VCEA Could Raise APCo Power Bills by Half

by Steve Haner

Compliance with the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act will result in a 49% increase in monthly costs by 2035 for residential customers of the Appalachian Power Company, according to a State Corporation Commission staff analysis. That’s a $57 increase on a typical 2020 residential bill of $117.

Rates on the largest industrial users are likely to climb 76% in the same period.  In later years additional costs adding to bills are probable, as the company works toward its 2050 mandatory goal of carbon-free electricity generation.

Appalachian serves about 500,000 customer accounts in western Virginia, with most of the generation it uses to serve them located outside Virginia. It is not proposing the same level of investment in new renewable generation as the larger Dominion Energy Virginia, which serves the bulk of Virginia, now focused on its $10 billion offshore wind proposal. Yet the long-term rate impact of VCEA for Appalachian customers is still substantial.

The SCC will hold hearings later this month on Appalachian’s proposed VCEA compliance plan, its second such annual review (the docket is here.)

No additional consumer costs were sought for recovery by Appalachian during the first VECA compliance review last year. If approved, VCEA-related charges will appear on customer bills in new rate adjustment clauses in August of this year. Appalachian projected this year’s bill increase would be about $2.37 per month for a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours.

The power company serves one million customers overall when its West Virginia and Tennessee territory is included. It has closed its last fossil fuel power plant in Virginia, already fulfilling one of the goals of the 2020 legislation. But it maintains coal and gas generation in other parts of its system and expects to keep those plants running until it approaches that 2050 deadline.

This segment of the compliance plan requests approval of four company-owned renewable energy projects (mainly solar) producing up to 409 megawatts and six smaller power purchase agreements (PPAs) with another 144 megawatts. The company will also be using renewable energy certificates (RECs) on its existing facilities as a means of compliance.

Eventually, according to its own news release, “by 2050, the company expects to add 3,400 MW of solar, 2,200 MW of onshore wind, and 400 MW of energy storage to its current portfolio of wind and hydro resources.” The inclusion of onshore wind sets its plan apart from Dominion’s, although the wind projects involved may not be in Virginia (and there is some question whether they are inside the PJM Interconnect region, which is a VCEA requirement).

As happened in the similar review conducted on Dominion’s most recent VCEA planning proposal, Attorney General Jason Miyares is encouraging the SCC to reject two of the company’s proposed projects as too expensive. The same expert witness, Scott Norwood from Austin, Texas, filed the testimony in this case.

Also in parallel with the Dominion proceedings, the actual project costs reported as levelized cost of energy (LCOE) are withheld as proprietary information. In this case, however, Miyares’ staff  made a motion to open up various exhibits that Appalachian had sealed. The LCOE summary and other project financials are among those exhibits.

Without specifics, Norwood does note the company-owned projects are more expensive than the proposed power purchase agreements from third-party generators, and complains the company is underutilizing the option of purchased RECs.

Norwood states that over the early phase of compliance, Appalachian’s plans result in excess capacity:

…the Company currently has enough existing generation to meet its required generation (i.e., PJM capacity requirements) through year 2040. This means that the Company does not have a need to purchase the additional capacity that would be supplied from the new renewable resources proposed in this case. In fact, the Company’s RPS Plan envisions a scenario where APCo exceeds its capacity reserve requirements by almost 5,000 MWs by year 2039.

With about half of its customers outside Virginia, mainly in West Virginia, a big complication for Appalachian is seeking approval from the utility regulators in those other states for these investments and seeking permission to bill all of its customers for them, not just Virginians. Dominion also has out-of-state customers, in North Carolina, but it is a smaller percentage.

Both Norwood and the staff analysis on the bill impact warn this could get sticky. Norwood writes:

….the VCEA permits (Appalachian) to charge Virginia customers the West Virginia jurisdictional share of costs, but must pass 100 percent of the benefits associated with such a facility to Virginia customers. Cost responsibility effectively doubles for Virginia customers if they are asked to pay the typical West Virginia share of a new generation facility. Before the Commission approves cost recovery of a VCEA resource, the Commission should ensure that the Company has a concrete plan that will permit it to pass 100 percent of benefits to the Virginia jurisdiction, if necessary.

