APCO VCEA Plan Keeps Coal Until 2040 (In WVA)

Cover for the 2023 update of Appalachian Power Company’s plan to comply with the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) in coming decades.

by Steve Haner

Appalachian Power Company (APCO), serving Western Virginia, has now filed its annual update on Virginia Clean Economy Act compliance, including long term bill impact estimates. As the State Corporation Commission begins its review process, here are some highlights:

  • The projected increases in electric bills are little changed and perhaps a bit lower than those reported a year ago. The cost for 1,000 kilowatt hours to power a home for a month was $117.09 in 2020; using the compliance plan the company prefers, it is projected to be $172.12 in 2030 (up 55%) and $193.29 (up 65%) in 2035.
  • Despite all the political discussion about Virginia turning to the new, smaller nuclear reactor technology (so-called small modular reactors, or SMRs), they don’t turn up in APCO’s development plan as even an option for a long time, perhaps in 2040 when its major West Virginia coal plants will retire. Dominion Energy Virginia’s preferred VCEA compliance plan also didn’t turn to SMRs in the short term.
  • Energy demand projections within Appalachian’s territory are negative, going down. Over the next 15‐year period (2023‐2037), its service territory is expected to see population decline at 0.3% per year and non‐farm employment growth of ‐0.1% per year. It projects its customer count to decline by 0.1% over this period. Internal energy requirements and peak demand are expected to decline by 0.4% per year through 2037.

  • Appalachian has only one remaining fossil fuel plant within Virginia, a natural gas plant opened in 1958 and expected to retire in 2025. Its main coal plants in other states, however, are slated to stay until 2040. In the meantime, VCEA compliance will require the company to build or enter power purchase agreements for ever-larger amounts of solar and onshore wind power. So far, much of the solar and all of the wind facilities are not located in Virginia but are within the PJM Interconnection footprint, so they qualify for VCEA compliance.
  • The summary document, which you don’t need to be an engineer or accountant to follow, includes an excellent table comparing various gas, solar, wind and even the SMR options on the basis of their cost, operational reliability (capacity factor), length of service and cost per megawatt hour (MWH) produced. It is reproduced below.
From Appalachian Power’s 2023 RPS Development Plan. Click for larger view.

The company’s estimate is that, as of 2022, electricity from an SMR would cost about $112 per MWH, producing power 85 percent of the time. Compare that to the capacity factor of 21% on solar (based on output from the company’s existing assets) and 30% for onshore wind (also based on experience, not the sales pitches.) Natural gas generation, with or without equipment to capture the CO2 emissions, remains cheaper than the renewable sources, again because it would likely operate 75% of the time.

The most expensive asset illustrated, the small (50MW) battery designed to cover a deficit on the grid for all of four hours, would cost $244 per MWH. The company modeled a future program to add 1,000 MW per year of battery storage to its system, a more realistic amount to cover for intermittent wind and solar generation, but added this comment:

…for the purposes of modeling zero emissions resources to fill the capacity need after the assumed retirement of the (coal) units in 2040, a high cumulative lifetime storage limit was included as a proxy resource at that time. The assumption that 1,000 MW of storage could be added to a Company the size of APCo in any one year, or even cumulatively beginning in 2037 is particularly optimistic.

“Particularly optimistic” is being polite.

In a similar future cost modeling exercise submitted to the State Corporation Commission in late 2022, and reported here March 20, Dominion’s projected residential bill for 2035 for 1,000 kwh was about $20 higher, at $213.36. So, over time a significant gap in electricity costs may develop between Dominion’s and Appalachian’s territories.

The cost projections will change over time as underlying assumptions do, but neither utility is predicting that costs to consumers will be stable or lower because of this transition. VCEA dictates that Dominion’s Virginia customers must receive carbon-free power by 2045 and Appalachian’s service must be carbon-free by 2050. Purchased renewable energy certificates can be part of that compliance.

APCO has 540,000 customer accounts in Virginia, just over half of its total 1 million customers in three states. The list of its current generation assets in the summary document for this filing shows 88% of its total owned generation capacity comes from coal or natural gas. It also has 700 MW of hydro resources from Smith Mountain Lake, Claytor Lake and Leesville Dam, and another 963 MW of purchased power, mostly from outside Virginia.

That list of purchased power agreements includes most of its existing solar and onshore wind suppliers. This pending application (SCC case file here) will mainly add to that list of power purchase agreements (PPAs), with more outside PPAs than company-owned assets. A summary of the application can also be found in the company’s news release on the filing.

The main issue with the previous application was whether the projects then proposed were economically reasonable, and now the SCC staff will begin a similar examination of these projects. That analysis by the SCC’s staff or other stakeholders who might object to some aspect of this application is just getting underway.

The regulatory authorities in the other Appalachian states, West Virginia and Tennessee, face no law similar to VCEA and could reject as imprudent some of these coming wind, solar and battery investments. The plan assumes they will agree, but if they do not, 100% of the costs will fall on customers who live in Virginia.

