Regional Initiatives Across the United States

From an Article by Sarah Vogelsong, Virginia Mercury, March 17, 2021

The $43 million was “in the state’s hot little hands,” Mike Dowd told the group. So what next?

That was the question facing not only Mike Dowd, director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Division, but also a collection of developers, state officials and environmental and low-income advocacy groups who had gathered over Zoom.

All were focused on the best uses of that $43 million in carbon money, the first round of funds Virginia had received through its participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an 11-state agreement that puts a price on the carbon emissions that are driving climate change, requires power plants to pay that price and then channels the proceeds back to the states.

Most of that funding will eventually be paid for by customers of the state’s electric utilities, which are allowed under state law to pass on the costs of carbon allowances to customers, with no extra returns for investors. State officials had conservatively projected annual proceeds from RGGI’s carbon auctions to be in the range of $106 to $109 million. But with allowances trading at $7.60 per short ton of emissions at this March’s quarterly auction, actual revenues now look to be much higher, amounting to perhaps as much as $174 million annually if prices hold.

What to do with that major new stream of income — especially in a pandemic year when purses are tight — has been the preoccupation of dozens of Virginia officials this winter.

The law passed by the General Assembly in 2020 authorizing participation in RGGI spells out certain high-level priorities for the funds: 50 percent for low-income energy efficiency programs, 45 percent for a new Community Flood Preparedness Fund to assist communities affected by recurrent flooding and sea level rise, 3 percent for DEQ to oversee Virginia’s participation in RGGI and carry out statewide climate change planning and the remainder for other administrative work.

But between those goals and projects on the ground lies a lot of space. Should the state be creating new programs or beefing up existing ones? Should certain housing types or certain geographic areas get priority — particularly given new equity commitments designed to ensure that benefits are felt across the board?

“There’s not a whole lot of direction there, so I think it’s really important … to think about the spirit of the legislation and try to address some of the underlying causes,” said Dawone Robinson, director of an energy affordability program run by the Natural Resources Defense Council and a member of one of the advisory boards Virginia convened to decide how to spend its carbon dollars.

Compounding the challenge has been time constraints: Virginia’s fiscal year ends on June 30. With the first auction funds arriving this March, agencies have only a few short months to spend them. While RGGI funds are nonreverting, meaning agencies won’t lose them at the end of the fiscal year, most are eager to get the funds out of the door immediately.

“If we’d had our druthers, we would have been working on this last year,” said Carmen Bingham of the Virginia Poverty Law Center, who is also serving on the same advisory board as Robinson. Between slowdowns due to COVID-19 and the RGGI law not going into effect until July 1, however, the agencies that will receive the bulk of the carbon funds — the Department of Housing and Community Development, which will oversee the low-income energy efficiency funds, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation, which will oversee the Flood Preparedness Fund — have been forced to move quickly to narrow down their priorities.

“We’re in this very weird place of having to work frantically in order to come up with how do we spend this first round of money,” said Bingham. But, she added, “that’s the hand we’re dealt and the cards we’ve got to play.”

Low-income energy efficiency in Virginia

From the beginning, Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration zeroed in on the possibilities the funds earmarked under the RGGI law for low-income energy efficiency offered for affordable housing.

Low-income tenants ideally would be able to rent “more highly efficient properties” as a result of RGGI funding, then-Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Trade Angela Navarro said during a webinar last July. An administration memo similarly identified “deeper levels of energy efficiency” in affordable housing and upgrades to public housing as priorities.

Advocates, however, pointed in a different direction: weatherization, a set of improvements to a building that cut down on energy waste and consequently tend to lower electric bills.

The federal government has funded weatherization programs for low-income households since the 1970s, but federal program guidelines strictly define what falls under the weatherization umbrella. Improvements like roof or wall repairs that are deemed health and safety issues don’t qualify, even if they are fixes that have to occur before weatherization can be done. When weatherization providers encounter these issues, they have to walk away, creating what’s called a “deferral.”

In Virginia, those number in the hundreds: Janaka Casper, CEO of Community Housing Partners, the state’s largest weatherization provider, said that as of 2019 his organization had recorded 525 deferrals.

