Tell the Public Service Commission to Reject AEP's Plan

1. Submit a letter of comment to the Public Service Commission: online here,or mail to:  
Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary
Public Service Commission of WV
201 Brooks St
Charleston, WV 25301

Be sure to reference Case No. 12-1655 in your comments for them to be included in the Appalachian Power coal plant transfer case. A sample letter is available here.  Comments must be submitted before July 16, 2013.

2. Submit a letter to the editor of your local paper.  Typically these should be 200-300 words. A sample letter to the editor is available on our factsheet and at the bottom of this page

3. Come to the public hearing: July 16th at 9:30am at the Public Service Commission (201 Brooks St., Charleston, WV)

4. Sign our petition and we will deliver it to the Public Service Commission before the hearing in mid-July.

5.  Downoad our factsheet and learn more learn more about Appalachian Power's proposal by browsing information on our website here

Talking Points:

  • The PSC needs to make energy efficiency investment a priority when evaluating these kinds of projects. It’s just common sense that we should try to reduce our energy needs to minimize these sorts of major capacity investments.

  • The PSC needs to put WV first. WV rate payers should not be taking on new rate increases so that an Ohio-based company can shift ownership of its power plants from state to state to increase profits.

  • This coal plant transfer will lock us into getting electricity from and paying off a major investment for the next 20 years. We should have a mix of efficiency, demand response, expanded renewable generation and gas fired plants to provide the kind of flexibility we need to reduce our dependence on coal and gas fuel prices in the future.

  • The PSC should require Appalachian Power to issue a request for proposals to seek out other ways of meeting their capacity shortages, rather than accepting the companies' analysis that purchasing power plants from affiliated companies is the best option for ratepayers.

  • This case offers the PSC a real opportunity to move WV’s power companies away from the financial risks of being overly dependent on a single fuel source.

  • Appalachian Power could be offering far more energy efficiency programs to their customers in West Virginia, like they do in Ohio. Such programs would generate local jobs in  weatherizing homes and businesses, installing more efficient lighting, upgrading HVAC systems, performing industrial energy assessments, and more.

  • The baseline energy efficiency scenario assumed by Appalachian Power is much weaker than what AEP is required to meet in Ohio. The PSC should require greater investment in energy efficiency and demand response from Appalachian Power.

    Sample letter to the editor: 

    Dear Editor:

     The Public Service Commission should reject Appalachian Power's plans to purchase shares of the John Amos and Mitchell coal plants.  We have to ask why Appalachian Power, a subsidiary of AEP, is seeking to purchase old coal plants from another subsidiary of AEP.  If these coal plants are forced to compete in a deregulated electricity market, they will be at a disadvantage because natural gas prices are so low; AEP can make more money by shielding the plants from competition in West Virginia's regulated electricity system, where ratepayers will be stuck paying for them for the next twenty-plus years.  There is no reason for West Virginia ratepayers to bail out Ohio-based AEP.

     Appalachian Power should have issued a request for proposals to see what other options are available for meeting their electricity needs, instead of simply asserting that purchasing power plants from their affiliated company is the best option.  And the company should be more aggressively investing in energy efficiency. It is cheaper to save energy through efficiency than to purchase any form of generation, so energy efficiency investments need to be part of Appalachian Power's solution.