CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Half of West Virginia's greenhouse pollution comes from just five large power plants, according to a report by the Environment America Research & Policy Center.
The report lists the largest carbon polluters nationwide and the five West Virginia plants made the top 100.
Jim Kotcon, conservation chair for the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, says it's no surprise that huge, coal-fired generating stations, such as John Amos or Harrison, made the list.
What he finds interesting is that so much of the state's carbon pollution comes from just a handful of sites.
Kotcon maintains the problem will be manageable if those few plants can be cleaned up.
"What it really highlights is how much of America's greenhouse gas pollution could be controlled by a fairly small number of power plants if we were able to get controls on those emissions," he says.
The White House is working on regulations to restrict how much carbon plants can put out. The coal industry and its political allies have attacked the plan as unworkable.
Of the five plants, the utilities want to shift parts of three to subsidiaries that can bill West Virginia ratepayers for improvements. Kotcon says that's no accident – they see carbon controls coming and they want consumers, rather than shareholders, to pay for them.
"It's a really telling situation that the utilities are in such a hurry to move these power plants from the free market into a regulated utility state, such as West Virginia," he says.
Kotcon points out the best hope for cleaner power plants may be through carbon capture and sequestration, technology that was pioneered in West Virginia. Some in both the coal industry and the environmental community have criticized this approach as impractical.
But Kotcon says if the utilities worked to adopt it that would drive the cost down.
"They are fairly expensive, but cost per ton of carbon dioxide controlled, going after a few of these large power plants are by far the most cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions," he stresses.
get more stories like this via email
Southwestern Pennsylvania is a major U.S. hotspot for gas extraction through fracking, but new polling reveals overwhelming public support for tighter industry oversight.
More than four in ten Pennsylvanians told pollsters they'd support an outright ban on fracking.
Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, said the poll was conducted to assess voters' attitudes toward the fracking industry.
Multiple questions were asked about what could be done to minimize or reduce some of the impacts of fracking.
"And what we found was that, across the board, across a variety of different measures," said O'Leary, "more than 90% of all Pennsylvanians supported increased efforts in those regards."
O'Leary points to a recent University of Pittsburgh study that found significant health risks associated with living near fracking sites.
The poll shows 86% of Pennsylvanians are broadly concerned about water, and 82% about air pollution.
Nearly eight in ten say they worry about the effects of pollution on their family's and community's health. And more than four in ten believe fracking has negative effects on air and water quality.
O'Leary said voters in Pennsylvania are still generally supportive of the natural gas industry.
But he said he believes that's the result of what he called "a widespread misunderstanding" that fracking is vital to Pennsylvania's economy.
He contended fracking has led to a net loss of jobs and population in some counties, causing significant economic loss to these regions.
"The other thing that I think a lot of people are not aware of is that in Pennsylvania, in just the last four years, the fracking industry has laid off 40% of its workforce," said O'Leary. "Four out of every 10 workers in fracking have lost their jobs."
He said early industry-funded studies predicted fracking would create around 250,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.
But recent data show it's been fewer than 20,000, or less than one-percent of the state's total workforce.
Disclosure: Ohio River Valley Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A recent study from the Sierra Club found people in Brookfield, Connecticut, could face severe effects from a proposed compressor station expansion.
The pipeline's owners conducted their own health study but the Sierra Club said it was flawed and did not account for several factors. The new study showed people nearby will face higher fine particulate matter emissions and many other noxious gases, like carbon monoxide.
Kerry Swift, a longtime Brookfield resident, said it began with one compressor station back in 2006.
"The next year they put in for two and now they want four," Swift explained. "There's these three huge interstate pipelines that are aging and they're putting more and more compressor stations on them; putting more and more gas through them, which they weren't built for."
A major issue Swift and other residents have with the expansion is the emissions will vent 1,900 feet from Whisconier Middle School. The town's elected officials and residents want the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to deny the project's air permits. Along with Brookfield, the village of Athens, New York recently passed a resolution urging Gov. Kathy Hochul to similarly deny air permits for the expansion.
Another concern about the expansion is Connecticut is supposed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030.
Nick Katkevich, campaign organizing strategist for the Sierra Club, noted an electric compressor station could be better for the environment but said blowdowns would still be a problem.
"Basically what's happening is the company needs to release pressure on the pipeline so they'll do it at the compressor facility and basically just shooting huge amounts of fracked gas into the air," Katkevich explained.
The companies have said it would be too expensive to convert the compressor station to electricity. Katkevich added along with committing to air monitoring in Brookfield, the state's energy department should meet with people in town before approving expansion permits. However, the department has declined the invitation for two years.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
New York State authorized utilities to develop thermal energy network pilot programs to further its decarbonization goals. Thermal energy networks use non-emitting energy sources like geothermal boreholes or waste-heat, to heat and cool buildings. Eleven pilot projects stem from commitments made in the 2022 Utility Thermal Energy Network and Jobs Act.
Allison Considine, senior campaigns and communications manager for New York, Building Decarbonization Coalition, said college campuses with these systems are seeing a striking number of benefits.
"Using a thermal energy network, especially with geothermal is about six times more efficient than using a traditional gas furnace or oil furnace," she explained.
She added that buildings must go electric if New York will reach its decarbonization goals. Though the state's Building Code Council included the All-Electric Buildings Act in its 2025 draft code update, neighborhoods still face challenges in implementing thermal energy networks. Considine said barriers in state law prevent utilities from connecting multiple independently owned buildings to a thermal energy network.
The pilot programs could reach active construction by 2026 or 2027. They'll be online for five years so the respective utility agencies can gather data about their efficacy. But, to ensure the transition to cleaner fuels, Considine said certain laws have to be changed to move New York away from fossil fuel energy systems.
"And there's a provision on the books, we kind of call it New York's pro-gas mandate, which requires utilities to continue delivering gas service if a customer demands it, even if there is a less polluting, more affordable alternative for that customer," she added.
The New York HEAT Act would end this rule and allow the state to move toward a more energy-efficient future. The bill gives the state's Public Service Commission authority to align utility companies with the state's climate laws. It also phases out gas line extension allowances, which reduced the use of gas in the state.
get more stories like this via email