In practice, that has meant that “the homes that are most in need of weatherization services can’t be worked on,” said Chelsea Harnish, executive director of the Virginia Energy Efficiency Council. “This is housing stock that is in desperate need. This could be a hole in the roof. It could be a hole in the floor. To me that directly goes to energy efficiency.”

To many advocates, who have been asked by the Department of Housing and Community Development how its portion of the RGGI money — which this fiscal year will amount to $21.7 million — should be spent, the deferrals were a top priority. Not only did they represent an identified need, but they offered the opportunity to address some of the commonwealth’s most vulnerable populations, including historically economically disadvantaged and minority communities.

“From a sheer climate perspective, it has often been the preferred route to tackle the low-hanging fruit,” said Robinson. “That’s not low-income housing. That’s not rental housing.”

But policymakers must “look at the totality of benefits that can be achieved,” he insisted. “If you value equity, what is the cost of achieving racial equity? If you value increasing indoor air quality, what is the value of human health?” he asked. “These are invaluable measures that aren’t addressed and aren’t calculated in a traditional cost-benefit (analysis).”

As the Department of Housing and Community Development’s RGGI advisory group met throughout the winter, weatherization slowly slid onto the priority list. This Monday, the group signed off on a recommendation for how this year’s carbon funds should be spent: 60 percent on weatherization and 40 percent on efforts to increase energy efficiency for affordable housing through the state’s Affordable and Special Needs Housing Program.

Advocates like Bingham said the split bridged the state’s immediate needs and longer-term ones. Weatherization “has that immediate impact that we can actually see, whereas housing projects are going to take awhile. They’re not going to be as quick to get a benefit right away,” she said.

…. Part 2 scheduled to appear next ……
.

The time has come to add significant renewable energy in West Virginia

From an Article by Charles Young, West Virginia News, January 24, 2021

CHARLESTON, WV — West Virginia’s energy generation landscape remains dominated by coal, with renewable energy sources accounting for just a fraction of all of the state’s power. While the coal and oil and gas industries have their respective lobbying organizations that court members of the West Virginia Legislature, renewable energy sources have few defenders in the halls of the state Capitol.

Del. Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, a professional environmental scientist, is among the handful of lawmakers who consistently advocate for energy diversification, sustainable solutions and green economic development opportunities.

Hansen helped pass Senate Bill 583 during last year’s legislative session, which will allow for the development of utility-grade solar projects in the state. The bill received bipartisan support in the House and Senate, but still faced opposition from lawmakers representing coal-producing districts.

Hansen said he has plans to introduce a host of bills during the upcoming session that all have a focus on renewable energy sources and the economic opportunities they present to the state. “I’ve got a package of bills that are related to new energy job creation, and they are bills that would not only create jobs, but would also help address climate change,” he said.

The first bill would allow solar power purchase agreements, which would encourage rooftop solar installation, Hansen said. “It allows a new method to finance solar arrays for nonprofits or for people’s homes, where a company will actually build the solar array at their own cost and you as a nonprofit or a person could save money on your electric bills immediately with no upfront investment,” he said.

The bill has failed to pass during previous sessions, but he’s hopeful about its chances this year, Hansen said. “I can’t make any promises, but I know their are legislators from both parties who are interested in moving that bill,” he said.

A second bill focuses on energy efficiency improvements, Hansen said. “This bill follows up on a study resolution that was passed last session that required a study of energy use at state-owned buildings,” he said. “My bill would set a target of 30% energy savings in state-owned buildings by 2030 and would also set a process in motion to identify electric meters that the state is still paying for that actually don’t provide any electricity — they’re called orphaned meters, and there are a lot of those.”

The efficiency improvements would require an initial investment, which will pay off “very quickly,” Hansen said. “We would save taxpayer dollars, and it would create a lot of energy efficiency jobs across the state,” he said.

A third bill, called the Just Transition bill, would create a process to focus funding and resources into communities impacted by the decline of coal production, Hansen said. A previous version of the bill unanimously passed the House last year, but failed to gain traction in the Senate, Hansen said.

“So we’re adjusting the bill somewhat to better align it with federal policy, because there are efforts now at the federal level to also funnel some new programs and policies to support these communities that are being hit the hardest by this transition,” he said.

