Tag: Sierra Club

Those ‘Restricted’ Banks? They May Be Supporting Fossil Fuels After All

JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo are among the top six institutions worldwide to invest in companies that burn coal, according to the Sierra Club.

JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are on the state’s restricted financial institutions list. They got there because Treasurer Riley Moore determined last year that they are engaged in a boycott of fossil fuels.

A new report from the Sierra Club, however, shows all those institutions invest in electric utilities that are heavy users of coal.

JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo are among the top six institutions worldwide to invest in companies that burn coal.

British bank Barclays, which is not on the state’s restricted institutions list, is the largest investor in West Virginia’s top power companies, American Electric Power and FirstEnergy. Barclays is also the top financier of coal-burning utilities in the world, according to the report.

These and eight other power companies operate coal-burning power plants in 16 states.

The top six banks all made commitments to align their investments with the Paris Agreement yet have invested nearly $84 billion in coal-burning utilities since 2016, the report found. 

Jared Hunt, a Treasury spokesman, said the banks were placed on the list based on their publicly available policy statements.

Virtually all banks have set net-zero goals for carbon dioxide emissions and have made commitments to environmental, social and governance, or ESG standards.

Yet as the Sierra Club report shows, many of them continue to support fossil fuels.

Sierra Club’s Karan May: Coal Plant Rescue Misses Out On ‘Bigger Picture’

Karan May, the senior campaign representative in Central Appalachia for the Sierra Club, was present at the hearing that preceded the PSC’s decision.

Late last month, the West Virginia Public Service Commission signed off on a proposal to keep the Pleasants Power Station from shutting down at the end of May. Consumer and environmental groups, large industrial users and even the PSC’s Consumer Advocate testified against it.

Karan May, the senior campaign representative in Central Appalachia for the Sierra Club, was present at the hearing that preceded the PSC’s decision. She spoke with Curtis Tate about it.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Tate: What would you like to see going forward?

May: What we’re interested in is making sure that public participation is available, and that we’re not on a short timeline. We think that people need to be able to submit comments online certainly, but we think that we should have hearings across the service territory. Folks should be able to come out in the evening, not have to take off work and let the commissioners know what is going on with them, and how rising power bills affect them.

Tate: The PSC public comment hearing was hours away from many Mon Power customers. Did that discourage their participation?

May: While I commend the commission for scheduling a hearing, I think anytime that there’s a public hearing, that’s a good thing, but for folks to have to travel, say from Potomac Edison territory, that could be a five-hour drive. And to do that, at a time when most folks are working. In fact, some of the speakers who did come and speak out in opposition were retirement-age. I think that that’s telling. In 2017, when Pleasants was proposed for a transfer before that transfer was rejected, the commission scheduled three hearings, and those were in Morgantown, Parkersburg and Martinsburg. And people really turned out. 

Tate: Did it seem like there was a bit of a disconnect with the commission when Mon Power stated it had no interest in operating both Pleasants and the Fort Martin Power Station?

May: Well, the interesting thing to me is that the company is kind of saying that it’s a wash, whether you have Fort Martin open or whether you bring Pleasants on and retire Fort Martin. So the problem with that would be, what are the ratepayers going to have to bear to get to that answer? First of all, if you have a commission that is pointing to issues of reliability and certain legislation, that seems to be an indication that we’d be having an argument about Fort Martin retiring. It seems to me that the commission and the companies aren’t personally at odds, but the outcomes that they might be looking for, or looking at, seem to be at odds. And the truth is that Pleasants has been slated to be retired. PJM could have said, ‘We need that plant to stay online for reliability,’ and they haven’t. I just think that this is propping up an uneconomic coal plant that has been scheduled to close, and the customer shouldn’t have to pay for that.

Tate: There is so much federal money available from the infrastructure law from 2021 and the climate bill last year to support coal-affected communities. Isn’t this the kind of opportunity to use it?

May: We’re at this moment where West Virginia is poised to really benefit from this massive federal investment in the form of the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act. And if our policymakers and policies continued to hew closely to 40-year-old power plants, powered by coal, I think we’re gonna miss out on the true transformative nature of those dollars.

