Several groups are objecting to a Public Service Commission order that power companies should continue to explore the takeover of Pleasants Power Station.
West Virginia Citizen Action Group, Solar United Neighbors and Energy Efficient West Virginia filed a motion for the PSC to reconsider its order earlier this month. The West Virginia Energy Users Group, comprised of some of the state’s biggest industrial customers, separately filed a statement in support of those groups’ position.
Pleasants is a 1300 megawatt two-unit coal power plant located on the Ohio River near Belmont, Pleasants County. About 150 people work at the plant, which began operations in 1979.
Until late last year, it had been owned by Energy Harbor, which is pursuing a green energy strategy and transferred control of the plant to Energy Transition and Environmental Management, which had plans to remediate and demolish it.
Monongahela Power and Potomac Edison, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy, were directed to consider taking over Pleasants Power Station and have approached ETEM about whether they can come to terms. They are discussing whether they can agree on a letter of intent.
Representatives of the power companies have indicated those negotiations are complicated. One factor is an assessment of the plant’s current condition.
The power companies have proposed at least a $3 million monthly surcharge over 12 months, a total of $36 million, to assure the plant remains operational. That amount could be more if there are additional costs identified.
If the companies can reach an agreement on the letter of intent, the Public Service Commission’s order filed last month calls for them to return to discuss approval of the proposed surcharge.
The groups are asking for the PSC to reconsider its order, saying the surcharge exceeds the commission’s jurisdiction. The jurisdiction claim is based on the premise that Pleasants is a merchant power plant and is not subject to PSC oversight.
“The Commission does not have authority to charge customers of a public utility simply to funnel money to a non-jurisdictional facility with the goal of controlling its operational and employment decisions,” the groups wrote.
The groups also contend the order derives much of its justification from a report by PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization, that was not actually entered into the record during hearings on what to do with Pleasants Power Station. So, the groups contend, there was no opportunity to discuss or dispute its findings.
The PJM report raises questions about grid reliability in the near future if fossil fuel-fired power plants shut down without adequate replacement power.
In the specific West Virginia case, though, the groups contend they “were not even afforded an opportunity to be heard on the propriety of taking administrative notice of the report, much less an opportunity to introduce reasoned expert analysis disputing the methodology and assumptions it relies on.”
The West Virginia Energy Users Group submitted a response in support of those groups’ positions. Regarding the surcharge, the industrial customers group said ratepayers would receive no benefit because the plant would not actually be running and producing electricity.
“Moreover, Pleasants is neither an owned asset of the Companies nor a contracted-for resource; rather it is a wholesale merchant power plant outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction,” wrote attorneys for the energy users group.
The industrial customers also questioned the use of the PJM report to justify the Public Service Commission’s conclusions.
“There are aspects of the PJM Report 2023 that were not cited by the Commission in its Order that indicate that PJM has not changed its position on the deactivation of Pleasants or PJM’s conclusion that the deactivation of Pleasants did not present a reliability risk,” wrote lawyers for the energy users group.
The power companies responded that the Public Service Commission order does not exceed the regulator’s authority and does not inappropriately use the PJM report.
The power companies say the PSC has placed no obligations on the Pleasants Power Station’s current owner, ETEM, or the plant’s operator, Energy Harbor.
Instead, the companies wrote, the order provides latitude to explore the value of the power plant’s size, location along the Ohio River near coal sources, its environmental compliance equipment such as scrubbers, “and the fact it is somewhat newer than the Companies’ other generation assets of Ft. Martin and Harrison.
“The Order preserves Pleasants as an option for the Companies’ customers and the state of West Virginia (as well as PJM). its purpose and intent are not to subsidize a merchant plant,” wrote lawyers for the power companies.