August 2007 - EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

FW: global warming
by Grubb, Karen 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

These came from another list serve I am on, and I found them interesting. Rainforest Action Network's current campaign.: *Update: America's Dirtiest Bank: *We want to hear from you. Which bank do you think is America's dirtiest-- and the most worthy RAN target? * Bank of America <http://ga3.org/campaign/target_bofa/8enwgdk2h85jjkb?>? *Bank of America is elbow deep in coal!* * Responsible for a $175 million loan to the "poster child" of mountaintop removal coal mining: Massey Energy. * Major funder of Peabody Energy, the largest mining company in the world. Peabody was recently implicated in the contamination of Navajo and Hopi water sources in the Black Mesa area that extends through northern Utah and Arizona. Furthermore, Bank of America financing is allowing Peabody to build three new coal-fired power plants in Illinois, Kentucky and New Mexico. * Citi <http://ga3.org/campaign/target_citi/8enwgdk2h85jjkb?>? *Citi is elbow deep in coal!* * Financial backer of the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the nation--American Electric Power (AEP). AEP is heavily involved in the US Coal Rush building 5 new coal plants around the Mid-West and South. AEP will also manage up to 9 coal-fired power plants within 10 miles of Meigs County, Ohio--a community already ravaged with health and environmental impacts of coal. * Funder of destructive strip mining and mountaintop removal from the American Southwest to Appalachia. * Co-owner of Texas-based utility TXU who just got permits to build 3 outdated dirty pulverized coal-fired power plants in north and central Texas. * JPMorgan Chase <http://ga3.org/campaign/target_jpmc/8enwgdk2h85jjkb?>? *JPMorgan Chase is elbow deep in coal!* * Funds Dynegy, which is sponsoring the building of 12 new coal-fired power plants -- the largest coal build-out in the country. * Helped Mid-American Energy secure $350 million in financing for construction of a new coal-fired plant in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Mid-American Energy operates dozens of power plants across the U.S. and England. ________________________________ Ultimately, global warming presents a much greater threat to our planet than the war in Iraq. However, the war will be the first and foremost issue in the minds of the American people as long as our troops are there. The longer that we stay in Iraq, the longer it will take our country to focus on the threats to our global environment. Tom Yager

