On Tuesday, the Sierra Club sued the West Virginia Public Service Commission.
It questioned the commission’s 2021 order requiring Appalachian Power to operate its three coal-fired power plants in the state at a capacity factor of 69 percent most of the time.
Only a few coal-fired power plants across the country can do this, and not even the plant in West Virginia comes close.
The Sierra Club is involved in a national campaign to limit coal-fired power generation. Since the Beyond Coal campaign began, 345 power plants nationwide have been closed or announced that they will be closed. The organization wants to close the remaining 145 plants, and the economics support this.
Jim Kotcon, chairman of the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, says the PSC’s policy is bad for electricity customers. Burning coal to generate electricity costs more than burning other resources, and the price is paid by the state’s residents.
“Many of these plants are over 40 years old,” Kotcon said. “It’s time to shut them down. It certainly doesn’t make sense to invest hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to keep these plants alive just so they can keep burning coal. A realistic assessment of the costs would suggest that there are better ways to generate our electricity.”
None of Appalachian Power’s coal-fired plants in West Virginia have reached 69 percent capacity in years. One plant, Mitchell, operated just 24 percent of the time last year, data show.
Despite the limited operating hours, all three plants are making losses in the tens of millions of dollars, according to an energy analyst who told the PSC. An Appalachian Power representative told the PSC that the company is operating the plants even when they are not making money because there is too much coal on site, which poses a safety risk for workers.
Meanwhile, Appalachian Power has asked the PSC for a 17 percent rate increase, or about $28 a month for the average residential customer.
According to Kotcon, there are more cost-effective options that protect public health and the environment.
“It’s much more cost-effective to switch to renewable energy sources,” he said. “We avoid the air pollution, we avoid the greenhouse gases, we avoid the water pollution and the soil degradation that would occur.”
The Sierra Club has asked a federal judge in Charleston to block and overturn the policy.