Although he knows he will still encounter opposition from advocates of fossil fuels at the state level, the environmental policies and priorities of the Biden administration give him hope about the future of renewable energy sources, Hansen said.

“I appreciate that there’s going to be an effort to address climate change because I think that has to happen,” he said. “I think we have an opportunity as a state, if we’re open to it and if we put the right policies in place, to get a large amount of investments and create a large number of new energy jobs across the state.”

While he knows the urgency and importance of addressing climate change and diversifying the state’s energy portfolio, he believes the best way to help these policies find acceptance is by selling them on their economic merits, Hansen said.

“There’s a lot more that can be done, and in my opinion a lot more that should be done, but I’m trying to propose bills that are achievable in our current political climate and will receive a broad base of support across the parties,” he said. “Saving taxpayer dollars on energy bills at state buildings and creating local jobs to implement the energy efficiency recommendations, those should be the types of things that everybody stands behind.”

James Van Nostrand, director of the West Virginia University College of Law’s Center for Energy and Sustainable Development, said “well over” 90% of the energy produced in West Virginia still comes from coal. The state risks losing out on investments and economic development opportunities if it does not increase its share of renewable energy sources, Van Nostrand said.

“What we’re hearing is the large corporate clients, the potential large employers, a lot of them have these corporate sustainable goals that says you have to have 50%, 75%, 100% of our energy supply from renewables by year 2030 or 2035,” he said. “Procter & Gamble, Toyota, Wal-Mart — they’ve all got them.”

He has often heard West Virginia Secretary of Commerce Ed Gaunch talk about how access to renewable energy sources is among the top priorities for these corporations when selecting a site, Van Nostrand said. “So we’ve got to figure out a way to do that,” he said.

Bills like SB 583 are a step in the right direction because they give companies like FirstEnergy or American Electric Power a way to affordably pursue building solar arrays to fit such a corporation’s needs, Van Nostrand said.

The power purchase agreement bill has been backed by the nonprofit solar advocacy group Solar United Neighbors for the past two legislative sessions, but it has never made it out of committee, Van Nostrand said.

“I think the utilities don’t want it, so it doesn’t get passed,” he said. “But our electricity rates keep going up and it would be nice if people had some ability to hedge against that by investing in solar and making solar accessible by approving power purchasing agreements.”

Lawmakers must act to address the state’s lack of renewable energy policies, Van Nostrand said. “We really don’t have any policies at all in West Virginia promoting renewable energy. There’s literally nothing that is there for a renewable energy developer to think it makes any sense to come to West Virginia,” he said. “We’re just not open for business. That’s the signal that they are all getting, that there is no institutional support in the state for renewable energy.”

ITC for solar energy being dramatically reduced

From an Article by Ari Natter, Bloomberg News, February 5, 2020

The Trump administration is withholding nearly a billion dollars for a clean energy program it has unsuccessfully tried to cut, congressional Democrats said Wednesday, raising the specter of political interference.

The unspent funds now amount to $823 million in the Energy Department’s office that provides grants and other financial assistance for alternative energy, electric vehicles and energy efficiency, according to Democrats on the House Science Committee, which is holding a joint subcommittee hearing on the topic.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which has a $2.85 billion budget, was targeted for 80% cuts in the last White House budget request — only to see Congress increase its funding instead. The office has also recently canceled funding of proposed projects and left scores of staffing positions unfilled, said Illinois Democrat Bill Foster.

“When Congress passes a budget, we expect that budget to be followed,” said Foster, chairman of the panel’s Investigations and Oversight subcommittee. “It’s unclear to many of us there has been a completely good-faith effort.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the delayed-funding was yet another example of “ideologically driven efforts that thwart action to combat climate” change. The Trump administration has moved to ease Obama-era rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and power plants, while also pulling the country out of the Paris climate accord.

“The agency is flouting congressional intent,” said Arjun Krishnaswami, an analyst with the environmental group’s climate and clean energy program.

Republicans on the committee said so-called carry-over funding within the office was normal. “It’s business as usual,” said Representative Ralph Norman, of South Carolina.

And Daniel Simmons, assistant secretary for Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, said the agency fully intends to spend its appropriated funding “consistent with both congressional guidance and administration priorities.” The office is in the process of hiring more staff, Simmons said.