1 0

1998 remains the warmest year (NY Times)
by Duane330＠aol.com 26 Aug '07

26 Aug '07

Quarter-Degree Fix Fuels Climate Fight By ANDREW C. REVKIN, The New York Times Posted: 2007-08-26 13:51:58 Filed Under: _Science News_ (http://news.aol.com/science) (Aug. 26) - Never underestimate the power of the blogosphere and a quarter of a degree to inflame the fight over _global warming_ (javascript:;) . A quarter-degree Fahrenheit is roughly the downward adjustment _NASA_ (javascript:;) scientists made earlier this month in their annual estimates of the average temperature in the contiguous 48 states since 2000. They corrected the numbers after an error in meshing two sets of temperature data was discovered by Stephen McIntyre, a blogger and retired business executive in Toronto. Smaller adjustments were made to some readings for some preceding years. All of this would most likely have passed unremarkably if Mr. McIntyre had not blogged that the adjustments changed the rankings of warmest years for the contiguous states since 1895, when record-keeping began. Suddenly, 1934 appeared to vault ahead of 1998 as the warmest year on record (by a statistically meaningless 0.036 degrees Fahrenheit). In NASA's most recent data set, 1934 had followed 1998 by a statistically meaningless 0.018 degrees. Conservative bloggers, columnists and radio hosts pounced. "We have proof of man-made global warming," Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA." Mr. McIntyre, who has spent years seeking flaws in studies pointing to human-driven climate change, traded broadsides on the Web with James E. Hansen, the NASA team's leader. Dr. Hansen said he would not "joust with court jesters" and Mr. McIntyre posited that Dr. Hansen might have a "Jor-El complex" -- a reference to _Superman_ (javascript:;) 's father, who foresaw the destruction of his planet and sent his son packing. Blogs are still reverberating, but Mr. McIntyre, Dr. Hansen and others familiar with the initial data revisions are clarifying what is, and is not, at issue. One thing not in question, Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen agree, is the merit of shifting away from energy choices that contribute heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Mr. McIntyre said he feels "climate change is a serious issue." His personal preference is to shift increasingly to nuclear power and away from coal and oil, the main source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen also agree that the NASA data glitch had no effect on the global temperature trend, nudging it by an insignificant thousandth of a degree. Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless. Mr. McIntyre said that when he posted the revised list under the heading "A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open," "I just was sort of having some fun with it as much as anything." He added: "The significance of things has been misstated by Limbaugh and people like that." Dr. Hansen and his team note that they rarely, if ever, discuss individual years, particularly regional findings like those for the United States (the lower 48 are only 2 percent of the planet’s surface). "In general I think that we want to avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual years," he said in an e-mail message. "As far as I remember, we have always discouraged that as being somewhat nonsensical." Jay Lawrimore, a scientist at the National Climatic Data Center of the Commerce Department who works on assembling the climate records that NASA analyzed, said his agency could probably do a better job of emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding its annual temperature announcements. Indeed, there is enough wiggle room in the numbers that the center has a different list of the 10 warmest years than those produced using NASA’s and Mr. McIntyre’s analyses. By the climate center’s reckoning, 1998 remains the warmest year for the 48 states (with 2006 second and 1934 third). Dr. Lawrimore, Dr. Hansen and other experts said that trends are far more important than particular years, and the recent widespread warming trend has been clear — and very distinct from the regional hot spell that drove up United States temperatures in the 1930s. Mr. McIntyre and the government scientists do agree on at least one more thing: the need to improve the quality of climate data gathered around the world, including in the United States, which has by far the planet’s biggest network of meteorological stations. Mr. McIntyre is not alone in pointing out that the need to adjust and revise such data -- with the attendant risk of mistakes -- would be reduced with more care and consistency taken in collecting climate data. The National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly called for improvements in climate monitoring. An independent group of meteorologists and weather buffs is compiling its own gallery of American weather stations at www.surfacestations.org, with photographs showing glaring problems, like thermometers placed next to asphalt runways and parking lots. Dr. Lawrimore said that the government is preparing to build a climate reference network of more sophisticated, and consistent, monitoring stations that should cut uncertainty in gauging future trends. In any case, he said, the evidence for human-driven warming remains robust. "Saying what they're saying has just provided an opportunity for them to create doubt in people's minds," he said of the bloggers. Copyright © 2007 _The New York Times Company_ (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) 2007-08-26 ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

1 0

Pennsylvania Hearings on TrAIL
by Duane330＠aol.com 25 Aug '07

25 Aug '07

To: Duane. RE: Public Hearings on TrAIL power line in Western Pennsylvania.............. Here is the schedule: 1. Washington County fairgrounds – Building B – August 29 & 30, September 19 & 20 – 1:00 and 7:00 pm daily 2. Greensboro VFD – September 5 – 1:00 pm 3. Carmichaels High School – September 5 – 7:00 pm 4. Waynesburg University Alumni Hall – September 6 – 1:00 and 7:00 pm To get on the schedule, you simply sign up when you arrive at the hearings. Rick Layton, Greene County. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. I am planning to testify, either at Greensboro or Carmichaels, on behalf of the MonValley Clean Air Coalition. I will try to get representatives from the WV Sierra Club and from a few other groups to come out as well. Duane Nichols ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

1 0

Virginia's State Corporation Commission holds hearings
by Duane330＠aol.com 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

