SCC Nixes Apco Coal Plant — Is a Post-Coal Energy Era Soon Upon Us?

The news:

The State Corporation Commission has rejected a proposal by Appalachian Power Co. to build a 629-megawatt, coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, stating that its $2.23 billion cost estimate was “not credible.” (Read the SCC press release here.) The plant would supply electricity to Apco’s service territory in western Virginia.

The proposed Apco plant bears similarities to a $1.7 billion coal-fired power facility proposed by Dominion in Wise County. Both would use a relatively novel coal gasification process to reduce pollutants, and both would be designed to incorporate carbon-sequestration technologies to capture emissions of CO2 greenhouse gases, if and when they become commercially viable. While the SCC approved the Dominion facility on the grounds that General Assembly legislation had usurped the commission’s usual oversight role by declaring the plant to be in the public interest, the commission was under no such restrictions with the Apco proposal.

The SCC found that APCo’s proposal was neither “reasonable” nor “prudent,” a finding that must be made under Virginia law before Virginia consumers can be charged for the costs of a new power plant. Among the problems: Apco has no fixed-price contract for any appreciable portion of the construction costs, and there are no meaningful price or performance guarantees or controls for the project.

Of potentially broader significance, the SCC questioned the economics of the coal gasification technology on the scale that Apco proposes:

The use of IGCC technology for a coal-fired power plant of this size (629 megawatts) posed additional uncertainties and risks for Virginia ratepayers. The SCC noted that this would be the largest commercial power plant to use IGCC technology constructed to date, and that APCo had “confirmed that there are only two IGCC power plants operating in the United States and both plants are ‘less than half’ the size” of APCo’s proposed plant.

“The record … indicates that there is no proven track record for the development and implementation of large-scale IGCC generation plants like the one proposed by APCo,” the SCC continued.

Finally, the SCC contended that there was no credible way to forecast how much it would cost to implement the carbon-sequestration technology, which Apco had estimated at between $200 million to $300 million.

Bacon’s spin on the news:

Kinda makes you think that the SCC never would have OK’d the Dominion plant if given a choice, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, given the new, higher environmental standards to which coal-fired power plants are being held in the United States, far fewer will be built than thought only a few years ago. Power companies hewing to the Big Grid model of centralized, large-scale power sources connected to population centers by high-voltage transmission lines will have little choice but to turn to nuclear power… which the environmentalists are sure to oppose with equal zeal. That will leave us to the tender mercies of small-scale, renewable energy sources, which, however cool they are, are unlikely to meet projected increases in demand over the next 10 years.

I think we can confidently predict a future of much higher electricity rates in Virginia. Consumers will have no choice but to conserve. The market for energy conservation technologies and business models is looking very bullish.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    hurrah!

    I work for a large banking corporation that does not care about anything except profit- it has NO energy conservation or even recycling

    These people need to learn!

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Profits are what allow you to pay for energy conservation and alternative or renewable energy.

    If you are really lucky, and diligent, such moves might actually increase profits, but it isn’t guaranteed. Even recycling isn’t always a good deal. you woould hate to send bank records out for recycling (or even disposal) only to find they had been stolen.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Profits are what allow you to pay for energy conservation”

    huh?

    If people want to use less to save money….or cut back to avoid rate increases, what do profits have to do with that?

    If I get a more efficient appliance or put compact fluorescents in to cut back on my electricity usage…

    whether I do that to just cut back or to avoid paying more when the rates increase.. what does any of that have to do with profits?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    For an individual it is no different.

    That compact fluorescent cost several dolllars more. you must first have the “profits” that allow you to buy it. If you are too poor, it isn’t even an option.

    After you buy it, it might or might not save you money. If you put it someplace where it is turned on and off frequently, it won;t make its advertized liefetime, in which case it won’t make the advertized energy saving.

    Likewise, If you put it someplace where it is seldom turned on, like the attic, it’s pretty much like taking that money and burying it.

    But, if you have lots of profits to throw around, and you don’t care about payback……..

