As technology has improved and prices have dropped, however, rooftop solar has increasingly come to be seen as a disruptive influence. When it comes to the electric grid, wind and utility-scale solar fill a similar space as gas and coal plants: large hubs where energy is produced at a central location and then sent down transmission lines to substations and eventually people’s homes.

Rooftop solar, though, offers a fundamentally new framework for power generation, one in which thousands of locations are producing energy at any given moment. In this more decentralized vision of the electric grid, large-scale power plants don’t disappear, but their importance is tempered.

For utilities like Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power Company, which long balked at the idea of widespread distributed solar, the rise of this form of energy will require close examination of the distribution and transmission systems that carry power around the state.

“If the distribution system’s not working, the rest of the stuff isn’t working either,” said Dominion Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Communications Bill Murray. But it will also raise important questions for policymakers grappling with what a 21st century electric grid should look like.

Gov. Ralph Northam’s September 2019 executive order committing Virginia to a carbon-free electric grid by 2050 laid down a firm target, but “what does that mean?” asked Aaron Sutch, the Virginia program director for solar advocacy nonprofit Solar United Neighbors. “Does that mean that big utilities and big-scale utility solar and wind do that transition? Or does it put the power, as it were, in people’s hands?”

More simply, he asked, “If it’s all large-scale centralized, are those benefits really going to trickle down to the community?”

Peeling back State-wide policy barriers

Exactly how much distributed generation should be allowed onto Virginia’s grid was a hotly debated issue during the 2020 General Assembly session. Of the 16.7 gigawatts of solar the legislature signed off on, 10 percent will be required to be distributed.

Getting to that goal, though, required major changes. One of the biggest battles that unfolded was over a provision in the Virginia Clean Economy Act that set a cap on how much energy could be net metered — that is, produced by individuals to be fed back into the grid and credited against their electric consumption.

Previously, the cap, which Sutch called “the engine that spurs distributed solar,” was set at 1 percent of each utility’s generating capacity. Rooftop solar developers said that was too low for any meaningful growth, and that it showed a lack of commitment to the technology’s development, causing uncertainty within the market about whether companies and residents should invest in rooftop systems.

There were other barriers as well. Residential solar systems were limited to 20 kilowatts, and commercial ones to one megawatt. Consumers had to pay a demand charge if their system exceeded 10 kilowatts, an unexpected fee that soured some residents new to rooftop solar on the technology.

Another restriction limited solar arrays to only producing enough energy to provide 100 percent of a customer’s average annual usage, causing heartburn among residents interested in electric cars who couldn’t install systems large enough to accommodate that future purchase. Still another put a low ceiling on the power purchase agreements nonprofits and public entities like schools and local governments could enter into with non-utility companies to install solar panels on their buildings.

Taken as a whole, “we didn’t do much work in Virginia up until about two years ago,” said Geoff Mirkin of Solar Energy World, an installer headquartered in Elkridge, Md., that works in five East Coast states and the District of Columbia.

The VCEA changed all that by “peeling back some of the policy barriers that have been in place for years,” according to Rachel Smucker of MDV-SEIA. Aided by a push from progressive Democrats in the House of Delegates, the net metering cap was raised to 6 percent, with 1 percent of that allocation required to come from systems serving low-income customers. Both residential and commercial size limits were increased. The demand charge was eliminated in Appalachian Power’s territory and raised to 15 kilowatts in Dominion’s; in the latter, the 100 percent energy threshold was also upped to 150 percent. In both, the caps on power purchase agreements also saw large bumps.

At the same time, long-sought “solar freedom” laws allowing customers in Dominion territory who live in condos or apartment buildings to access solar also cleared the General Assembly. These community solar provisions opened the door to an arrangement that advocates say is important for areas with higher population density and more low-income residents who could benefit from lower power bills.

A prior community solar pilot created by Dominion in 2018 that would have charged the average participant an extra $20 per month was ultimately never rolled out, although this November the utility announced it would embark on a new effort in partnership with Harrisonburg Electric Commission.

Eric Hurlocker, an attorney with Virginia energy law firm GreeneHurlocker, said that in his practice, “community solar has kind of sparked the most interest.” Also, he said, “There’s been a lot of out-of-state entities that have done community solar elsewhere that are taking a hard and long look at Virginia now.”

Despite the pandemic, Virginia sees a spike in solar jobs

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous solar installers across the commonwealth reported the same experience: a big uptick in business.

“I think there has definitely been inquiries and demand that is due directly to the new laws that went into effect this year,” said Patrick Feucht, operations manager with Baseline Solar, a Blacksburg-based company that has been active in Virginia since 2008. The lifting of the power purchase agreement cap in particular, he said, has driven a fresh wave of interest.

“We’re getting calls from developers more frequently than in the past and looking at projects more frequently than we have in the past because PPAs are now allowed,” he said.