NORTHERN VIRGINIA. Hearing on Power Line Draws Vocal Crowd Supporters Say Project Is Vital to Success Of Area Economy; Foes Question Its Need By _Sandhya Somashekhar_ (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sandhya+somashekhar/) Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 27, 2007; Page B02 Heated testimony at a hearing yesterday about a proposed 65-mile high-voltage power line through _Northern Virginia_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Northern+Virginia?tid=infor…) provided a hint of the friction associated with the project and the tension ahead as the state begins deciding whether to approve it. Many people waited all afternoon at _Fauquier High School_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fauquier+High+School?tid=in…) in _Warrenton_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Warrenton?tid=informline) for the chance to address a State Corporation Commission hearing examiner, who will play a key role in deciding whether the 500 kilovolt line proposed by Dominion Virginia Power and Allegheny Power should be built. Although organized opposition to the project has been fierce and many speakers condemned it, a parade of business owners and representatives from Northern Virginia chambers of commerce endorsed it, saying the area's economy will depend on a reliable flow of electricity. "The success of the high-tech-driven economy in _Fairfax County_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fairfax+County?tid=informli…) and the rest of Northern Virginia" depends on maintaining the infrastructure, said William D. Lecos, president and chief executive of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, reading from a statement. "Without it, the economy of Northern Virginia cannot thrive." But William Arrington, whose southern _Fauquier County_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fauquier+County?tid=informl…) farm could be sliced by the line, said that if _Fairfax_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fairfax?tid=informline) needs power, that's Fairfax's problem "because that's where the over-development has been allowed to run rampant." The hearing was the first of eight scheduled this summer about the transmission line, which is planned for parts of _Frederick_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Frederick+(Maryland)?tid=in…) , Fauquier, Rappahannock, Culpeper and _Prince William counties_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Prince+William+County?tid=i…) before ending at a substation in _Loudoun County_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Loudoun+County?tid=informli…) . Without it, the region might face rolling blackouts within five years, Dominion officials have said. Since announcing the project last summer, Dominion has encountered well-organized, sometimes emotional opposition from landowners, conservationists and others who say the line would scar the landscape and encourage the construction of polluting coal plants. The company revised the line's route to avoid environmentally and historically significant areas, and the opposition has persisted. Led by the slow-growth _Piedmont Environmental Council_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Piedmont+Environmental+Coun…) , critics have promised to convince the state that the project is not needed for Northern Virginia. The Warrenton-based organization has raised about $1 million to fight the project, organizing rallies and commissioning studies that emphasize alternatives such as conservation. This month, Dominion has stepped up its efforts to convince residents that the line is essential for the health of Northern Virginia's electrical grid and that no alternative will suffice. Dominion commissioned and is heavily promoting an April study by KEMA, a _Massachusetts_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Massachusetts?tid=informline) engineering firm, that shows "there will be significant problems in the system that will require new transmission facilities by 2011." A full-page newspaper ad by Dominion this week said, "Without a new transmission line, Northern Virginians will need to reduce electrical use by 40%." And the company has been reaching out to business owners who support the line, asking them to speak out at hearings that are expected to be dominated by the line's critics. Six more meetings will take place next month -- in Bristow, _Winchester_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Winchester?tid=informline) and _Front Royal_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Front+Royal?tid=informline) . The commission will spend the fall studying the issue and will reconvene in January to hear arguments from attorneys for the different sides. If the commission approves the project, Dominion officials hope to have it built by 2011. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scores press SCC to reject Dominion plan By: Don Del Rosso, 07/31/2007, Fauquier Times-Democrat There seemed to be no end in sight. For two days and more than 10 hours, they attacked Dominion Virginia Power's proposed transmission line through the Piedmont. In speeches long and short, impassioned and measured, opponents from Fauquier, Rappahannock, Culpeper, Loudoun and elsewhere hammered away at familiar themes. The utility has failed to demonstrate a need for the planned 500,000-volt line, they told the State Corporation Commission during a public hearing last Thursday and Friday in the Fauquier High School auditorium. The proposed line would destroy vistas and pristine land under easement, diminish property values, degrade air quality and compromise agricultural operations, tourism and historic sites, critics told SCC Hearing Examiner Alexander F. Skirpan Jr.. Ninety-four of the 106 speakers asked Skirpan to recommend denial of the proposed line. Fifty-eight of the public hearing speakers live in Fauquier. (Skirpan will make a recommendation