That adds uncertainty to the bill analysis above, which is based on the company’s preferred approach to compliance and cost allocation between classes, which many are also objecting to. The Commission will have the final say.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

19 responses to “VCEA Could Raise APCo Power Bills by Half”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    How is inflation measured in the 49% by 2035 calculation? At 8% per year inflation (thanks, Joe Biden) a 49% increase over 13 years would probably be a bargain in real terms. I assume the 49% is in real terms or uses a lower inflation rate than the one announced yesterday.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      1970 to 1990 averaged in at 6% annually for 20 years. That’s Saint Dick, Saint Gerry, Saint Ronnie, and Saint George The First.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        You seem to have omitted Saint Jimmy – the original stagflation inventor. However, with Bird Brained Biden’s approach to shoveling out money we may see a return to the bad old days of St James.

        When Reagan was elected (1980) inflation was 13.55%, when he left office it was 4.83.

        I’d say St Ronnie did a pretty damn good job of cleaning up Stagflation Jimmy’s mess.

        https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi

        Who will we elect to clean up Biden’s mess?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Yeah, of course if Jimmy had dumped $3T unbacked gubmint dollars…

          Yeah, poor ol’ Jimmy. Everyone remembers the Carter Wage & Price Freeze. That was Jimmy, right?

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      This is all in constant dollars, 2020 I guess. So yes, the nominal increase may be way up there. In its materials, APCo predicts 3.5% annual compounded. It’s all a projection. The point is, gee folks, doing this will be expensive. Building new generation you don’t need and idling viable generation ratepayers also must pay for gets expensive.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      1920 to 1940 gave us nearly 0% annual inflation. Is that your target?

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        I agree with the Fed’s long term target of 2% per year.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          You remind me of a fellow with whom I occasionally sailed. He was a techno-geek who spent most of the time below ATVTHE NAV-station monitoring the GPS, and Occam speed charts and every once in awhile would chime in with “You need to sail 1/2 knot faster.”

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    3.5% is 41% in 10 years. But when have we seen 3.5% inflation annually for 10 years?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not all price increases are “inflation.” The inflation we are seeing now has a huge element of monetary policy, growth in the money supply. And those who point to supply chain issues are also right, because it is too much money (monetary policy) chasing too few goods (supply issues.) Captive ratepayers getting stuck paying for a massive increase in (unneeded) generation is not inflation.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Well, let’s throw a 50 basis point hike in and see what happens. Right at the moment supply issues have been hammered for the last 5 years — it started waaay before 2020 with some trade agreement grandstanding, then Covid, and conflict. You can even add in a two-day delay in realiable food supply with idiot Abbott checking tire pressures two miles from the border. Genius. I like brown guacamole.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          I’ll call your Abbott and raise you Newsom and Trudeau and the vax requirements on truckers. Yes, much of this is self-inflicted.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, technically speaking, since there is no other such economic system that exists elsewhere in the known universe, it’s all self-inflicted and 100% contrived. Just off the top of my head, the closest thing in nature to human economies would be predation, and at least in that, there really are immutable laws.

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Unbelievable that Biden and the Dems wanted nothing more than to spew more money into the economy with their ill-conceived Build Back Better plan. Thank God for the Republicans and Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll
    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Kee-rect. Fill in the blanks: All models are ____ but some models are _____. They do what they can with the data they have.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll
  5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    I like the *on-shore* wind energy, and APCo should be able to do that in WV MD or PA. It would be good to understand that on-shore component, because Virginia should probably be doing more of that instead of the ultra-expensive off-shore wind.

    I go back to Charlie Munger’s recent comments at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. Although Charlie likes fossil fuels, he is super-excited about the current rush to build out new renewable energy, to replace fossil fuels. He recommended that that trend be allowed to accelerate. Apparently it is good for Berkshire share prices. Investors love the U.S. utility sector since is not a free market. Captive monopolies where the ratepayers pay the costs of construction, operation costs, nice profit margin, and monies for campaign donations and public relations activities in favor of what the utilities want to do. Good work if you can get it.

    1. Irie Casa Avatar
      Irie Casa

      Hmmm….odd, no comment from the climate change deniers.

Leave a Reply