Charlottesville-based Sun Tribe Solar, which primarily develops solar for public sector entities like school districts and local governments, described a similar experience: “Since the passing of the VCEA, we’ve been receiving inbound calls from local governments and school systems just about every week,” said vice president of development Rich Allevi. Straitened economic circumstances may play a role: “Budgets,” said Allevi, “are the number one reason why public sector institutions embrace renewable energy.”

Many of the calls reported by solar developers are translating into new work. Compared to 16 solar deals Convert Solar made in all of April 2019, Diakoulas told the Mercury on Oct. 13, “Today, just today, we’ve sold 10 projects.”

Along with the growing market for rooftop solar is a growing market for jobs. A report from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for Urban and Regional Analysis found that in 2019, distributed generation accounted for 64 percent of all solar jobs in Virginia. Both Diakoulas and Feucht said their companies had recently increased their staff, with Diakoulas saying Convert Solar “would triple our workforce right away if someone told us the floodgates were fully opened.”

Compared to utility-scale solar, distributed generation “generally has greater job impact in the communities where these projects are located, in terms of employing local engineers, electricians, installers, crane operators, all the skillsets required to install a solar array,” said Smith of Secure Futures Solar.

“It’s a smaller piece of the pie in terms of what’s been carved out in the Clean Economy Act, but it has much more bang for the buck in terms of contributing to the state’s economy on a per kilowatt basis,” he said. “These decisions are made by many, many, many people on what we call Main Street. Whereas utility-scale solar, those decisions are made at Wall Street.”

Legislative fights become regulatory ones

Against this backdrop of growth, however, disagreements have broken out over how Virginia will finally roll out its community solar programs.

With legislative fights on pause, the debate has moved to the State Corporation Commission, which has been charged with drafting regulations for how community solar will work in practice. But when commission staff released proposed regulations for shared solar and multifamily shared solar this October that virtually duplicated Dominion recommendations, clean energy groups and businesses reacted with dismay.

“These programs really are about equity and access,” said Smucker of MDV-SEIA. The rules as currently written, she argued, would hamper savings from being passed on to customers and make projects “highly unfinanceable.”

The biggest problems for solar advocates were administrative charges the utilities would be allowed to levy on customers, customer definitions that would exclude residents of duplexes from participating in shared solar programs, limits on how many months bill credits could carry over, and wording that would allow utility affiliates to participate in utility-managed programs.

Several state bodies also weighed in, including the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, which said it had “identified a number of issues that may not align with the goals of the legislature.” A sternly worded letter from six Democratic lawmakers, including the VCEA sponsors, described the multifamily program drafted by regulators as “unnecessarily onerous.” The broader shared solar regulations, they wrote, would “delay the construction of projects and institute ambiguous, unsubstantiated costs that would significantly impact the ability to participate in the program until 2025.”

Dominion defended the rules, saying they would make distributed generation available to customers “in a way that minimizes cost-shifting and subsidization by non-participants.”

In response to the pushback, commission staff in late November issued an amended version of the rules that resolved some of the non-utility groups’ complaints, including the duplex issue and the restrictions on bill credits. But staff defended other recommendations, such as the strict licensing requirements for multifamily programs, noting concerns that there would be “a flurry of small projects with no experience to provide electricity service to vulnerable customers.”

The final decision lies in the three-person commission’s hands, and the clock is ticking: regulators have until Jan. 1 to finalize the new programs’ rules. “They have a lot they have to accomplish before Jan. 1, 2021,” said Smucker, “but there’s a lot at stake for these programs.”

*** — Third in a five-part series on the commonwealth’s transition to a carbon-free electric grid. Tomorrow: Energy storage. — ***

Large diameter pipelines disturb mountain terrain ...

Letter to the Editor of Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jessica Sims, July 12, 2020

In response to the July 8 editorial, “Pipeline problems: A bad week,” I’d like to offer a headline revision: “A bad week for corporate polluters in the United States.”

The end of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) was warranted and overdue. Billions over budget and lacking permits, the project inflicted six years of harm on Virginia communities at a time when our utility monopoly, Dominion Energy, could have invested in clean, renewable energy and the jobs associated with them. It has not “been a bad week for energy production” — it’s been a great week for the people in impacted communities in Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina who fought to preserve their homes, water and air from a ruinous project.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline would not have brought “plentiful, affordable energy.” Rather, it would have brought energy with enormous production costs to a domestic market that is flat.

What this past week also highlights is that the same reasons to end the ACP apply to what should be canceled next: the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP). MVP also is environmentally unjust, lacking in permits, billions over budget and unneeded. It would move Virginia further from the clean energy we need to mitigate the climate crisis.

The MVP actively harms the communities and waterways of Giles, Craig, Franklin, Montgomery, Roanoke and Pittsylvania counties.

Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring should take a moment to reflect, then publicly speak out for the cancellation of a project that actively harms their constituents.

Jessica Sims, Richmond, Virginia

##############################

See also: Climate change will cause more extreme wet and dry seasons — Clemson University, ScienceDaily, July 13, 2020

The world can expect more rainfall as the climate changes, but it can also expect more water to evaporate, complicating efforts to manage reservoirs and irrigate crops in a growing world, according to new research.

Carbon dioxide & methane pollution has become the climate change problem

From an Article by David Wooley, Utility Dive, June 22, 2020

The following is a contributed article by David Wooley, professor at the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy and Executive Director of the Center for Environmental Public Policy.

What is the future of gas in the U.S. electric power sector? Is it essential, long-term, for a reliable and economical electric supply? A new study from UC Berkeley provides the latest answer, demonstrating it is technically and economically feasible to reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without building any new gas plants and reducing generation from existing plants by 70%, all without any increase in wholesale power costs compared to today.

Let’s clear away the myths about gas, renewables and the grid.

1. First, there is a widely circulated assumption that gas is cleaner than coal. It’s true that gas power plants produce less acid gas (SO2, NOX) and metals emissions than coal, but greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from gas are not significantly lower than coal. Methane emissions occur along the gas supply chain, from getting gas out of the ground and to market. Methane has 84 times the global warming impact of CO2 from burning coal and gas, a fact often overlooked in gas industry promotions. The fact is that gas used to make electricity is not “clean” and remains a serious problem for the climate.

2. Second, there is the question of reliability and whether we can trust a renewables-heavy grid when the sun isn’t shining. The truth is, the U.S. power grid has always been reliable using a diverse set of generation types. Today low-cost wind and solar, paired with battery storage technologies and existing hydro, nuclear and gas generation allows the U.S. to dramatically increase renewable generation, and cut fossil fuel use, without sacrificing dependability or raising costs.

3. Third, there is an old argument that gas is cheaper than renewables. Well, not anymore. In recent years, utility-scale wind and solar plants routinely out-bid gas and coal in wholesale electric markets. This is in part due to federal tax credits, but gas production also enjoys a wide range of federal subsidies, and wind and solar plant costs in many cases are already lower than gas generation even without considering the tax credits.

And finally, people often ask if renewables are only cost effective in very sunny and windy regions of Southwest and Plains states. The answer is no. Low costs are now driving a geographic expansion of renewables, making wind and solar cost-effective in all regions of the country.

The latter points are driven home by the study released last week by the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. The 2035 Report finds that plummeting costs of zero-carbon technologies allows the U.S. electricity system to deeply decarbonize, and lower customer electricity costs compared to today. This is the first report to show that technologies widely available today can preserve a dependable grid, and achieve large employment, health and climate benefits by 2035.

The report finds that it is technically and economically feasible to do so without new fossil gas power plants. This stands in contrast to the oil and gas industry’s efforts to rapidly expand gas generation in the U.S. and globally. According to RMI, utilities and other investors have announced plans for over $70 billion in new gas-fired power plant construction through 2025 and another $30 billion for new interstate gas pipelines.

Maintaining a dependable grid with sustainable generation

The study shows that the existing fleet of domestic gas plants, operating infrequently in combination with hydro, nuclear and battery storage, is enough to support a dependable grid during times when wind, solar and battery generation is low. The 70% decrease in gas generation that would come with the transition to 90% clean electricity would drop gas’s share of U.S. electric generation from 37% to 10%.

Gas would remain a part of the electric sector, but at a much smaller level than today. This is a good thing, since methane and CO2 emission from gas production and use must decline steeply to have any chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. A 90% clean electric generation sector reduces annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 1.6 billion tons of CO2. The GHG benefits do not stop there, since deep carbon reductions in the electric sector are a key step to decarbonize transportation and buildings.

The economic benefits of this shift are attractive. A turn away from new gas and existing coal generation in favor of renewables and storage would produce a net increase of 530,000 energy sector jobs and boost the economy with $1.7 trillion of private investment for renewables and storage. The job benefits would be widespread since utility-scale solar generation and wind are economic winners in every region and low-cost wind power’s range is expanding fast.

The job benefits make this a powerful COVID-19 recovery strategy. Most of the economic benefits can be achieved quickly, without increased government spending.

Can the U.S. really build enough renewables and storage to displace gas? Yes. This is shown by the number of utility-scale renewables projects currently in development — wholesale market interconnection queues include 544 GW of wind, solar and storage plants — and historic growth rates for other forms of power generation, such as gas.

To reach 90% clean electricity by 2035, 1,100 GW of new wind and solar need to be built, averaging about 70 GW per year. We’ve built on this scale before — the U.S. added 65 GW of natural gas generation in 2002. Moreover, the wind, solar and storage industries believe they can do it.