    RH

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    if you have an appliance that needs to be replaced.. and you replace it with a more energy efficient model… you save money….

    if you better insulate your house.. you save not only enough to pay for the insulation but more…

    there are dozens of ways to conserve/use less electricity..

    what does any of this have to do with profits?

    each consumer has a wide variety of ways to use less.. consume less.. as a way of saving money…

    again.. what is the connection between a consumer taking various measures to conserve.. and save oney by conserving.. and profits?

  6. Groveton Avatar

    I seriously reject the argument that this is an outcome of profit crazy corporations. It is an outcome of over zealous and frankly incompetent government. One governement entity decides that the technology is “in the public interest” in Wise County, Virginia while a different agency rejects the same technology over the border in West Virginia.

    The only thing worse than capitalistic greed is any attempts by government to control it.

    I won’t even start on the arrogance of the Virginia SCC regulating a power plant to be built in West Virginia. I won’t even start on the unconstitutional restraint on interstate commerce this evidences.

    However, I will get started on the callous indifference the “gator shirt and khaki wearing” preppy doofi in Virginia’s government show to the poor. The self-knighted aristocricy in Richmond is once more binding future generations to their ignorance, arrogance and sloth.

    Our revolutionary inside the enemy lines (Jim Bacon) has it right –

    “I think we can confidently predict a future of much higher electricity rates in Virginia.”.

    And who will that hurt?

    a)The Piedmont NIMBYs who oppose everything (except the single minded preservation of their own inherited wealth)?

    b)The overpaid economic vagabonds of Northern Virginia?

    c) The “Buffys and Chads” of Richmond who slept throught the two mandatory economics classes at UVA while they dreamed of getting a new Beemer from Dadsy?

    d) The poor of Virginia?

    The correct answer is actually e) all of the above although it will hurt the poor the most.

    It’s time the voters in Virginia start demanding minimal competence from their government officials.

    Pursuing a path of inept over-regulation of energy in Virginia is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is the “so called” political class leaders who are making these poor decisions.

  7. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, Let try to clarify a narrow point you made in the previous post regarding the SCC’s regulatory authority over a power plant in West Virginia. I’m no expert here, so I’m willing to stand corrected. But this is no arbitrary power grab. Apco wants to build a power plant in West Virginia…. But Apco also wants to sell electricity from that power plant to Virginia customers. Furthermore, Apco wants to earn a competitive return on its investment… All of which will require passing costs on to Virginia consumers by means of higher rates… which the SCC must approve.

    I don’t think there’s anything out of the ordinary here.

    What was out of the ordinary was the legislative deal that Dominion struck with the General Assembly to get its reregulation bill passed. To win over key Republican legislators from SW Virginia, that deal included building the Wise County plant and buying Virginia coal, even though steam coal is generally mined at lower cost in West Virginia and Kentucky.

    Sen. Bill Wampler and Del. Terry Kilgore probably haven’t received a fraction of the credit back at home they deserve for bringing home the big pork. Between the higher cost of the power plant and the higher cost of coal, the inter-regional transfer of wealth could amount to $1 billion over the next 20-30 years. Someone ought to name a couple of highways after those fellers.

    I believe in supporting the economy of SW Virginia, but I believe in doing so in a transparent way — and in a way that will help the region transition to a knowledge-based economy. This ploy does neither.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “and you replace it with a more energy efficient model… you save money….”

    Again, you assume you have the “profits” to buy the more energy efficient model, in the first place. In this case it is personal profits: disposable, after necessities, income which you need to buy this stuff.

    No good economy, no left over money, no money spent on environmental widgets. You need profits to have a good environmental economy.

    ——————————-

    Example:

    At one time in my life I bought appliances from the used appliance store or from landlords how kicked tenants out. For ten dollars you could get an old washer that might last a couple years. If it used a hundred dollars more in electricity than a new efficient model I could not afford, so what?

    It was still cheaper in actual dollars spent than the new one, and it kept th old one out of the landfill for a while. Besides, I did not have the money for a new one. Period. It was a struggle to get the used one, and i was happy to have it.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “One governement entity decides that the technology is “in the public interest”….”

    Yeah, well, for anyone interested there is a current Supreme court cse which may shed som light on how cost and benefit analyses must be used to decide the public interest.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why is it reasonable to assume that renewable energy sources will be mainly local?