He pointed to $126 million in funding for solar technologies announced by the Energy Department just as the hearing began Wednesday. ”This has been a very good faith effort,” Simmons testified.“We are trying to be good stewards of tax payer dollars.”

Planning underway by Clean Energy States Alliance, May 9, 2019

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which grew under Obama, has financed research into technologies ranging from electric vehicles to energy projects powered by ocean waves. It has been credited with financing research to help make the cost of wind power competitive with coal-fired electricity, and cutting the costs of LED lighting.

It’s about time we call this problem what it is .....

From an Article by Andrew Freedman, Washington Post, November 5, 2019

A new report by 11,258 scientists in 153 countries from a broad range of disciplines warns that the planet “clearly and unequivocally faces a climate emergency,” and provides six broad policy goals that must be met to address it.

The analysis is a stark departure from recent scientific assessments of global warming, such as those of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in that it does not couch its conclusions in the language of uncertainties, and it does prescribe policies.

The study, called the “World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency,” marks the first time a large group of scientists has formally come out in favor of labeling climate change an “emergency,” which the study notes is caused by many human trends that are together increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The report, published Tuesday in the journal Bioscience, was spearheaded by the ecologists Bill Ripple and Christopher Wolf of Oregon State University, along with William Moomaw, a Tufts University climate scientist, and researchers in Australia and South Africa.

“Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament,” the study states.

The paper bases its conclusions on a set of easy-to-understand indicators that show the human influence on climate, such as 40 years of greenhouse gas emissions, economic trends, population growth rates, per capita meat production, and global tree cover loss, as well as consequences, such as global temperature trends and ocean heat content.

The results are charts that are, at least compared with the climate graphics presented by the IPCC, surprisingly simple, and that help reveal the troubling direction the world is headed.

The study also departs from other major climate assessments in that it directly addresses the politically sensitive subject of population growth. The study notes that the global decline in fertility rates has “substantially slowed” during the past 20 years, and calls for “bold and drastic” changes in economic growth and population policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Such measures would include policies that strengthen human rights, especially for women and girls, and make family-planning services “available to all people,” the paper says.

On energy, the report calls for the world to “implement massive energy efficiency and conservation practices” and cut out fossil fuels in favor of renewable sources of energy, a trend it notes is not happening fast enough. It also calls for remaining fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, to remain in the ground, never to be burned to generate energy, a key goal for many climate activists.

Maria Abate, a signatory of the scientists’ warning and a biology professor at Simmons College in Boston, says she hopes the paper will raise awareness. “Like other organisms we are not adapted to recognize far-reaching environmental threats beyond our immediate surroundings,” she said via email. “The reported vital signs of our global activity and climate responses give us a tangible, evidence-based report card that I hope will help our culture to develop a broader awareness more quickly to slow this climate crisis.”

Other items on the study’s list of policy priorities include quickly cutting emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, such as soot and methane, which could slow short-term warming. The study also calls for a shift to eating mostly plant-based foods and instituting agricultural practices that increase the amount of carbon the soil absorbs.

On the economy, the study states that improving long-term sustainability and reducing inequality should be prioritized over growing wealth, as measured using gross domestic product. The authors also advocate for policies that would curtail biodiversity loss and the destruction of forests, and they recommend prioritizing the preservation of intact forests that store carbon along with other lands that can rapidly bury carbon, thereby reducing global warming.

Ripple, of Oregon State, is no stranger to organizing scientific calls to action, having founded the Alliance of World Scientists and organized scientists’ “Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice” in 2017, which was also published in Bioscience and focused on the urgent need to solve a broad array of environmental problems including climate change and biodiversity loss.

Thousands of scientists issue bleak ‘second notice’ to humanity

“We’re asking for a transformative change for humanity,” Ripple said in an interview. Many of the signatories to the warning do not list themselves as climate scientists but, instead, as biologists, ecologists and other science specialists. Ripple says that is intentional, as the authors sought to assemble the broadest support possible.

“The situation we’re in today with climate change,” he says, “shows that this is an issue that needs to move beyond climate scientists only.”