What’s the catch? It won’t happen without changes in federal and state energy policy. Old habits, that no longer serve current needs, die hard. America’s current electricity policy framework and market systems cannot deliver on this economic opportunity. Every day brings news of coal plant retirements, and investment in renewable energy, but policy changes can accelerate this and help support recovery from the current economic crisis.

While many states and cities are leading the country by passing policies to decarbonize by 2050, in the electric power sector we can — and must — go much faster. This study shows that targeting 2035 for deep decarbonization is possible, would increase employment and inject investment into the economy, improve public health, and go a long way toward aligning U.S. policy with climate realities.

Solar panels are easy to install and supplement our electricity supply

From Appalachian Voices, outreach@appvoices.org, May 30, 2020

Dear Friends and Concerned Citizens:

A special interest group with ties to monopoly utilities filed a petition with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to try to end a fundamental policy that allows solar and wind owners to earn fair credit for the surplus electricity they produce. The deadline to stop this attack is in just a few weeks.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is representing Appalachian Voices at the FERC to help fight against this petition. But we need your input to tell the story of the negative impacts that would occur if FERC puts an end to net metering.

Millions of families and businesses have invested tens of billions of their own dollars in clean energy. As FERC makes decisions about the future of clean energy, it needs to hear from families and businesses in Appalachia and beyond about the negative impacts ending the net metering policy would have.

Clean Energy Survey > Appalachian Voices

Fill out our quick survey to help us protect clean energy!

For a clean energy future,

Chelsea Barnes,
New Economy Program Manager

Solar panel installation underway at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, VA

From an Article by Sarah Vogelsong, Virginia Mercury, February 9, 2020

The Virginia Clean Economy Act, the Democrats’ energy omnibus bill designed to achieve Gov. Ralph Northam’s goals of reducing Virginia’s carbon emissions to zero by 2050, sparked sharp questions from senators Sunday over how the costs of shifting away from carbon should be calculated.

“You can’t do this stuff for free,” said a visibly irritated Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw, chair of the powerful Commerce and Labor Committee, at an unusual Sunday meeting designed to clear the Senate’s legislative decks before the crossover deadline Tuesday. “Everybody says that we’ve got a climate problem, and you know, you can’t fix the climate problem for free. You all need to understand that.”

Saslaw’s comments were addressed to Kimberly Pate, director of the Division of Utility Accounting and Finance for the State Corporation Commission, the body that regulates all electric utilities in Virginia. But while they reflected an ongoing tension between the legislature and the SCC over who should take the reins in energy decision-making, they also touched on a question increasingly troubling governments forced to grapple with the consequences of climate change: What are the costs of doing nothing?

The SCC estimates that the Clean Economy Act, which is being backed by a coalition that includes the renewable energy industry, environmental groups and Virginia’s two electric monopolies, will cause the average electric ratepayer’s bill to increase by at least $23.30 per month by 2027-2030. Annually, customers would see a roughly $280 jump in their bills.

According to the SCC, the majority of that increase will come from the buildout of 5,200 megawatts of offshore wind and 16,100 megawatts of solar, both of which the legislation would declare to be in the public interest.

Some legislators seemed skeptical of those numbers: Sen. John Bell, D-Loudoun, in particular questioned Pate about the SCC’s decision to not include estimated fuel savings in its calculations of the offshore wind component of the cost. “The problem is the fuel savings may or may not occur. And so we have not quantified that,” said Pate.

In an email to the Virginia Mercury, SCC Division of Information Resources Director Ken Schrad pointed to the uncertainty surrounding the offshore wind units’ capacity factor, a measurement that compares how much energy a unit actually produces to how much it’s capable of using.

“All of the risk is on the ratepayer. If the project does not generate electricity at its expected capacity factor, the utility company will have to purchase power from the wholesale market or construct backup generation (i.e. — gas-fired generation),” Schrad wrote. “Purchased power and fuel costs are recovered through the fuel factor. So, while (Dominion Energy) claims the possibility of fuel savings, staff cannot quantify what those savings might be because of the unknown capacity factor of offshore wind.”

Fuel savings aren’t the only variable that Clean Economy Act backers claim were incorrectly omitted from the cost analysis.

The Executive Director of the Virginia Advanced Energy Economy is Harry Godfrey, one of the key players involved in drafting the legislation,. He told the Mercury that the commission had also failed to take into account ratepayer savings from such provisions as binding energy efficiency targets and investments, cost caps and a rate relief program for low-income customers. “I don’t know that they have considered any of this,” he said.

Disagreements between the SCC and other officials on energy costs are not uncommon. Last spring, the commission and the Department of Environmental Quality quarreled over the cost to Virginia of joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade agreement between 10 states that aims to reduce carbon emissions. The SCC estimated the average customer would see their bill rise by $7 over 25 years; DEQ said joining the market would decrease monthly bills by about 54 cents.