to the SCC's three-judge panel, which will decide the matter.) Just 12 people, representing Northern Virginia businesses or organizations such as the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, the Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Vienna-Tysons Regional Chamber of Commerce, testified in favor of the proposed line. Dominion insists the line must be in place by 2011, or Northern Virginia faces the prospect of rolling blackouts. Its 1,000-page application to the SCC includes a 70-page analysis by Massachusetts-based KEMA Inc. that argues a transmission line would provide the only practical solution to meet Northern Virginia's immediate and long-term electricity demands. The proposed line would link substations in Frederick and Loudoun counties. It would parallel an existing transmission line but require Dominion and its partner, Allegheny Power, to acquire substantial additional rights of way from private landowners. Besides Frederick and Loudoun, the proposed 65-mile line would cut through parts of Fauquier, Rappahannock, Culpeper and Prince William counties. The alternative route would connect the same substations along Interstate 66, using Virginia Department of Transportation right-of-way. Under either scenario, the line would be suspended from steel towers that, in places, could exceed 150 feet. Dominion's "credibility" should be tested, said Kathleen King, a retired federal government lawyer from Broad Run. She claims the utility has given no specifics about the precise location of the proposed power line. "There are absolutely no straight answers," she told the hearing examiner. "I have no idea how close I am to those (proposed) power towers (along I-66), but I'm close....We can't get information from the applicant to tell us where the power line is going." Like many others, King believes that conservation methods and more efficient technology would eliminate the need for a new line. Her remarks elicited cheers and clapping, which Skirpan quickly squelched with a stern reminder. Before the hearing started Thursday afternoon, he explained to the audience that the hearing would be operated similar to a courtroom proceeding. Speakers, which he called witnesses, would be sworn in and could be subject to questioning by SCC staff and lawyers and attorneys representing various interests. "It's not a situation where we have audience participation," Skirpan said. "I don't want applause, boos or any types of comments from the audience." If necessary, he would evacuate the auditorium and listen to speakers individually. William Arrington of Catlett called the proposal "ill-conceived." Arrington contended that Dominion has yet to demonstrate a need for the line, which he claims would violate the sanctity of conservation easements. He also said the line would produce electromagnetic fields, posing "unacceptable health risks to the general public." If Northern Virginia indeed needs substantially more electricity, then build a power plant there, Arrington suggested. William Stribling of Markham said the I-66 alternative would devastate an area rich with historic and agricultural importance, undermining Fauquier's agribusiness and tourism economies. Harry Atherton, who represents Marshall District on the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, spoke as a private citizen. He pointed out that Fauquier has one of the highest concentrations of conservation easements in the nation, with more than 77,000 acres permanently protected from further development. Moreover, he said it claims 29 sites on the Virginia Landmarks list and National Register of Historic Places, two scenic rivers, 10 Civil War battlefields, 17,000 acres in historic districts, 8,000 acres in state management reserves, 1,800 acres of state park land and 1,000 acres of county park land. "This is not by accident, but the result of many decades of public and private efforts to preserve this historic and beautiful part of [Virginia]" he concluded. "If the end result of these efforts is that the county has become the corridor of least resistance for the transmission line of power to the Mid-Atlantic, this seems both unfair and unnecessary." Fauquier's population stands at "just over 60,000" and thus isn't "a significant contributor to congestion on the Northern Virginia [power] grid," Atherton also noted To the contrary, Fauquier has been part of the solution to the area's energy needs, because it approved two natural gas-fueled generators near Remington that operate during the hottest and coldest days, he claimed. Katherine Kristie of Rappahannock County focused on air quality and health-related issues. The proposed line would transmit electricity generated by some of the nation's "dirtiest" coal-burning plants, Kristie said. "Why?" she asked. Because "it is much cheaper for the power industry to continue to rely on some of the dirtiest plants than to utilize cleaner-generation energy plants located closer to northeast customer demand." Kristie continued: "But when public health costs and environmental impacts are considered, is this truly the cheapest solution?" She and other critics also believe Dominion wants the line chiefly because it would reap huge profits from electricity destined for the Northeast. The KEMA report does not address the line's financial implications for Dominion. KEMA's Jeff Palermo, who helped prepare the transmission line study, said Northern Virginia, a "big-time" importer of electricity, would be the primary beneficiary of the line, not the eastern seaboard. Northern Virginia's business community was represented in force at the hearing. Virginia Chamber of Commerce President Hugh Keogh said the continued robust expansion of the region's economy depends the "predictability and availability" of electricity. Northern Virginia generates high-paying technology jobs that provide spinoff financial benefits for the entire state, Keogh said. A perceived lack of energy