ASF promotes stream & wildlife recovery and preservation

Editorial Opinion by Morgantown Dominion Post, March 19, 2020

We’d like to interrupt the continuous coverage of coronavirus to take Monongalia County Commissioner Tom Bloom up on his offer to write an editorial about his comments regarding the Appalachian Stewardship Foundation.

Thank you, sir, for offering yourself up as a distraction. The public appreciates you.

Let us preface this editorial by saying that we like Bloom. But it is our job as a trusted news source to follow up on accusations made on the public record against an entity. Particularly if the support for such an accusation is unclear.

We reported a claim (DP 01-16-20) Bloom made that the Appalachian Stewardship Foundation had only spent $355,400 of the $4 million it received as part of an agreement with Longview on “stream and forest remediation.” The other half of the claim was that ASF had spent $1,244,609 on “lawyers and other fees.” Bloom’s source for this information was a letter from Longview president Jeffrey Keffer.

Five days later, ASF representatives posted a response online stating they have not paid legal fees to any lawyer.

We published a follow-up article (DP 02-12-20) after doing our own accounting and reported $1.6 million had been set aside in an endowment fund but $2.2 million had been awarded in the form of 99 grants to environmental organizations in the region. This accounts for $3.8 million.

At the time that article was printed, Bloom had not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Another month later, Bloom has finally gotten back to us. On Monday, he said he will not apologize for questioning the ASF’s spending habits. Rather, he reiterated his claim that less than $355,000 has been spent on “carbon dioxide sequestration and stream mitigation.” Specifically, Bloom points to five grants totaling $207,500 to Appalachian Mountain Advocates — a public interest law and policy organization — dating back to fall 2012 as particularly questionable.

According to Bloom, “The ASF chose grant applications that appear to fund programs that were to stop fossil fuel programs, shut down pipelines and stop fracking. To me, that doesn’t meet the agreement. So if the paper wants to write an editorial about how things appear and accuse me of getting this all wrong, well, I’ve gone through the numbers.”

We’re so glad Bloom finally articulated a specific complaint. We, as well as our readers, were dangling on that cliff hanger for two months, wondering what, precisely, ASF had done wrong. We’re still not entirely sure where Bloom gets his numbers (we calculated six grants totaling $190,000 awarded to AMA starting in spring 2014), but it’s helpful to know that Bloom’s discomfort is grant money funding legal efforts rather than literal tree planting.

We see nothing wrong with ASF’s choice of grant recipients. In the case of AMA, their efforts are focused on preventing environmental problems rather than just cleaning up after them. If ASF chooses to fund programs that treat the source instead of the symptoms, we take no issue with that. But Bloom is allowed to disagree.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: Appalachian Stewardship Foundation Replies to Longview Issues, Larry Harris, FrackCheckWV, January 28, 2020

The geographical range of the foundations’ activities includes West Virginia, parts of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Since its first granting round in 2012, ASF has received $4 million from Longview Power and approved grants totaling over $2.2 million to groups across West Virginia and Virginia through our twice annual grant distribution process.

A description of that grant process and a complete list of those grants awarded to date is available on the ASF website at: www.appalachianstewards.org

A statement (contained in an internal email from Longview’s president and CEO) that ASF has paid $1.2 million to lawyers, individually or collectively, is false. ASF has not paid legal fees to any lawyer.

The Longview II PILOT shows taxes of $58 million rather than $275 million over 30 years

Letter by Adrienne Epley & Kurt Griebel, Morgantown Dominion Post, March 15, 2020

Longview Power proposes to construct a 1200 MW gas-fired power plant next to its existing coal-fired power plant near Fort Martin. It also proposes adding a 20 MW solar farm.

Longview also wants a Payment in Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) agreement with Monongalia County. The proposed 30-year PILOT would reduce Longview’s property taxes by over $200 million. Longview advertises that this expansion will be environmentally friendly and will be good for our economy by creating construction jobs and demand for gas extraction.

A careful look shows this plant will not be environmentally friendly. The air pollution emissions include 282 tons of nitrogen oxides, 552 tons of VOCs, 175 tons of fine particulates and other pollutants as well as over 4 million tons of greenhouse gases. These emissions alone will exacerbate toxicity levels in our environment.

Additional environmental contaminants include, but are not limited to, the upstream pollution emissions associated with natural gas well drilling, pipelines and compressors. There are public health concerns associated with the upstream gas extraction and transportation, including pipeline safety, water contamination and radioactive waste(s).

Longview’s contribution to climate change is a serious concern. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends that, to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, there must be rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions — at least 50% reduction by 2030 and almost all fossil fuel emissions must end by 2050. Tax breaks for gas-fired power plants are not part of a solution to the climate crisis.