The SCC’s current estimate of the costs of RGGI membership, according to the analysis presented by Pate Sunday, is a $2 to $2.50 increase in the average customer’s monthly bill. RGGI is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.*

At Sunday’s meeting, however, lawmakers’ criticism went beyond whether fuel savings should or should not be included in the financial impact estimate, with Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, questioning whether the very foundation of the SCC’s analysis was sound.

“You all do this analysis every time, and all you focus on is the cost you can identify on a bill,” he said. “If you all quantified what the cost of however many more Virginians are going to have asthma or cancer, or what happens when Norfolk goes underwater, or all the other costs that we continue not to count of puffing carbon in the atmosphere — do you all ever look at that when you make these decisions?”

“That is not the charge of the commission,” Pate responded. “We are an economic regulator. We look at the applications before us … and we analyze the costs there and what the impact is on customer bills. That is what the commission does.”

If the Clean Economy Act is passed, that may change: among the many provisions of the 75-page bill is one that would require the SCC to consider the “social cost” of carbon in evaluating new generation facilities. That, said Godfrey, could begin “to rebalance the equation and analysis” of what energy proposals cost.

The Clean Economy Act passed Senate Commerce and Labor on a 12-3 party-line vote. A House version of the legislation advanced to the floor last week.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* — Power plant emissions down 47% under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative » Yale Climate Connections, Jan Spiegel, Yale Climate Connections, January 16, 2020

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is not a cap-and-trade program.

This first-in-the-nation regional effort to lower carbon emissions from power plants is actually a cap-and-invest program. Power plants buy emission allowances through quarterly auctions for the right to pollute above a set cap. The states get the money, most of which they’re supposed to invest in consumer benefits such as energy efficiency programs that help lower energy use further.

From 2009, when RGGI – pronounced Reggie – officially kicked in, through 2017, that system sent $2.4 billion back to the nine current member states, according to the most recent report from RGGI.

More and more solar projects are being planned

Article from the National Law Review, January 17, 2020

As many states see a push for renewable energy opportunities for their customers located in (or scouting new locations in) their borders, West Virginia legislators are poised to decide whether the state will facilitate such development. On January 8, 2020, two House bills were introduced that could open the door to more renewable choices.

House Bill (“HB”) 2911 [SB 611] proposes to allow electric customers to invest in and install renewable and alternative energy sources on their property and ultimately enter into power purchase agreements. Currently, such arrangements are unavailable to individuals and third parties because of the risk of being classified as a “public utility” under West Virginia law. HB 2911 or SB 611 would amend the existing West Virginia Public Utility Commission (“WVPUC”) statute in order to exempt renewable developments on premises of a retail customer that are leased to the customer or that are subject to a power purchase agreement from the definition of “public utility” (removing the WVPUC’s jurisdiction).

HB 3072 seeks to, by way of an entirely new article in the WVPUC statute, allow third parties to enter into power purchase agreements but focuses on solar photovoltaic (PV) installations. HB 3072 details the benefits of allowing power purchase agreements for solar development in West Virginia but defers the specifics of implementation to the WVPUC for rulemaking.

#############################

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) help make Solar possible for all

From Jim Kotcon, Conservation Chair, WV Chapter of Sierra Club, February 3, 2020

As the cost of renewable energy resources has plummeted in recent years, more West Virginia communities, families, businesses, and tax-exempt institutions – like schools, churches, nonprofit organizations, and local governments – want to take advantage of these affordable energy options. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are a widely available method to finance distributed energy generation projects. With a PPA, you can purchase solar electricity from a third party provider, instead of dealing with fossil fuel energy from the local utility.

BENEFITS FOR THE TAX-EXEMPT — How exactly do Power Purchase Agreements benefit tax-exempt schools, nonprofits, and municipalities? A PPA developer can take advantage of the federal energy investment tax credit and pass along those savings to tax-exempt customers in the form of lowered energy costs.

WHAT YOU CAN DO — Unfortunately, West Virginia law stops us from entering into PPAs. Bills to make PPAs available in the Mountain State are being considered in the 2020 West Virginia Legislature. The West Virginia Sierra Club urges you to support SB 611, permitting third-party ownership of renewable and alternative energy generating facilities.

Information modified from:
https://www.energyfreedomwv.org/

#############################

Action Alert — WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL — Action Alert

Power Purchase Agreements on Agenda this Wednesday!

We have been working hard to strengthen solar development in West Virginia and are excited to announce that our Senate Bill legalizing on-site Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) is on the Senate Economic Development agenda this Wednesday afternoon!

SB 611 is a common and powerful way to finance energy projects, like solar arrays!

