PORTLAND, Ore. - The Northwest Power and Conservation Plan guides many utility-related decisions in the Northwest and is updated every five years. The newest draft of what is known as the Seventh Plan is being called into question for not taking some important expenses into account in its forecast.

A new Northwest Energy Coalition report points out that utility companies co-own power plants in multiple states - and there are nine outside Oregon and Washington burning coal.

Doug Howell, senior representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, said the council that writes the plan considers the plants' operating costs - but not the separate, capital costs of cleaning up their pollution.

"It's not too late, and the real challenge now is for the council to find a meaningful way to incorporate these capital costs," he said. "And one of the things that this study does well is to point out that the council now may need to be taking a more comprehensive view."

Howell said capital costs are huge as the coal plants age and have to meet more stringent federal cleanup requirements - costs most often passed along to customers. The Northwest Energy Coalition report asked that the Seventh Plan be revised while it's still in draft form, to include the other coal plants and their environmental compliance costs.

Howell said the Northwest Power and Conservation Council that writes the plan has an excellent reputation for its forecasting skills and tools.

"They know and they understand the limitations to their model," he said, "but they have yet to come up with how they're going to meaningfully account for all of these big-ticket items that really have everything to do with whether these plants should continue to operate or not."

The Seventh Plan is an energy cost and conservation forecast for Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. Public hearings will be held in each state late this year, before the plan is finalized.

The Northwest Energy Coalition's report is online at nwenergy.org.


get more stories like this via email

Today, the Republican budget package on the nation's energy policy gets a closer look from the House Natural Resources Committee in Congress.

A new poll showed many of the proposed changes are unpopular among voters in Montana and the West. The proposals include reducing royalty rates paid by energy companies to federal and local governments, limiting opportunities for public participation and mandating the sale of oil and gas leases on all available public lands within 18 months.

Lori Weigel, principal at New Bridge Strategies, which conducted the poll said there is a trend in voter preferences about the importance of various public land uses.

"It stands out, really, that providing land to be leased for oil and gas development was significantly lower than every single other attribute that we tested," Weigel reported.

Among Montana respondents, 92% said keeping air and water clean is an important function of public lands. Outdoor recreation and providing wildlife habitat were about equally important, at roughly 86%. Only 34% of Montanans said they think providing land for oil and gas development is important.

Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said many oil and gas proposals coming from lawmakers right now promote a misconception.

"There's this belief that every inch that you walk on public land has this huge, untapped resource of fossil fuel," Kuhlman observed. "That could not be farther from the truth. It is very localized, in certain areas."

One proposal would cancel the $5 per acre nomination fee oil and gas companies pay to help cover the cost of a review process to determine whether land is appropriate for development. Among Montana respondents, eight in opposed canceling the fee, as did seven in 10 Montanans who self-identified as MAGA supporters.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources will consider reversing Biden-era restrictions on oil and gas leasing in states like Nevada on Tuesday.

New polling found most Nevadans are opposed to proposals which could green-light more drilling.

Last year, the U.S. Forest Service announced plans to ban oil and gas development on public land in the Ruby Mountains for up to 20 years. The proposal was reversed by the Trump administration as it aims to prioritize domestic energy.

Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said the poll showed most Nevadans are not in agreement.

"Our habitat and wildlife populations are starting to show that ignoring conservation, sustainability and sound science have a price," Kuhlman explained. "That is why we can no longer prioritize these activities that do not make sense on our public lands, while letting our wildlife and our habitat degrade and assume everything will be there for future generations."

Kuhlman acknowledged Nevada's public lands have been targeted by Trump in the past. As a result, Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., has reintroduced legislation to restrict oil and gas extraction on land around the Ruby Mountains. The poll found more than seven in 10 Nevada voters believe drilling should be limited to areas where there's "high likelihood" of producing oil and gas.

Kuhlman would like to see the Bureau of Land Management's "multiple use doctrine" upheld. The rule requires the agency to balance conservation and extraction on public lands but has been targeted by the White House. Kuhlman argued research indicates Nevada does not have untapped fossil fuel resources.

"If those areas coincide with low wildlife conflicts, our organization, as well as most Nevadans, would say, 'Yes, let's responsibly develop that,'" Kuhlman stressed. "But we should not be putting mandatory lease sales for oil and gas in areas that don't have oil and gas."

David Willms, associate vice president of public lands for the National Wildlife Federation, said as policymakers push to expand energy production, the poll showed voters do not want to reduce bonding rates for energy developers.

"So that industry and not taxpayers are paying for cleanup after development," Willms underscored. "This really is a timely discussion, and the results of this polling couldn't be more timely and applicable."

As Congress prepares to vote this week on a budget bill which would repeal solar energy tax credits, Florida solar advocates warned the move would jeopardize the state's economy.

According to industry data, the tax credits have funded more than $12 billion in clean energy projects and supported 175,000 jobs in Florida.

Caleb Quaid, founder of the Tampa-based environmental consulting firm Regenerative Shift, said his company's landmark solar project relies on the funding.

"This project would not have been possible without these clean energy tax credits," Quaid acknowledged. "They are currently in the process of installing what would be the largest rooftop solar project on a school in Florida history. In addition to providing lower cost of energy for Manatee Schools for the Arts, this project is also paying all of its laborers prevailing wages."

Opponents of the tax credits argue renewable energy should be able to compete without help from the government. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., is facing mounting pressure to defend the solar tax credits because his district hosts many jobs related to clean energy.

Tim McMurray, chief financial officer at the Manatee School for the Arts, argued money saved by solar tax credits is often reinvested into local communities.

"The money saved goes back into the business," McMurray explained. "In our instance, it goes right back to the classrooms. It provides more deeper investments in STEM classes. It provides school counselors and faculty."

Ben Delman, senior director of communications for the advocacy group Solar United Neighbors, said all energy sectors receive some federal backing, so it should not come as a surprise solar energy also needs government support.

"Every source of energy we have is subsidized in some form," Delman pointed out. "What these investments that the tax credits and such, put solar on a level playing field to help families and small businesses save money."

With Florida ranking second nationally in solar installations, advocates said the stakes are high as they urged residents to contact lawmakers ahead of the vote this week.


get more stories like this via email