in the next decade could threaten future economic development opportunities, he added Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce William D. Lecos called Northern Virginia the state's "economic engine." As its high-tech sector grows, so must critical infrastructure such reliable electricity sources to sustain business, Lecos said. "There's every reason to believe this trend [of economic growth] will continue," he said. Representatives of the National Association of Industrial Office Properties and several businesses spoke in support of the power line. SCC hearings will continue during the next two weeks in Prince William County, Winchester and Front Royal. Dominion Spokeswoman Le-Ha Anderson said the hearing offered no surprises. "We feel that, frankly, it was an example of why the SCC process is fair," giving people a chance "to talk as long as they wanted to" about issues that concern them, Anderson said. "It was nice to hear from independent organizations, businesses and associations" that support the line, she added. Despite widespread objections to the proposal, Anderson said "We still believe the need is great. We're steadfast in the belief the need is real." The hearing turnout and "quality of testimony" impressed Chris Miller, president of Piedmont Environment Council, which plans to spend more than $2 million to fight the project. "Are the hearings meaningful?" Miller said. "Yes. You're getting hundreds of people testifying about the [line's] impacts on their lives. The quality of testimony is very high. There's a lot of information that otherwise would not be on the record." Some people waited up to four hours to testify, he said. "The intestinal fortitude was high," Miller said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Power struggle Area residents denounce line proposal By Drew Houff, The Winchester Star WINCHESTER — The first day of local hearings regarding a proposed 5 50-kilovolt transmission line that may pass through Frederick County seemed at least slightly different from previous hearings in Warrenton and Bristow. For one, none of the 32 speakers at James Wood High School on Monday supported the proposed joint project from Dominion Virginia Power and Allegheny Energy’s Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. subsidiary. The hearings in Warrenton at least had a few contractors and developers who appeared to back the project, which power company officials say is needed to provide for increased electricity needs in Northern Virginia. The general theme from the first day of public testimony at James Wood suggested that neither Allegheny nor Dominion had provided information to support the claim that the new lines are needed. No one from either company testified. That testimony will come in evidentiary hearings beginning on Jan. 14 in Richmond. Alexander F. Skirpan Jr., the hearing examiner for the State Corporation Commission, will listen to all of the testimony at each hearing and then file a recommendation with the commission, which will decide the fate of the proposal, said Andy Farmer, the SCC’s education resources manager. Skirpan reminded people attending Monday’s morning and evening hearings that this was a court of record for the testimony and that audience participation, including clapping in favor of some remarks, would not be viewed favorably. He confirmed that position during the morning hearing when the audience applauded testimony from Wingate Mackay-Smith of White Post. She said she was speaking with mixed emotion, but reminded those in attendance that approval of the proposal was similar to giving the 800-pound gorilla a banana. "There’s no evidence that Virginia has any need for new lines to avoid blackouts in 2011, as the companies claim," Smith said, drawing some enthusiastic cheers. Skirpan quickly responded, reminding everyone that he could close the hearings if they continued to interrupt testimony. He encountered no such problems in the evening session. Clarke County Board of Supervisors Chairman John Staelin, the lone local officeholder to speak on Monday, said his board had opposed the possibility of a high-voltage line through his county a year ago, leading to a unanimous resolution in opposition. "I came here today because I want to make sure you know this is not a ‘Not in my backyard’ issue," he said. "This power line may have moved out of Clarke County’s backyard, but that does not suddenly make it a better idea for either Clarke or the rest of the citizens of the commonwealth." Elizabeth Tate of Star Tannery offered a theme that was echoed by many, noting that Allegheny’s treatment of the landscape had decreased the values of property. She said her family had tried to leave behind the visual clutter in Virginia Beach for the unscarred environment of the northern Shenandoah Valley, but added that the proposal would put a gash in the trees and bring other unsightly problems. Eleanore Boudreaux of Stephens City agreed, noting that she had lost livestock and value to her property because of moves by Allegheny. Ellen Rivers of Frederick County said Virginia has to set a good example, evaluating the effects of the lines before approving them. Barbara Smith of Stephens City said another potential concern for the lines would be their impact on tourism, particularly the effect on sightlines near the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation near Middletown. Stanley M. Hirschberg, president of The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, agreed, noting that tourist dollars may disappear along with the views if 120-foot-tall power lines are installed. The hearings at James Wood will continue today at 9:30 a.m. Additional public hearings are scheduled at the North Warren Volunteer Fire Department near Front Royal on Wednesday and Thursday. Wednesday’s hearings will begin at 1:30 p.m. and reconvene at 7 p.m, and Thursday’s hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