Moomaw says the paper comes from researchers who are seeing the consequences of a rapidly changing planet, and is in part “a statement of frustration on the part of many in the scientific community.”

“Scientists, and in particular those that are studying what is happening in a changed climate, have become the most alarmed at how rapidly these changes are taking place and the urgency of needing to take far more drastic action,” Moomaw said.

The term “climate emergency” has been championed by climate activists and pro-climate action politicians seeking to add a sense of urgency to the way we respond to what is a long-term problem. The Climate Mobilization, an advocacy group, is seeking to have governments in the United States and elsewhere declare a climate emergency and enact response measures commensurate with such a declaration.

New York’s City Council has declared a climate emergency, as has San Francisco. European cities have also taken this step. Bills labeling global warming as an emergency are pending in both the House and the Senate, endorsed by prominent liberals including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

The youth climate movement, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, has been leading the charge to ratchet up the language used in describing global warming. To date, scientists have been reluctant to use such language. However, this study may change that.

Phil Duffy, a climate researcher and president of the Woods Hole Research Center, who added his name to the paper Monday, said he finds the term fitting, considering the scale of the problem and lack of action so far.

“The term ‘climate emergency’ … I must say, I find it refreshing, really, because you know, I get so impatient with the scientists who are always just waffling and mumbling about uncertainty, blah, blah, blah, and this certainly is, you know, much bolder than that,” he said. “I think it’s right to do that.”

US Senators generally support corporate interests rather than environmental quality

From an Article by Mark K. Mathews, E&E News, March 6, 2019

Senators Lisa Murkowski (R–AK, right) and Joe Manchin (D–WV, left), the senior members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, confer during a hearing yesterday on climate change.

It’s been some time since the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held a hearing on climate change, so naturally its top two lawmakers felt compelled to get a couple of things out of the way during yesterday’s roughly two-hour meeting.

Global warming is “directly impacting our way of life,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who leads the panel.

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the top-ranking Democrat, added, “There’s no doubt that humans have made a tremendous impact on what we’re dealing with.” It’s a baseline of understanding that, by now, seems obvious to most climate scientists. But it was a milestone moment for the Senate panel.

Manchin said yesterday was the first time since 2012 the committee had held a hearing on climate change. (In response, a Republican aide pushed back with the argument that climate change is a frequent topic of discussion on the panel.)

Irrespective of the timeline, Manchin and Murkowski both represent states that lean heavily on the energy industry, and their simple acknowledgement of the climate crisis yesterday was enough to draw small applause from some corners.

“It is significant that we even had the hearing—particularly when you have two leaders on the committee, both of whom come from fossil fuel states,” Sen. Angus King (I-ME) said in an interview afterward. “There were some differences on the level of urgency, but I think the underlying premise is that this is something we have to deal with.”

Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C., had a similar takeaway. The “hearing was notable because it actually occurred,” she said. “It is a good day when a Republican-led committee actually listens to experts about real climate impacts, clean energy and innovation.”

But Pierce added this caveat: “This wasn’t revolutionary in terms of setting an agenda for bold action, but it was a start.”

Indeed, the committee mostly skimmed over potential solutions—touching on ideas such as microgrids, carbon capture technology and better energy efficiency for buildings. As the main thrust of the hearing was about climate change and the electricity sector, Murkowski made sure to note also that a reduction in carbon emissions is only part of her committee’s responsibility.

“As more renewables come online … our committee will focus on maintaining grid reliability and resiliency,” she said. “We’ll prioritize keeping energy affordable, [and] we’ll be working to advance cleaner energy technologies that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Manchin wanted to make clear, too, that he was skeptical of efforts to dramatically shrink the United States’ carbon footprint in the near future. “Solutions must be grounded in reality, which requires the recognition that fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere anytime soon,” he said.

At another point in the hearing, he noted the vast reserves of natural gas beneath his home state. “We have an ocean of gas under us in West Virginia—an ocean of gas,” he said.

Neither of these comments is likely to assuage the concerns of climate hawks, but they do suggest there could be a window for Congress to make small changes to energy policy in the short term.