Longview also claims the plant would bring economic growth. While the plant will encourage growth in the gas extraction industry for now, this industry is one of the most capital-intensive there is. The majority of its investment goes to tools and machines, with comparatively little going to the workers.

Compare that to an investment in education. Education is the quintessential labor-intensive industry, where a huge portion of any spending goes toward creating jobs for teachers and school staff.

Longview ’s economic analyses assume that demand for electricity will continue to grow indefinitely but ignores the need to address climate change. If greenhouse gases are restricted in the future, then the proposed Longview plant would not be compliant. As renewable energy becomes cheaper, even gas-fired plants may not be competitive.

With its proposed PILOT, Longview would pay $58 million over a 30-year period, (approximately $2 million a year). Compare that to the estimated $200 million over 30 years that should be paid in taxes. If we do not hold Longview accountable for paying its fair share of taxes, the public would have to make up the difference. This would be in addition to the health care costs due to the detrimental environmental impact that it would have in our region.

We should invest money in clean energy alternatives or in our schools to improve the education of the next generation and ensure that they will have more opportunities. Building the proposed Longview power plant is a poor investment in our children. It robs them of their future. It denies them a habitable planet to live on. That is unacceptable.

The Monongalia County Commission should not support any new investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. However, if it wants to give a tax break to Longview, it should ensure that Longview does address its impact on the climate in a meaningful way.

>>> Adrienne Epley is the chair of the Monongahela Group of the Sierra Club and Kurt Griebel is its conservation chair.

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

See also: PILOT Agreements Cost State Millions in Tax Revenue: An In-Depth Look at Longview Power Plant – West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy, Ted Boettner, October 15, 2019

The difference in PILOT payments and the estimated property taxes owed without the abatement is stark. The estimated tax abatement for the first Longview Power PILOT agreement is $457 million compared to $217 million for the second proposed PILOT agreement with Longview Power. Altogether, the property tax abatement over 30 operating years for both PILOTs is estimated to be $674 million. These estimates should be taken with caution because the assessed valuations of the property could vary significantly depending on the depreciation rate used for the property and capital improvements over time.

Public Service Commission in Morgantown on Monday 1/6/20

Prepared by the West Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club, PO Box 4142, Morgantown, WV 26504

What is Longview proposing?

Longview Power proposes to construct a 1200-MW gas-fired power plant in Monongalia County on 54 acres adjacent to their existing coal-fired plant near Fort Martin. They also propose adding a 20-MW solar farm to cover 127 acres on lands to the north of that site. Gas would be supplied by a 20-inch diameter pipeline from the TransCanada line in Pennsylvania(1). New roads, water lines and transmission lines would also be needed.

What else does Longview want?

Longview is also requesting a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement with Monongalia County(2). The proposed 30-year PILOT has not yet been approved, but would reduce Longview’s property taxes by over $200 million(3).

Doesn’t Longview already have a PILOT Agreement?

Longview has a PILOT Agreement for the existing coal-fired plant (Longvew I). This 30-year PILOT provided $108 million to Monongalia County. The coal-fired Longview I plant is rated at 695 MW, so the proposed 1200-MW plant (Longview II) is almost twice as large. Longview proposes to pay only $58,222, 513 under the proposed new PILOT for Longview II.

What are the environmental impacts?

While the air pollution emissions include 282 tons nitrogen oxides, 552 tons VOCs, and 175 tons fine particulates, and others pollutants each year, the emissions of over 3 million tons of greenhouse gases will be an important impact that is currently unregulated1. Gas-fired power plants often claim that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, however this ignores all the upstream emissions of methane associated with well drilling, pipelines, compressors, etc.

The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change recommends that, to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 C, there must be a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Numerous scenarios are possible, but all involve rapid reductions in emissions of fossil fuel carbon, at least 50 % reduction by 2030, and almost all fossil fuel emissions must end by 2050.

How can this be achieved?

Technologies called Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) can capture the carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream, concentrate it, and pump it deep into the Earth, where it will remain indefinitely. Such technologies are already being used in some areas to enhance oil production. But the cost of retrofitting a plant is high, and the energy demand reduces the efficiency of power plants.

Use of biomass fuels is one alternative that recycles carbon dioxide in the air through photosynthesis, so no net emissions of carbon dioxide occurs. But if biomass fuels are used in power plants with CCS, the net effect is to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Currently, this is costly, but would become competitive if a carbon tax or cap and trade program were implemented.

Will the Longview II plant be economically competitive?

That depends on whether the electricity is needed. Under current market conditions, electricity from gas-fired power plants is cheaper than from coal. However, demand for electricity is not growing, so new generation facilities will compete directly with existing power plants. Longview’s economic analyses assume that electricity markets will remain stable, and ignores the need to address climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions are restricted, power plants may need CCS to remain compliant. Alternatively, as renewables become cheaper, even gas-fired plants may not be competitive.