Unless some future General Assembly or Governor succeeds in actually amending the VCEA, this is the path we face. On the other hand, a future Assembly or Congress could accelerate the planned retirements of remaining fossil fuel plants.

After all, the no-CO2 transition under VCEA is far slower than that demanded by groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which just issued another of its annual “this our final warning, do it now or else!” sermons on a predicted climate catastrophe. Dominion and Appalachian burning coal and gas into the 2040s is not what they have in mind.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

13 responses to “APCO VCEA Plan Keeps Coal Until 2040 (In WVA)”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Thanks for plowing through these documents and summarizing them for us.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The case files will drive you crazy but both Dominion and APCO produced readable summaries providing a wealth of information, lots of charts and graphs. But on the SCC website, they are scanned in black and white and with terrible resolution. You cannot decipher the color graphs. Ridiculous technology (this dig is for you, Mr. Nixon.) Dominion helpfully posted its summary on its website, but APCO did not. So I called a lady in their press office and she helpfully forwarded the file to me as a PDF I could post. “Nobody has ever asked for it before,” she said. No greater condemnation of the state of American news reporting establishment is possible…

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The case files will drive you crazy but both Dominion and APCO produced readable summaries providing a wealth of information, lots of charts and graphs. But on the SCC website, they are scanned in black and white and with terrible resolution. You cannot decipher the color graphs. Ridiculous technology (this dig is for you, Mr. Nixon.) Dominion helpfully posted its summary on its website, but APCO did not. So I called a lady in their press office and she helpfully forwarded the file to me as a PDF I could post. “Nobody has ever asked for it before,” she said. No greater condemnation of the state of American news reporting establishment is possible…

      1. “Nobody has ever asked for it before,”

        Sorry state of affairs indeed.

        Thanks for your work.

  2. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    Excellent summary, Steve. I clicked through the link to the Apco press release and found this salient detail that you might want to explore if you do any further reporting on this filing:

    “Appalachian Power’s filing also updated regulators on projects that received SCC approval in 2022. Developers and the company terminated plans to move forward with the Bedington, Firefly, Dogwood, and Sun Ridge solar facilities due to development, permitting and/or cost-related issues. While disappointing, the loss of these facilities will not hinder the company’s ability to meet its VCEA obligations.”

    So, it appears that 4 solar plants that the Commission approved Apco to purchase from did not and will not get built. That seems to be yet another drag on the utility’s ability to comply with the requirements of the VCEA.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Local resistance to the siting of these projects is growing. That may be part of that. You see it in the clips all the time, all over Virginia. Today there was a story about local objections to a battery facility down in Hampton Roads, approved on a split vote. Yeah, getting to 13K MW of solar is gonna happen….

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Thanks for the excellent summary and the effort it requires to plow through the material and simplify it.

    It’s interesting that they apparently are able to burn coal for another decade or two when we keep hearing that the
    green wackadoodles are going to shut it all down no matter what!

    There is a good reason the SMRs are not in APCO or Doms “plans”. For some reason I have not really understood, they are not only not ready but will not be for some time, which is odd to me since we have these little boogers on carriers and subs right now and have had for decades. What’s the holdup?

    Can’t even blame Biden…..

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24da32a82aaf60275b0d21ed6cb8f741322343d1ae686fe5bda5416d8a6100f5.jpg

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      No, but just the overall bureaucracy of getting the designs approved and facilities permitted, which has built through several administrations, must be adding greatly to the cost. Hey, as taxpayers we don’t really know what those reactor plants on the subs and carriers actually cost per MWH and we probably don’t want to know! It will not be a low levelized cost of energy, not something we’d accept for a commercial power plant. 🙂 If it keeps the sub submerged for 90 days, keeps the carrier at sea 9 months, maintains the long safety record, the price is worth it to the Navy.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So, here’s a question for those who oppose VCEA, wind/solar because they don’t think climate is at risk, if SMRs produce higher priced electricity than gas or renewables, do they still support SMRs and if not because of climate concerns, then why?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          I do not oppose wind or solar per se. They just can’t do it all and plenty of baseload is needed. As the legacy reactors retire, SMRs are the logical replacement path. I oppose VCEA because its dumb. Gas should also remain in the mix.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          I do not oppose wind or solar per se. They just can’t do it all and plenty of baseload is needed. As the legacy reactors retire, SMRs are the logical replacement path. I oppose VCEA because it’s dumb. Gas should also remain in the mix. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

  4. Dr. Havel nos Spine' Avatar
    Dr. Havel nos Spine’

    Let us remember that, for decades, the system planner’s task was to minimize present value revenue requirements subject to a service quality constraint and in compliance with applicable environmental regulations. The requirements of the VCEA greatly complicate this constrained optimization problem. Costs will rise and service may not be adequate. If you want to make policy surrounding one of the most complex tasks in modern society via a legislative process, be prepared for sub-optimal outcomes.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Yep, in English, you can see that in the analyses of these plans as the SCC staff clearly states the only reason, ONLY reason for all this investment is to comply with that law. I’ve long called it the “Clean Energy We Don’t Actually Need” law.

Leave a Reply