The bill was introduced and single referenced to the Senate Economic Development Committee. Once passed, it will go straight to the Senate floor. We need your help to convince the committee members to vote YES on the bill …….

See also: https://wvecouncil.org/power-purchase-agreements-on-agenda-this-wednesday/

############################

As Virginia’s schools look to solar, existing VA state law shuts down further development

From an Article by Sarah Vogelsong, Virginia Mercury, January 27, 2020

Since 2013, Virginia has run a pilot program allowing customers to use a financing mechanism known as the power purchase agreement, or PPA, with non-utility solar developers. Under a PPA, a developer installs solar panels on customers’ property and then sells the electricity back to them, usually for less than the utility would.

“PPAs are in a lot of ways a great equalizer,” said Rob Corradi, public affairs adviser for Sun Tribe Solar, one of Virginia’s most active developers in the PPA market and the company behind Middlesex’s solar. They “allow school systems and governments that don’t have access to a lot of capital to be able to access solar at a low cost.”

In Virginia, however, the pilot program came with a major string attached: a 50-megawatt cap on projects in the territory of Dominion Energy, the state’s largest electric utility. Once the State Corporation Commission (SCC) was notified the program had reached that scale, the process would grind to a halt. Unless they were already in the pipeline, no more projects could be developed.

On Jan. 7, a 65-kilowatt project at Chesapeake’s Church of St. Therese finally tripped the wire, bringing the total amount of power committed under the pilot to within 2 kilowatts of the cap — so close, said SCC spokesman Ken Schrad, that “no further notices of intent will be accepted by staff because no particular project would be that small.”

The reaching of the cap was in many ways not a surprise. Bills proposing that the cap be raised had been filed during the 2019 General Assembly. A November report to the governor and the legislature from the SCC had flagged the possibility that the cap would soon be reached and noted that officials “may wish to consider increasing the program limit.” Letters from solar developers warned that already market uncertainty was spreading.

“There’s this huge unmet contracted demand that won’t be built or can’t be built until the cap is raised,” Tony Smith, CEO of solar developer Secure Futures, told the Mercury. “That has ripple effects on the marketplace. Already we’re hearing from public school districts that have requests for proposals (RFP’s) or want to have projects that they’re holding off.”

NOTE: In California, Solar Star 1 and Solar Star 2 are already installed. The first one has a capacity of 314MW and the second one has 265MW. These are the largest in the USA. The Longview solar farm on the Mason Dixon Line (WV & PA) would be 70MW.

From Dominion Energy Virginia’s 2018 Integrated Resource Plan

From an Essay by Ivy Main, Power for the People VA, May 22, 2019

Recently I criticized a Dominion Energy advertisement that boasted, misleadingly and inaccurately, about the company’s investments in solar energy.

By contrast, the company’s investments in greenwashing are transparent and heartfelt. Dominion has suffered through several bad months here in Virginia and would very much like to change the conversation.

Indeed, the company’s problems keep mounting. In the course of just two days this month, SCC commissioners lit into the company for telling Wall Street one thing and regulators another; the corporate customers behind Virginia’s data center boom filed a letter saying they want no part of Dominion’s fracked-gas build-out; and a coalition of libertarian, environmental and social justice groups called for a breakup of Dominion’s monopoly.

Fortunately, Dominion’s PR offensive was only just ramping up. A full-page newspaper ad, predictably light on detail, promises the company will cut its climate-heating methane emissions in half. That would be a nice trick from the company whose Atlantic Coast Pipeline will be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all Virginia’s power plants put together.

In case you doubt the company’s sincerity, Dominion just joined a corporate coalition calling for a price on carbon. This must have been in the works about the same time Dominion was criticizing Virginia’s proposed entry into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which actually puts a price on carbon.

Hey, The Washington Post fell for it. Greenwashing works.

And that brings us to the (literally) incredible claim that recently appeared in Dominion Energy’s Twitter feed: “The future of our planet depends on clean energy, which is why more than 85% of our generation comes from clean energy sources such as solar.”

Let us pause for a moment to reflect that this tweet comes from a company whose solar generation amounts to a rounding error.

Dominion Energy Virginia’s most recent Integrated Resource Plan includes a handy pie chart revealing what is actually in its energy mix:

Nuclear: 33% — Natural gas: 32% — Coal: 18% —
Purchased (wholesale) power: 10% (that’s coal and gas)
Non-Utility Generation (purchased under contract): 5% (more coal)
Renewable: 2% (almost all hydro and biomass, plus a smidgen of solar) and Oil: 0%

Now, it is true that Dominion Energy the holding company owns more generation than Dominion Energy Virginia the electric utility. For one thing, it just bought another utility in South Carolina. According to the information Dominion provided to investors in March, its South Carolina generation looks like this:

Natural gas: 39% — Coal: 36% — Nuclear: 21% — Hydro: 3%

Nobody looking at these figures could find a basis in reality for a claim of 85% clean energy. It is so preposterous that I just have to ask: Why only 85%?