References:

1. PSC. Joint Application of Longview Power…. (Siting Certificate). Case # 19-0890-E-CS-CN. Available at: http://www.psc.state.wv.us)
2. Longview. 2019. Non-Binding Term Sheet – Longview Expansion Project. Sept. 11, 2019. Submitted to Monongalia County Commission.
3. Boettner, T. 2019. PILOT Agreements Cost State Millions in Tax Revenue: An In-Depth Look at Longview Power Plant. WV Center on Budget and Policy. Available at: https://wvpolicy.org/pilot-agreements-cost-state-millions-in-tax-revenue-an-in-depth-look-at-longview-power-plant/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What you can do:

File a Letter of Protest with the WV Public Service Commission. Ask that the Certificate of Site Approval be denied unless Longview installs carbon capture to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Be sure to include the reference to Case # 19-0890.

Mail letters to: Connie Graley, Executive Secretary, West Virginia Public Service Commission, 201 Brooks Street, Charleston, WV 25301.

Or file comments on-line Protesting Case Number 19-0890 at: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/onlinecomments/default.cfm

Attend the Public Hearing. The PSC will hold a public hearing on Monday, Jan. 6, 2020 at 5:30 PM at the Monongalia County Courthouse, 243 High Street, Morgantown. You can present your comments in person at that time.

Should the resident citizens have input to a PILOT agreement?

By Jim Kotcon, Opinion—Editorial (Letter to Editor), Submitted to Morgantown Dominion Post, November 3, 2019

The Mon County Commission (MCC) is considering a gigantic tax break to attract yet another fossil fuel power plant to the area. The proposed Longview II would be a 1200-MW gas-fired facility located next to the existing coal-fired plant, and just a short distance from Fort Martin.

Longview claims that the new facility will be “environmentally friendly”, as do many of our political leaders, but everyone ignores the elephant in the room. The greenhouse gas emissions would exceed three million tons per year. And before proponents try to claim that natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gases than coal, the very fact that some make this claim is an acknowledgement that the issue is real, and an honest look at the math says that such a small incremental reduction is not enough.

America needs to reduce greenhouse gas emission by half within 10 years, and be entirely off fossil fuels within 30. Any investment in new fossil fuel facilities is unlikely to remain in operation long enough to pay off its cost, and those funds need to be invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

We cannot stop a private company from wasting money on bad investments, but the MCC should not give tax breaks to encourage them.

MCC should insist on carbon dioxide capture and sequestration for the proposed Longview II gas-fired power plant.

In the absence of carbon capture, the MCC should insist on separate PILOT Agreements for the Longview II gas plant and the proposed Longview solar facilities. The economic outlook for a solar farm is much more favorable over the long term than for fossil fuel facilities.

The MCC should also consider the potential for the Longview II facility to adversely affect competitiveness of the Fort Martin power plant, which does pay its fair share of property taxes. Competition from Longview will almost certainly constrain the ability of Fort Martin to compete. Even if Fort Martin does not close immediately, captive ratepayers for Mon Power may see increased electric rates to cover the increased costs of operating Fort Martin, and mine workers may see reduced hours of operation. While these changes are inevitable in a carbon-constrained economy, offering tax breaks that exacerbate these economic strains in order to provide incentives to another fossil fuel plant is short-sighted.

The MCC should require economic analyses of the proposed Longview II plant that consider the long-term costs of greenhouse gas emissions. Realistic estimates of the economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are in the range of $50-75 per ton. Analyses that do not consider this cost of carbon implicitly assume the cost is zero, a number everyone knows is wrong.

The MCC should consider the potential for methane from biofuels to be used at the proposed Longview II facility. If coupled with carbon capture and sequestration, this could result in net negative greenhouse gas emissions. Such technologies will be essential to keep global temperature increases below 2 C, and would assure a lifetime of operation for the Longview II facility.

Finally, the MCC should pro-rate any PILOT Agreement to the actual construction cost of the facility. When the MCC negotiated the last PILOT with Longview, Longview low-balled their cost estimates. In 2004, they claimed that plant would cost around $940 million, and the first PILOT was based on that estimate. The actual cost was over $2.2 billion, more than double the value used to negotiate the first PILOT.

The County Commission needs to be very skeptical of any cost estimates proposed by Longview, make sure that payments are proportional to the actual cost of the facility, and be fair to every other taxpayer in Mon County.

To learn more about these issues, and discuss fair solutions for all, please attend a public meeting on Thursday, November 7th at 6 PM in the MAC building, 107 High Street, Morgantown.

Jim Kotcon, WV Sierra Club, Morgantown, WV