It’s not like a transition is without challenges, but when you think about the folks who did develop and work in the mines and met the challenges of the industrial age, it’s not like we can’t do it. And it makes me sad that we’re kind of… it feels like we’re stuck, and it feels like it’s gonna cost regular people money. We’re a state where we have people on fixed incomes, we’re a state that’s older generally. And it doesn’t seem fair to me.

Tate: Anything else you want to add?

May: I hope to hear more from the Consumer Advocate. I think that that’s who’s charged in these proceedings with watching out for residential ratepayers. I was certainly happy to hear from the Energy Users Group, and they are going to be impacted by rising rates, perhaps in a way that is detrimental to the economics of the state. When the commission talks about balancing the economy of the state and kind of talking about that in relation to coal, I just think that we’re missing out on the bigger picture of corporations who want to come in and have access to renewable energy, and the jobs that can be gained through energy efficiency and other provisions of the IRA. I just think there are so many facets of this transition that could really help West Virginians, and we’re just not seeing it.

Sierra Club: Harrison County Coal Plant Among The Nation’s Deadliest

Mon Power’s Harrison Power Station in Harrison County, is one of 17 deadliest in the country, contributing to 122 premature deaths a year because of particulate matter.

This story was updated with a statement from FirstEnergy.

A West Virginia power plant was identified by the Sierra Club as one of the nation’s deadliest.

According to a Sierra Club report, Mon Power’s Harrison Power Station in Harrison County is one of the 17 deadliest in the country, contributing to 122 premature deaths a year because of particulate matter.

The plant produces 1,984 megawatts of electricity. Its two units became operational in 1973 and 1974. According to Mon Power, Harrison is equipped with scrubbers that remove 98 percent of sulfur dioxide. The Sierra Club says particulate matter, or soot, can travel hundreds of miles. 

West Virginia coal plants contribute to 335 deaths a year nationwide, according to the report, but just 20 in West Virginia. 

The Sierra Club’s report identifies Mon Power parent FirstEnergy and Appalachian Power parent AEP as two of the biggest polluters from power plants, contributing to 181 and 129 premature deaths a year, respectively.

In a statement, FirstEnergy said the Harrison plant “is equipped with the best available technology to control emissions and complies with all its permits.“

Federal Judge Rules Citizen Lawsuit Can Proceed Against Justice Family-Run Coal Companies

A federal judge has denied a request by coal companies owned by the family of West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice to dismiss a lawsuit over selenium violations at a southern West Virginia coal mine. 

The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Appalachian Voices and the Sierra Club in sued Bluestone Coal Corporation in August 2019, using the citizen lawsuit provision of the Clean Water Act. 

The groups alleged that the Justice companies were discharging selenium at the Red Fox Surface Mine in McDowell County at levels that violated federal mining permits. Selenium, a chemical element found in coal that bioaccumulates, has been linked to growth deformities and reproductive failure in fish. 

According to court documents Bluestone reported 107 violations since July 2018 — 42 violations of its average selenium limits and 65 violations of its maximum selenium limits. The company paid $278,000 in fines. But environmental groups argued the company should be subject to millions more in civil penalties. 

Bluestone and its affiliates, including Red Fox’s operator Southern Coal Corporation, disagreed. They urged the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the Justice coal companies are being monitored by federal environmental regulators under a 2016 agreement. 

Between 2009 and 2014, 27 Justice coal companies accumulated more than 23,000 water pollution violations at mines in West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama. The companies reached a settlement deal with the Environmental Protection Agency that included a $900,000 civil penalty and an agreement to implement an estimated $5 million in pollution control measures.

The deal also required the Justice companies to provide quarterly pollution reports to regulators. Selenium was not a pollutant covered under the agreement, court documents note. 

Bluestone argued that because of the 2016 agreement with the EPA, also known as a consent decree, environmental groups could not bring a citizen lawsuit against them over the selenium pollution. They argued the lawsuit  “would create undue interference” with the federal deal. 

In his opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge David Faber disagreed. In his 29-page ruling, he sided with environmental groups and questioned whether the 2016 EPA agreement did enough to prevent the Justice coal companies from polluting. 

The company “continues to be in consistent non-compliance with the terms of its selenium permits despite facing these general penalties for violations and repeat violations,” wrote Faber, who sits on the bench of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia. 

