West Virginia utilities are delaying actions which could help put the brakes on climate change and ease the burden of rising fuel costs on ratepayers, according to a recent Sierra Club report.

The analysis of more than seventy utilities nationwide found most invested in fossil-fuel generation, despite continued pledges and commitments to stop reliance on coal and gas.

Jim Kotcon, conservation chair of the Sierra Club's West Virginia chapter, explained in West Virginia, Monongahela Power, owned by FirstEnergy Corp, received a grade of "F" when it comes to actions the company has taken to reach its stated climate goal of reducing carbon emissions by 30% by 2030.

"This utility is continuing to burn coal, and they just recently received approval for upgrades that will extend the life of these coal-fired power plants until at least 2040," Kotcon pointed out. "That's putting a lot of burden on us ratepayers, because we really need to be out of coal by 2030."

Among the utilities graded in the report, 70% received a failing grade. Only one received an "A." The Edison Electric Institute, which represents electric companies, argued the report does not consider utility transitions holistically, or take into account affordability.

Kotcon added the state's Public Service Commission also is considering a request from Appalachian Power Company for approximately an 12% rate increase because of the increased cost of coal. He added the commission has not expressed an interest to look for alternative sources of power, such as solar, wind or other renewables.

"What makes even less sense is that just economically, West Virginia ratepayers are being asked to pay exorbitant rate increases when renewable-energy sources are cheaper," Kotcon contended.

Studies have shown West Virginia residents are among the most vulnerable when it comes to climate change-related flooding and extreme heat.

The Pacific Northwest Water Year Impacts Assessment, an important resource for managing drought and other climate extremes, was published today. The assessment tracks impacts of weather conditions on different sectors across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The 2024 water year, which starts and ends in the fall, was Washington's fourth warmest in more than 100 years. Higher temperatures and low snowpack contributed to drought in much of the state, according to the new data.

Karin Bumbaco, climatologist and lead author of the assessment, says the research is helpful to understand cumulative impacts of drought on the region.

"Even though our snowpack is doing better now compared with last year, that really has to be seen through the lens of deficits from the previous year and even before," she explained.

Bumbaco added that in the last decade, droughts have been more frequent than usual in Washington. The assessment focuses on impacts of either too much or too little water on seven sectors, including agriculture, drinking water, fisheries and forestry.

Bumbaco said the agricultural sector in Washington reported the highest number of impacts from dry conditions last year.

"That can range from limited water availability, reduced crop yields. There was also quite a few reports about negative consequences for livestock and grazing," she continued.

Bumbaco said heat, fire and smoke forced recreation areas to close, and the drought brought increased insect activity and tree mortality. This is the fifth Water Year Assessment, and Bumbaco added that along with the challenges she has noticed more people working to mitigate impacts of a changing climate.

"There seems to be more climate resilience being built across our region. And people are taking actions to kind of avoid the worst impacts from either really wet conditions or really dry conditions," she said.

For example, she said farmers are changing crops, as well as the timing of irrigation, and monitoring water use and availability more closely. While some areas of the state saw reduced stream flow, increasing salmon mortality, the assessment was not all bad news. Bumbaco said a well-timed August rain supported a record salmon run in North Central Washington.





get more stories like this via email

The feasibility of putting solar panels over the state's network of canals is the topic of a big new research project, co-led by the University of Southern California.

The California Solar Canal Initiative builds on a study from the University of California-Merced, which found solar arrays over the canals could generate clean energy, conserve water, reduce air pollution and save land.

Monica Dean, director of climate and sustainability practice at the University of Southern California-Dornsife, said the research will answer practical questions.

"How would we do it? Which canals make the most sense? How much energy could they actually produce? What would the economic implications of doing this be?" Dean outlined. "We're taking a hypothetical scenario and making it real."

The research phase will last about two years and is expected to provide a roadmap for policymakers, utilities and communities. The original Merced study estimated covering the Golden State's canals with solar panels could generate enough electricity to power about 2 million homes each year.

Covered canals also prevent evaporation and could save enough water to meet the residential needs of up to 2 million people per year and they could lower maintenance costs, since fewer weeds grow in shade.

Dean estimated the arrays could save about 50,000 acres of land.

"Rather than needing to put a solar panel on land that could be used for housing or farming or some other purpose, now you're just repurposing existing infrastructure and making it work a little bit harder," Dean emphasized.

The initiative is cosponsored by the independent advisory firm Solar AquaGrid. It will also include faculty from the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California-Irvine, the University of California-Merced and the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco, plus San Jose State University and the University of Kansas.

Insurance rates are rising quickly in California because of fires and floods linked to climate change and now, two new bills in Sacramento seek to make oil and gas companies pay.

The Affordable Insurance and Climate Recovery Act would create legal pathways for homeowners, insurance companies and the state insurance plan to sue and recover losses from oil and gas companies.

Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director for the nonprofit California Environmental Voters, said the companies misled lawmakers and the public.

"The one group that hasn't paid their fair share in all of this is oil and gas companies," Romero contended. "They knew since the '70s and the '80s that their products were creating runaway climate change. They hid the science, they did nothing about it, and they continued to push an agenda that stymied a lot of efforts to switch over to clean energy."

The Western States Petroleum Association called the bills a way for politicians to capitalize on tragedy. The California Independent Petroleum Association said the real culprits for the fires are arsonists, environmental lawsuits that prevent forest management, and cuts to firefighting budgets.

Romero also supports the Polluters Pay Superfund bill, which would charge fossil fuel companies according to their role in climate change and invest in climate-resilient communities.

"It requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to do a report about the actual costs, both looking backwards and forwards, that climate change has caused to California in terms of our infrastructure, disaster response and things like that," Romero outlined.

Proponents of the bills complained insurance ratepayers and taxpayers are hard hit by climate disasters. The state's FAIR Plan, the insurer of last resort, has assessed insurers and ratepayers $1 billion for Los Angeles wildfire claims so far. Meanwhile, State Farm is likely to get regulators' permission to raise homeowners' insurance rates by 22% after a hearing on April 8.