“Responsible Republicans and Democrats are considering realistic, durable solutions to the issue,” said Alex Flint, executive director of the conservative Alliance for Market Solutions in Washington, D.C., which backs the idea of using a carbon tax to fight global warming. “They represent the evolving state of climate change politics.”

It’s unlikely, however, that any recommendation from the Senate committee will approach the scale of something like the Green New Deal, which supporters argue is the only way to head off the worst effects of climate change.

Murkowski said, “We do have a considerable role to play in developing reasonable policies that can draw bipartisan support that I think will be a pragmatic contribution to the overall discussion.”

She specifically cited topics such as new research and energy efficiency. “I think you’ll likely see these as subjects of further discussion,” she added.

WV is ready for PPAs ..... now!

Appeal from WVEC, Charleston, WV, February 18, 2019

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) will expand access to affordable energy for West Virginia communities, businesses, tax-exempt entities, and low-income families.

Our lawmakers have a no-cost way to empower more West Virginians to benefit from affordable distributed energy. Current law forbids us from entering into Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to buy energy from renewable or alternative energy resources.

Legalizing these agreements will help West Virginia communities, families, businesses, and nonprofits:

>> Install on-site energy generation facilities with little to no upfront cost
>> Lower electric bills from day one
>> Lock in affordable long-term electricity rates
>> Avoid utility rate increases
>> Stabilize monthly budget expenditures

In addition, PPAs will expand economic development, create good local jobs, and attract employers to locate and invest in West Virginia. Urge your legislators to support legalizing PPAs.

>>> Act Now: Urge Senate President Mitch Carmichael to support the PPA bill

Please call Senate President Mitch Carmichael at (304) 357-7801 and urge him to support the pro-jobs and pro-business Senate Bill 409 that legalizes Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for on-site renewable and alternative energy generation facilities in West Virginia. The bill is in the Energy, Industry and Mining committee. This widely used financing mechanism helps businesses, local governments, families, and tax-exempt institutions like schools and churches take control of their energy costs. PPAs will expand economic development, create good local jobs, and attract employers to locate and invest throughout West Virginia – all without raising rates or hiking taxes.

Can’t make a call? You can submit the form on this page to contact Carmichael! Better yet, add a personal message to let him know how PPAs will benefit your family, business, or local community.

>>> West Virginia Environmental Council
P.O. Box 1007, Charleston, WV 25324

info@wvecouncil.org (304) 414-0143

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

AEP Signs Agreement To Purchase Wind Assets From Sempra, Columbus, Ohio, February 12, 2019

American Electric Power (Columbus, OH) signs agreement to acquire Sempra Renewables business. Acquisition advances part of planned $2.2 billion investment by 2023 in contracted renewables.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original CPP to benefit society & industry

From an Article by Timothy Cama, The Hill News, July 10, 2018

The Trump administration is taking a big step forward in its effort to replace the Obama administration’s climate change rule for power plants with a more industry-friendly alternative.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that on Monday it sent a proposed rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

The OMB review, an internal process that checks for compliance with various laws and administration priorities, is the final step before the rule can be released publicly and made available for public comment.

The EPA hasn’t revealed the contents of the proposal. The Trump administration in December requested public input on ideas for a replacement.

The rule would replace the Clean Power Plan, the main pillar of former President Obama’s climate change agenda that sought a 32 percent cut in carbon emissions from the country’s power sector by 2030. States were allowed to decide how best to accomplish that goal.

The Obama rule was put on hold by the Supreme Court in 2016 as a result of litigation led in part by then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Pruitt went on to become EPA administrator before resigning last week under the cloud of numerous scandals.

Pruitt and President Trump prioritized repealing the Clean Power Plan, and Pruitt formally proposed undoing it last year, an action that has not yet been made final.

Sources familiar with the EPA’s deliberations say the agency wants to write a regulation that focuses almost exclusively on making coal-fired power plants more efficient. That would result in minimal reductions in carbon emissions, and environmentalists say emissions could in turn increase since coal plants would be cheaper to operate.

While Pruitt initially did not want to replace the Clean Power Plan, industry leaders pushed him in that direction, arguing that doing so would reduce the risk of climate-change lawsuits against companies, as well as future lawsuits against the EPA for not regulating greenhouse gases.