    EMR not withstanding, it will be just as hard to locate renewable energy generation facilities in metro areas as it would be to locate traditional coal plants there.

    We will need to upgrade the high voltage power grid to take full advantage of renewable energy. Nothing I’ve read suggests that electric power generation will become local. The market will continue to be regional in nature and that will demand high voltage power lines.

    TMT

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4239

    TMT is right. Check out this story one the ten largest solar projects.

    Tens of thousands of acres, anyone?

    RH

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Take a look on your next drive at the unused land along the highways.

    Take Noise walls for instance or … the area inside of interchanges.. median strips on the inside of guard rails

    .. bridges, abutments, steep banks, etc…

    everywhere you look there is unused ….and mostly unusable land and structures … that could be ideal places for solar panels…

    We put peak-hour pricing on electricity – and we use the “profits” from the peak-hour charges to buy the Solar Panels…

    very similar to HOT lane tolls being used to buy more infrastructure.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yep, take a look at all that stuff. Then figure may 20% of it faces south. Then figure someone owns it, and is going to want a piece of the action.

    Now go back and look at the projects actually being built. Of the five listed, three are thermal solar units and one relys on concentrated photovoltaics.

    Look at where they are being built.
    Undoubtedly we will use a lot of currently unused or underused property for such projects, but the distributed kind of thing Larry has in mind is a long way off.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Both Peak hour electricity charging and Hot lanes will have the same result as what happened to North Carolina water users. Water restrictions reduced water usage so much they had to raise the price.

    Last I heard, true conservation was supposed to save you money, not cost you more, for less.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Corporate profits do not necessarily fund conservation. I would be happy if my coworkers were made to at least turn off their monitors and deskfans and lights before they left work.

    Solar for my house is looking better. I am going to do all I can to be more independent of corporate decisions, even if I currently get a paycheck from them.

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: distributed solar

    …addresses location specific costs – not only for power generation but power distribution.

    Much of the land is already owned by the government….

    Much of the discussion about Solar to date has been comparing it to other sources – as if it would be produced and distributed the same way – remotely produced and then geographically distributed.

    If Solar is done local – you get more of it because there are less power losses AND the cost does not have to include the long-distance power lines to transport it.

    solar power “distributed” much closer to where it is actually used has got to be more efficient than generating power one hundred miles or more from where it is eventually used.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Corporate profits do not necessarily fund conservation. “

    That’s true, but it is beside the point. We have many other things, besides conservation that have legitimate funding demands. You assume first that conservation is our only priority.

    Whatever those priorities are, whether they are conservation or something else, all of the money that is used for conservation efforts DOES ultimately come from or depends on Corporate profits.

    Solar might be looking better for your house. That means two things: 1)it is looking better compared to other alternatives and 2)you have some source of funds (and I’ll bet they depend on corporate profits).

    I am not suggesting or saying that conservation efforts will ruin the economy. But I am saying that it is counterproductive and ignorant for conservationists ot pooh-pooh or even denigrate profits, as if they were the antithesis of conservation. And, if allowed to run rampant, environmental regulations could ruin the economy.

    A bad economy is the worst possible thing that can happen to the environment.

    —————————-

    Larry, look at those projects again. They are huge because they get lower costs by concentrating, not distributing, production.

    It doesn’t matter if land is owned by the government: they will want to lease it to the power company for revenue, same as anyone else.

    You are partially right about the cost of long distance power and the losses associated. But, solar cells themselves still have big power losses: they only convert a fraction of the sunlight that hits them.

    You need to learn to look att he entire system and not just the parts that exhibit beneficial traits you happen to like.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Gee, Groveton.

    I landed in three of your four categories. I have inherited Piedmont wealth in the form of land, I’m a high priced economic vagabond (I won’t say overpaid), and I’m functionally poor as a result of the rules for maintaining what I’ve inherited.

    I once had a county supervisor who told me to my face that his goal for my wife’s property was to have someone wealthy buy it, so they could put it in conservation easement. So, yeah, I’m singleminded about protecting my wealth – from the really wealthy.