The consent decree’s penalties, he continued,  “have not remove[d] or neutralize[d] the economic incentive to violate” the environmental regulations related to selenium. 

A request for comment from Bluestone or its lawyers listed on the court docket was not immediately returned. 

Environmental groups are seeking additional penalties for the selenium pollution. In court filings, the groups estimate the maximum civil penalty under the Clean Water Act for Bluestone’s violations could top $160 million. 

In an emailed statement, Vivian Stockman, executive director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition praised the court’s decision to allow the case to proceed.  

“The opinion underscores why it is so important to maintain fair and impartial courts as an independent branch of government,” she said. “Not even our billionaire governor is above the law and his businesses must be held accountable for polluting our waters.”

 

Environmental Groups Criticize Mountain Valley Pipeline's Stabilization Plan

Federal regulators have approved parts of the Mountain Valley Pipeline’s plan to stabilize areas of the pipeline’s route that are under construction and ensure that work already in progress does not become an environmental liability.

The document, mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission after it halted all construction of the 303-mile pipeline earlier this month, drew criticism from environmental groups that said the plan effectively greenlights continued pipeline construction.

FERC stopped all construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline on Aug. 3 following a ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, except in cases where it might be necessary to stabilize areas with ongoing construction such as right of ways.

The plan, released Thursday, lays out a variety of actions the pipeline intends to take to comply with environmental standards. They include filling some dug trenches with dirt and seeding steep slopes to temporarily stabilize some areas already under construction.

In a letter issued Friday evening, Terry Turpin, director of FERC’s Office of Energy Projects, told pipeline developers to move forward with the approved measures.

“As indicated in your plan, the shutdown presents challenges for stabilization and restoration, and we agree that there are some clear advantages to allowing some limited construction activities to proceed to prevent potential safety and environmental impacts,” the letter stated.

The majority of the plan’s suggestions were accepted. Most of the “pending” measures are related to how to stabilize steep slopes.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups say the pipeline’s stabilization plan effectively allows the developers to complete construction across a total of 45 miles of its route. 

“Bless their hearts, but not in a million years,” Sierra Club Virginia chapter director Kate Addleson said in a statement.

According to the document, developers said they intend to install the pipeline and close the trench for 26 miles of the MVP’s route where trench has already been dug and pipe is ready to go. FERC approved this measure.

In a letter submitted to the agency, the Indian Creek Watershed Association also expressed concerns with the pipeline’s stabilization plan and urged the agency to reject it.

“This is a ploy by MVP/EQT that has little to do with environmental protection and much to do with convenience and economic benefit to the company,” the Union, W. Va.-based group wrote. “MVP seeks to install 45 miles of pipe during an official “stop work” period — more than four times the 11 miles of pipe

MVP spokeswoman Natalie Cox said in an emailed statement that the project’s priorities have always been to construct the pipeline in the “safest manner possible and ensure “the highest levesl of enviromental protections.

“We are pleased that the FERC appreciates MVP’s desire to uphold our environmental responsibilities by allowing the project to stabilize the right-of-way and to take certain measures to minimize unnecessary erosion and sedimentation occurrences as we work with the agencies to resolve the issues related to the August 3, 2018 stop work order,” she wrote.

08/10/18: This story was updated at 9:15 p.m. to include a statement from the Mountain Valley Pipeline and reflect FERC’s decision to approve parts of the project’s stabilization plan.

Court Settlement Filed over W.Va. Mine Pollution

Environmentalists and the Pocahontas Land Corp. have agreed to settle a lawsuit over coal mine drainage into streams in southern West Virginia.

The environmental groups say Pocahontas’ former White Flame mountaintop-removal mine in Mingo County continues to discharge selenium, dissolved solids, sulfates and other pollutants into tributaries of the Tug Fork River.

The proposed consent decree filed Friday in federal court says Pocahontas will test the water and apply for a Clean Water Act permit from the state to address issues.

The Sierra Club says that when the mine was shuttered, Pocahontas’ mining permits were released and the company was no longer held responsible for ongoing pollution from waste-disposal sites.

Pocahontas’ attorney did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

Exit mobile version