Both Pruitt and current acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler have expressed skepticism of the scientific consensus that the climate is changing and that human activity is the primary cause.

... to say nothing about air pollution, ash disposal, greenhouse gases, etc.

From an Article by Max Garland, Charleston Gazette-Mail, August 27, 2017

A proposed deal for FirstEnergy subsidiaries to acquire a coal-fired power plant would likely cost customers $470 million over the next 15 years, according to testimony from an energy and environmental consultant filed with the state Public Service Commission on August 25th.

David Schlissel, president of Schlissel Technical Consulting, submitted his prepared testimony on behalf of groups against the acquisition. He said Mon Power and Potomac Edison’s proposed Pleasants Power Station purchase from FirstEnergy should be rejected by the PSC because customers would be saddled with higher utility bills.

According to Schlissel, revenues earned from selling electricity generated by the Pleasants County plant wouldn’t be enough to cover the costs of maintaining it. The $470 million figure Schlissel reached is based on an economic analysis of energy market prices, Pleasants’ generation for the past year and generating capacity price estimates, he said in the filing.

“There is a high risk that the plant will not be profitable and will not produce a net benefit to ratepayers,” Schlissel said. “In fact, if there was not such a high risk, AE Supply and FirstEnergy would not be looking to offload the Pleasants plant to begin with.”

The groups Schlissel provided testimony for, WV SUN and West Virginia Citizen Action Group, have argued the $195 million deal would raise customer utility bills to benefit company shareholders and is similar to Mon Power’s Harrison power plant purchase, which an IEEFA report said cost customers more than $160 million.

If the purchase is approved by both the PSC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the plant would exit a competitive market and become a part of West Virginia’s regulated market, where it is guaranteed a profit.

FirstEnergy has made it clear it wants to exit the competitive energy services part of its operation, with CEO Charles Jones telling investors in earnings calls in 2016 that the company would either shut down coal plants or sell them so they are placed in regulated markets.

The companies have maintained in filings that the deal is expected to produce a 1.6 percent net decrease in rates, adding that acquiring the plant will prevent future capacity shortfalls the company projects will occur without adding additional power.

West Virginians for Energy Freedom, a group formed specifically to oppose the deal, said in a news release it delivered nearly 1,000 petitions to the PSC’s Charleston office asking for the commission to reject the deal. “West Virginians are counting on you to do the right thing,” says West Virginians for Energy Freedom’s petition. “Please don’t put Mon Power and Potomac Edison customers on the hook for bailing out FirstEnergy’s shareholders.”

Supporters of the move say the plant’s economic benefits are crucial to the area it resides in and that a deal is necessary to prevent the plant from closing. “While customers are expected to realize the transactions market hedging benefits, the state and surrounding communities should also gain the security of knowing that Pleasants is a reliable utility asset and a proven contributor to the economy and well-being of West Virginia for years to come,” Mon Power and Potomac Edison said in a March PSC filing.

Jody Murphy, director of the Pleasants Area Chamber of Commerce, said in a letter of support of the deal that the plant “pays millions in annual property and business taxes to fund local and state government and schools,” adding that the plant employs roughly 200 people.

“FirstEnergy … has stated repeatedly it will be leaving the competitive generation business sometime next year,” Murphy said in the letter. “That said, Pleasants County’s plant stands a good chance of being deactivated without the sale to Mon Power.” If the deal is approved, Schlissel said, the companies should be required to bear the plant’s market risks instead of their customers.

Schlissel’s testimony was filed Friday, the deadline for case filings by opposition parties. In September, three public comment hearings will be held in the companies’ service territory, along with a Sept. 18 deadline for Mon Power and Potomac Edison rebuttal testimony. At some point after the deadline for reply briefs Oct. 19, the PSC will decide whether to approve or reject the deal.

The deal also requires approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regained its quorum earlier this month.

The state Consumer Advocate Division recently submitted a protest asking for FERC to reject the deal. The CAD said the deal was intentionally structured so FirstEnergy “could avoid a further write off of its investment in an aging coal plant that is no longer economic” in wholesale markets.

