In a surprising turn of events, Kentucky Power has requested to maintain its stake in the Mitchell coal plant after a previous state decision mandated relinquishing it by December 2028. Initially, the Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) deemed continued investment in the plant disadvantageous for customers. Kentucky Power now seeks approval to participate in a $148 million wastewater upgrade, initially funded by West Virginia customers following their PSC’s approval. This shift has sparked debates among stakeholders about the plant’s future, balancing economic benefits against environmental impacts and regulatory concerns.
The Economic Argument
Bill Ferhman, President and CEO of Kentucky Power’s parent company, American Electric Power, argued that the Mitchell coal plant remains a crucial asset for servicing Kentucky customers. His stance presents a stark contrast to former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s 2021 position, which urged regulators to reject further investments, advocating for the plant’s closure. Ferhman insists that the plant’s contributions to the state’s energy grid outweigh the costs, emphasizing its reliability and importance in meeting energy demands.
Supporters of maintaining Kentucky Power’s stake point to the potential economic benefits, such as job preservation and local economic stimulation. The proposed $148 million wastewater upgrade would not only ensure the plant’s compliance with environmental regulations but also create employment opportunities. Proponents argue that abandoning the plant could lead to significant economic repercussions, including job losses and increased energy costs for consumers. They believe that maintaining the plant could serve as a bridge during the transition to more sustainable energy sources, ensuring energy stability for the region.
The Environmental and Political Perspective
However, environmental advocates, including Byron Gary, echo Daniel Cameron’s previous stance, questioning the necessity of further investment in a coal plant amid growing concerns about climate change. They argue that the resources allocated to the Mitchell plant could be better spent on renewable energy projects that offer long-term benefits without the accompanying environmental drawbacks. Gary suggests that the plant’s low utilization—operating at less than 30% capacity last year—does not justify continued investment, especially given its standing as the least used among three American Electric Power (AEP) plants in West Virginia.
This issue has also reverberated through Kentucky’s political landscape, influencing the state’s 2023 gubernatorial race. Cameron, despite his initial success in securing the Republican primary against Kelly Craft, faced criticism for allegedly turning his back on the coal industry. Craft, with her strong ties to the sector, argued that Cameron’s stance spelled economic trouble for coal-reliant communities. Ultimately, Cameron lost the general election to Democrat Governor Andy Beshear, underscoring the complexity and divisiveness of the issue among voters.
Future Considerations and Potential Actions
In an unexpected development, Kentucky Power is seeking to retain its ownership in the Mitchell coal plant, reversing a previous state order that required them to give it up by December 2028. Originally, the Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) decided that continuing investment in the plant was unfavorable for customers. Now, Kentucky Power wants to get approval for participating in a $148 million wastewater treatment upgrade, which was initially funded by West Virginia customers after receiving their PSC’s endorsement. This unexpected move has ignited discussions among various stakeholders about the viability and future of the plant. The debate centers on economic advantages versus environmental repercussions and regulatory issues. As Kentucky Power pushes for this upgrade, the discussions are bound to intensify, considering the far-reaching consequences of maintaining the plant’s operation both financially and ecologically.