1 0

joint venture PATH line
by Duane330＠aol.com 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

POWER LINE, Washington Post, August 23, 2007. ____________________________________ Joint Venture Created For W.Va.-Md. Project ____________________________________ Two utilities finalized a joint venture yesterday to build a high-voltage transmission line that would carry electricity 290 miles from West Virginia into Western Maryland and end just shy of the _Montgomery County_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Montgomery+County+(Maryland…) line near _Damascus_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Damascus?tid=informline) . [The starting location is to be the John Amos power plant sub-station, near St. Albans, WV...dgn] At 765,000 volts, the $1.8 billion line would have the highest capacity in the country, carrying enough electricity to power an estimated 2.5 million homes. The operator of the electricity grid serving the East Coast, _PJM Interconnection_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/PJM+Interconnection+LLC?tid…) , approved plans for the line in June, saying it would improve the flow of power in the mid-Atlantic region. Yesterday, _American Electric Power_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/American+Electric+Power+Co.…) and Allegheny Energy announced that they have created a joint venture holding company, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline LLC, to build the line. [Can be called the "PATH line"............dgn.] The holding company plans to file with the _Federal Energy Regulatory Commission_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Federal+Energy+Regulatory+C…) this fall to set rates to recover the costs of the project. The company also will begin studying potential routes and assessing environmental impacts over the next year. Once a route is determined, the company will seek approval from state regulators in _Maryland_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Maryland?tid=informline) and _West Virginia_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/West+Virginia?tid=informline) . ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

1 0

Fwd: NEWS: Rule Changes Ease Legal Limits on Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
by Paul Wilson 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