The companies have said in filings they will have a projected capacity shortfall of more than 1,400 megawatts by 2027 and that Pleasants would satisfy the majority of that need with its 1,300 megawatts of power. But the CAD said Mon Power’s justification for the purchase is based on “overly aggressive assumptions” about the need for additional generating capacity, meaning customers would be paying for “significant stranded capacity costs.”

Additionally, comments submitted to FERC by WV SUN and West Virginia Citizen Action Group earlier this month said the transaction violates Section 203 of the Federal Power Act because it results in an inappropriate cross-subsidization involving captive customers. Mon Power and Potomac Edison contend they are shielded from Section 203 review by FERC because the PSC is reviewing the transaction.

“While Mon Power submits that the Transaction does not raise cross-subsidization concerns … the WVPSC will determine in that decision whether any further conditions on the Transaction are required,” the companies said in a July FERC filing.

But Monitoring Analytics, an independent market monitor of the PJM Interconnection, the regional electric grid the companies are part of, said in a filing that it is in fact within FERC’s power to deny the acquisition under Section 203 “if it finds that the proposed transfer does not meet the public interest standard, including the public interest in competition.”

See also: WV Ciitizens Action Group

INTERFAITH POWER & LIGHT

Forest Path --> www.CO2covenant.org

>> The mission of Interfaith Power & Light is to be faithful stewards of Creation by responding to global warming through the promotion of energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

Dear Friends,

These are historic days, as we witness the peaceful transfer of power to a new president. I revere our democratic principles but I am concerned about our new president’s agenda. He has indicated he will roll back critical environmental and climate protections, weaken the EPA, and take the U.S. out of the historic Paris climate accord. We must not let that happen.

Now is the time to renew our commitment and redouble our efforts to protect Creation and be the stewards of this planet. We will stand up to those who would harm Creation and we will defend vulnerable people and communities who are suffering the impacts of extreme weather, pollution, and sea rise. Join me in renewing your commitment today.

Our cause could not be more urgent. Scientists announced this week that 2016 was the warmest year on record. The amount of heat we are putting into the Earth’s atmosphere each year is equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs exploding across the planet every day.

Yet I have hope because people are waking up to the existential threat to Creation posed by global warming, and they are getting involved. Houses of worship are going green. And every day I hear about the amazing work you and your faith communities are doing.

Many IPL congregations are hosting vigils for the Earth this weekend. Join a vigil. Pray, be in community, and act.

More than ever, your voice matters. We need your help to build a bigger, more committed, more powerful, values-based movement to protect Creation. Please join with IPL and pledge to redouble your commitment to the Earth and each other. Become even more involved with the IPL affiliate in your state.  Invite more people, and other faith communities, to address the climate issues affecting your city and state. Let your elected officials hear from you — often. Take the lead on local initiatives.

Take the pledge today. Together, we will prevail.

Keeping the faith, The Rev. Canon Sally G. Bingham
President, Interfaith Power & Light

Address: Interfaith Power & Light
369 Pine St., Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104

See also: http://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/

www.CleanEdge.com

West Virginia lacks in clean energy leadership, study says

From a Report by Sarah Tincher, WBOY News 12, July 15, 2014

For those interested in the clean energy business, West Virginia isn’t the place to be, according to Clean Edge’s 2014 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index.

Using data collected by the Clean Edge’s State and Metro Indexes, the report assigned each state with a rank and score in categories — all in terms of clean energy — including technology, policy and capital, which are ultimately used to calculate overall clean energy leadership scores.

And for West Virginia, the outcome was almost shameful. [almost]!

Overall, Clean Edge ranked West Virginia 49th, with a score of 9.5 — the lowest score is 7.5, held by Mississippi, and California has the highest with a score of 93.7.

The technology category rankings and scores were determined by clean electricity, clean transportation, and energy intelligence and green building indicators — which, evidently, the Mountain State doesn’t yet excel in, as it was ranked 48th and a sad score of only 3.6.

State incentives, regulations and mandates dictated rankings and scores for policy category; and having only eight of 34 regulations and incentives listed on the study’s policy checklist sent West Virginia down to 48th again, with a score of 8.8.

In the capital category, which was determined by financial, and human and intellectual capital indicators, the state fared slightly better, landing in 37th place with a score of 16.3.

Visit the Clean Edge website to download the full report.