I mean, seriously, if you have traveled this far into the realm of fantasy, why not claim 100%? Or heck, with a nod to Spinal Tap, why not 110%? Clearly the people making this stuff up are rank amateurs.

All of which is to say: come on, Dominion, you can do better.

VA, KY, and PA Gaining Solar Power Projects, Big Time!

From the Front Porch Blog, Appalachian Voices, March 21, 2019

Ten community revitalization projects that will reclaim old coal mining sites in Southwest Virginia will receive $10 million in grant money. Projects range from community revitalization initiatives like multi-use trains and water infrastructure improvements to commercial-scale solar. The grants are apportioned through congressional funding for the Abandoned Mine Lands Pilot Program and will be administered by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.

Russell County and the Dante Community Association will receive $269,000 for a project that includes development of multi-use trails to connect downtown Dante to other nearby communities and recreation areas, and the sealing of two open mine portals. In Wise County, the Mineral Gap Data Center and Sun Tribe Solar, a Virginia-based solar company, will receive $500,000 for a 3.46-megawatt solar installation to power the data center and for work to remediate old coal mine features near the site.

“We are elated to have been selected for this grant. Every dollar that we receive builds hope, which is necessary to keep a volunteer-driven community motivated and advancing,” said Carla Glass, Chair of the Dante Community Association. The development of the multi-use trails in Dante are intended to support the community’s vision of attracting sports enthusiasts and other tourists to the area and motivate local entrepreneurs to locate new, profitable ventures in Dante.

Developers for the Wise County solar project — the first of its kind in Virginia — estimate that the annual land lease as well as annual site operations and maintenance activities will infuse more than $1 million into the Wise County Industrial Development Authority and support local contractors over the solar project’s 35-year life span.

“We know that solar can succeed when projects are built in partnership with local stakeholders in both the public and private sectors, and this funding from Virginia’s Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy shows the strength of the partners we’ve found in the teams at the Wise County IDA and Mineral Gap Data Center,” said Taylor Brown, Chief Technical Officer of Sun Tribe Solar.

Marc Silverstein, spokesperson for Mineral Gap, said the company envisions this as “just the beginning” of solar energy development in Southwest Virginia. “Leveraging renewable solar power to create new jobs and long-term economic opportunity for the people and businesses of this region is the perfect way to build on Southwestern Virginia’s legacy of energy production, and to honor the men and women who are working to strengthen Appalachian communities by focusing on a sustainable, eco-friendly, prosperous future.”

Silverstein states that Mineral Gap hopes to be a good community steward by developing projects in the county that will create jobs and financial opportunities while helping the environment, “all in efforts to revitalize areas that have been negatively impacted by the economic realities of the coal industry.”

“We see this project as a single stepping stone toward transforming the state of Virginia into a green-energy-based economy,” says Silverstein. “Our hope is that this pilot project will be replicated across Southwest Virginia and grow into a huge economic benefit for the region and for the entire Commonwealth.”

==========================

Virginia approves largest solar power plant east of the Rockies

From an Article by John Weaver, PV Magazine, August 10, 2018

Virginia regulators have approved construction of the four part solar power plant, whose output is partially being sold to Microsoft. The 500 MW-AC facility is being developed by sPower.

As of last night the Pleinmont Solar facility, a 500 MW-AC plant under development by sPower in Spotsylvania County, has received approval from the Virginia State Corporation Commission to move forward. The case documentation (20 page PDF) touches on the broader challenges surrounding the project: Mostly an investigation into potential environmental effects on water and solar module toxicity – issues that the solar industry addressed long ago – but also interconnection and long-term financial health.

The projects will sit on 6,000 acres of land owned by sPower, of which 3,500 will be used for construction. Much of the site is cleared forest and timber land. The site is traversed by several logging roads and two transmission lines, including an east-west 115 kilovolt (“kV”) line and a north-south 500 kV line, which bisect the site. The electricity will be sold into the PJM Interconnection market, with Microsoft holding a contract for 315 MW.

sPower plans to deploy a combination of First Solar and Jinko Solar modules, which will be mounted on the DuraTrack HZ v3 single axis tracking racking system developed by Array Technologies.

As part of a documentation package submitted by sPower was a “worst case pile-driving noise scenario”. The company did a noise per distance analysis, with a great color coding tool.

Also included in this package was a project decommissioning analysis. The company suggested the project has a 35-year lifetime, and a $31 million decommissioning cost.

