On Monday evening, the PSC issued an order regarding the proposal for $3M+/month to be charged to ratepayers to keep paying employees at Pleasants to not generate power. The order did not immediately increase rates, but it ordered Mon Power to keep investigating and will allow it to come back later to ask to be compensated for maintaining the plant.
While there is no immediate rate impact to ratepayers, we are concerned that these proposed charges could potentially be forced onto ratepayers in the very near future.
Many of our concerns about this proposal still remain:
WV ratepayers still don't need Pleasants' power—West Virginia already produces more power than it consumes.
We don't know how much this will cost. It is going to be much more than the $36 million that's been discussed.
Our reliability issues in West Virginia, which are significant, are unrelated to generation.
FirstEnergy’s own witnesses have identified many more costs and liabilities of this proposal.
Part of the order seemed to suggest that it might somehow be appropriate for West Virginia ratepayers to be forced to pay higher bills to ensure generation reliability in other states in the PJM grid. It is not fair to West Virginia families with high energy burdens, many of whom are on fixed incomes, to pay for that. It's also not fair to small businesses who are not politically connected enough to lobby for a special tax break for their businesses, like the Pleasants plant did recently. West Virginians’ reliability challenges will not be fixed by another power plant and PJM has already specifically said that Pleasants can retire without impacting grid reliability.
The next step is a proposed letter of intent (LOI) between the owner of the plant and FirstEnergy, describing an agreement between them that addresses what would be paid by each party. It is imperative that the public have an opportunity to fully vet this agreement between these two out-of-state companies, since it will be West Virginians who will bear the costs of it. The three-week process that the public had to evaluate the current proposal will not be enough. There should be multiple public hearings held near where the affected people actually live and the ability to develop a full record showing whether or not this is a good deal for the people who will have to pay it—West Virginia families and businesses.
The public is clearly opposed to bailing out this plant. Most of the comments in the case were from people opposed to paying higher bills for the bailout.
We hope people continue to stay engaged and make their voices heard throughout this process. We will have the latest updates at energyfreedomwv.org about how to stay engaged.