    RH

  19. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    “EMR not withstanding, it will be just as hard to locate renewable energy generation facilities in metro areas [inside the Clear Edge around the Cores of New Urban Regions] as it would be to locate traditional coal plants there.”

    Hold on TMT, have you not heard me talk about thin renewable resources and thick urban demand?

    We may need new transmission capacity in some cases but only after citizens have pushed conservation and fair allocation of cost to the point that there are functional and sustainable settlement patterns.

    As with roadways, there is a lot of transmission capacity already.

    What is needed is Balance. Reduce the peak demand as well as reduce the total, cumulative demand.

    EMR

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “As with roadways, there is a lot of transmission capacity already. “

    Can you explain that a little?

    We usually think of roadways as branches merging into a trunk: a bunch of little places going to some major destination.

    Transmission lines go from a major source, to a bunch of little (user) destinations.

    By balance, are you suggesting that we need more and smaller generation capacity neare the users, and more and larger generating capacity nearer to large groups of users?

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR – Agree in part; disagree in part.

    Conservation is very important. A friend of mine at Pepco tells me that, but for three or four weeks in July and August, Pepco & its suppliers could have a much smaller and less expensive system. Networks must be built to handle peak demand. Reduce peak demand and the network can be much smaller and probably less expensive to operate (including capital recovery costs).

    But we still need to ensure that we have access to sufficient and reasonably priced energy now or we’ll never have the money to build “functional and sustainable settlement patterns.”

    Also, you simply cannot build energy generation plants of any kind in urban/suburban areas. The very people who are global warming fanatics will never accept anything that fixes the problems of emissions so long as the plant is nearby. If they won’t accept it, what about everyone else.

    The old advice from Sim City — build your power plants on the outside of your territory and then construct power lines to where the people live — still holds true today. In the future, most energy will be generated far from where it’s consumed. That requires high voltage distribution lines.

    TMT

  22. floodguy Avatar

    Jim said “The market for energy conservation technologies and business models is looking very bullish.

    Check out Xcel Energy Smart Grid for Boulder Colorado. The Energy Security & Independence Act of 2007, section xiii is all about the Smart Grid. Check out the “Microsoft” of the smart meter and smart switch world, Itron (ITRI)

    Demand Response and Demand Management Software developers EnerNoc and Comverge are interesting. While most look at demand conservation and load shedding as only something that applies during peak demand, it is now considered vital to back up wind and solar resources when forecasts for wind and sun fails to deliver. Without this type of backup, wind and solar will need traditional fossil fuel resources like gas, coal and oil which will only send the true price per kwh for wind and solar thru the roof.

    Its just a matter of time that a more intelligent grid will be here. Also check out Galvin Electric Initiative. http://galvinpower.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/GalvinAD.pdf
    CEO Robert Galvin is the former CEO of Motorola and is highly respected in both industry and with regulators.

    Recycled waste to energy is another good play. Covanta, Veiola and Waste Mgmt are the biggest players there.

    Energy efficiency and conservation (EEC) doesn’t stop with the enduser. New mandates for upgraded T&D equipment, being promoted by Edison Electric Institute, is at our doorsteps; as well as efficiency modifications to power plants.

    As the price for fossil fuel skyrockets from demand and cost associated with tougher ozone standards and carbon taxes, Jim is 100% correct, the nation’s utilities will have no other choice then to make investments in “cheaper” energy resources such is EEC. With peak oil approaching and oil hitting new highs, auto-makers will build more and more electric plug-in hybrids putting more pressure on power supplies.

    An energy revolution is here upon us, and whether or not you agree with Al Gore, Smart Energy Policy is now a reality.

    And RH, we’re not talking light bulbs anymore, bubba.

    One more point Jim, let’s not leave out the heavy hitting energy representative in his 26th year serving Virginia’s 1st district from any critique of why Wise County is being doomed with new dirty coal plant.

    “I am very pleased by Dominion’s selection of a site for the future development of a new clean-coal power generation plant in Wise County. I will work with Dominion to ensure all federal regulatory requirements are resolved as expeditiously as possible.”
    Rick Boucher, U.S. Rep and Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, May 11, 2006

Leave a Reply