The 500 MW power plant will be owned by four unique special purpose vehicles (SPEs), Pleinmont Solar 1 – 75 MW, Pleinmont Solar II – 240 MW, Highlander Solar Energy Station 1 – 165 MW, and Richmond Spider Solar – 20 MW. Each of these SPEs are a wholly owned subsidiary of sPower Development Company, who itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of FTP Power.

sPower’s white paper also delved deeply into how toxicity is dealt with at a solar power plant. Specifically, the state asked questions about the materials inside of the First Solar portion of the installation. sPower noted that the molecular structure of cadmium (CdTe) used onsite isn’t water soluble, and that even if the modules were ground up into fine dust (not what happens when a module cracks), worst-case scenarios are 3,000-7,000 times lower than Cd concentrations in commonly used fertilizers.

First Solar also has a dedicated recycling program for its modules, which ensures that such modules are highly unlikely to end up in the waste stream at the end of life. When a First Solar plant was hit by a tornado a few years back, the broken modules were collected and materials recycled – and the CdTe is now back in the field inside of new solar modules.

As the four plants are on one piece of land, this will be the largest solar project East of the Rocky Mountains when built at 500 MW, and one of the largest in the world.

==========================

Toyota Plans Major Solar Array In The Ohio Valley (Kentucky)

From an Article by Sydney Boles, Ohio Valley ReSource, March 13, 2019

Automaker Toyota is planning to announce a major investment in solar and other renewable energy in Appalachia and the Southeastern U.S. The plan includes a massive new solar facility on an old surface coal mine property in Kentucky.

Sources close to the deal tell the Ohio Valley Resource that the Kentucky site is part of a much larger plan. Toyota plans to purchase roughly 365 megawatts, of renewable energy, primarily from developers in Appalachia and the South.

“A project of this magnitude is certainly significant,” said Alex Hobson, director of communications for the Solar Energy Industries Association, a leading industry research group. “You’re talking enough energy to power about 50,000 homes.”

Toyota has already undertaken ambitious energy efficiency goals, with a similarly sized solar array installed on its headquarters in Plano, Texas. But once completed, Toyota’s solar mega-project would place the automaker among the largest corporate investors in renewable energy.

The portion of the project scheduled to be built in Pike County, Kentucky, is a 15- to 20-year power purchase agreement. Partners in the development include: coal company RH Group; French renewable energy company EDF Renewables; and Adam Edelen, former state auditor and current candidate for governor in Kentucky’s democratic party primary.

At 100 megawatts, the site would be largest solar array in Kentucky and, according to one of the project’s developers, would likely be visible from space. The project is expected to cost $130 million, will be built on a 700-acre reclaimed surface mine site and could create between 50 and 100 renewable-energy jobs in a region still reeling from the loss of coal employment.

Toyota declined to confirm the scope of the project. A spokesperson issued a written statement hinting at an upcoming announcement. “We have been working with certain electric power providers on a very innovative initiative.”

Developers say the massive project is a smart business decision that happens to make a larger point: It’s proving that Kentucky’s economic future is in energy production, but perhaps that energy won’t be limited to coal and other fossil fuels.

“It doesn’t matter whether you care about the environment or not, this is pure economics,” said Ryan Johns, vice president of business development at RH Group. In a nod to Toyota’s slogan, Johns added, “If we don’t diversify our thinking, we’re never going to be able to keep moving forward.”

==========================

Philadelphia plans a massive solar plant in Adams County

From an Article by Susan Phillips, StateImpact Pennsylvania, November 1, 2018

Philadelphia’s plan to cut its carbon emissions now includes a proposal to purchase energy from a massive solar farm in south central Pennsylvania. The proposal is part of the city’s plan to use renewable energy for all city operations by 2030.

If approved, the solar farm in Adams County, near Gettysburg, would be the largest in Pennsylvania. Christine Knapp, director of Philadelphia’s Office of Sustainability, says the 70-megawatt facility would help the city reach its renewable energy goal. “We would like to do something like this inside the city as well, we just don’t have as much abundant and cheap land as there is in Adam’s County,” said Knapp.

Knapp says the city will buy all the energy from the facility under a 20-year-deal fixed at current rates. She says hopefully that will mean savings in the future when conventional energy costs are expected to rise. “The cost is about the same as what we currently buy, so that’s what’s making the economics work for us,” she said.

Philadelphia City Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown introduced a bill on Thursday that would allow the city to enter into a power purchase agreement with the Philadelphia Energy Authority, which will work with Adams Solar LLC, an entity of national solar developer Community Energy.

“Moving forward in a tangible matter with this goal symbolizes how we grow towards a greener and more sustainable Philadelphia,” Reynolds Brown said in a statement. City officials say job fairs for workers on the project would be held in both Philadelphia and Adams counties.

Last month, Philadelphia became one of 20 cities awarded about $2 million as part of the Bloomberg American Cities Climate Challenge, which includes the development of renewable energy.

=========================

See also: The Modern Jobs Act Will Promote Solar Power in West Virginia