We will have a "take action" webpage on this next week. We should generate as many comments as possible so we can say that the Admin. is ignoring the public (once again!) wishes on this issue. Pls forward the News Release as you wish, best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 22, 2007 Contact: Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (304) 924-5802 Dianne Bady, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (740) 886-5796 Vernon Haltom, Coal River Mountain Watch (304) 854-2182 Jared Saylor, Earthjustice (202) 667-4500 Jim Hecker, Public Justice (202) 797-8600 Ed Hopkins, Sierra Club (202) 675-7908 Bush Administration Proposes Repeal of Stream Protection Rule to Ease Legal Limits on Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Protective "buffer zone" for streams ignored under new OSM plan Washington, D.C. – Continuing a dangerous and irresponsible trend, the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) this week will announce plans to try again to make stream annihilation legal by exempting coal mining wastes from a 1983 regulation. For years, the agency has ignored the law and allowed thousands of miles of headwater and perennial streams in Appalachia to be permanently buried by coal companies under millions of tons of waste generated by mountaintop removal coal mining. Known as the "stream buffer zone rule," this decades-old regulation has prohibited surface coal-mining activities from disturbing areas within 100 feet of streams. A copy of the proposed changes to the buffer zone rule is available at: http://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/draft-environmental-impact-s… "The Bush administration just doesn't give up in its quest to give away more and more legal protections to the mountaintop removal polluters," said Joan Mulhern, Senior Legislative Counsel for Earthjustice. "Despite the federal government's own studies showing widespread, harmful, and irreversible stream loss in the region, the OSM proposes exempting the most harmful mountaintop removal mining activities from the buffer zone rule. Once again, OSM is demonstrating that it is not an effective regulator for the public, but the 'Office for Slicing Mountains' and 'Office of Stream Mangling' for coal companies." The new exemption is the latest chapter in a long-running effort by the Bush administration to allow coal companies to avoid compliance with both the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (administered by OSM) and the Clean Water Act. According to OSM's own figures, 1,208 miles of streams in Appalachia were destroyed from 1992 to 2002, and regulators approved 1,603 more valley fills between 2001 and 2005 that will destroy 535 more miles of streams. Those actions were taken in defiance of the plain language of the existing rule. Under the plan announced this week, OSM proposes to change the rule to conform with its deviant behavior. It would exempt from the stream buffer zone rule those very mountaintop removal activities that are most destructive to streams, including "permanent excess spoil fills, and coal waste disposal facilities" – in other words, giant valley fills and sludge-filled lagoons. "OSM has chosen to turn its back onirreplaceable water resources of the Appalachian region," said Cindy Rank with West Virginia Highlands Conservancy."Headwater streams are the lifeblood of the mountains and those of us privileged enough to livein those mountains.This new interpretation of the buffer zone rule is an unholy reversal of the original intent of the Surface Mine Act,which wasto protect communities and streams, not bury them." The effort to repeal the buffer zone rule dates back to 2004, when OSM proposed repealing the Reagan-era rule to allow coal companies to accelerate mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. In response to protests from coalfield residents and conservation groups, OSM agreed it would do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before changing the longstanding rule. But in its new draft EIS, OSM rejected and failed to analyze all alternatives that would have restricted stream filling. In its own words, "OSM would not anticipate a major shift in on-the-ground consequences from any of the alternatives." Most egregious is that the agency did not even consider the effect of enforcing the stream buffer zone rule as written. "OSM summarily rejected all alternatives that would reduce harm and only considered those that would allow stream burials to continue at the same rate as in the past," said Jim Hecker, Environmental Enforcement Director at Public Justice. "OSM's own report shows that valley fills harm downstream water quality but this proposal does nothing to address it." The agency also assumes all stream loss will be fully mitigated, even though it freely admits that stream mitigation has generally failed. "While proven methods exist for larger stream channel restoration and creation, the state of the art in creating smaller headwater streams onsite has not reached the level of reproducible success," the OSM wrote. "Attempts to reestablish the functions of headwater streams…have achieved little success to date." "The coal companies have yet to show that they can successfully recreate streams after they completely destroy these mountains and bury these waters, yet OSM still gives them this major exemption from the law," said Dianne Bady, with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. "These headwater streams are the sources of our drinking water and our heritage, and this administration is knowingly allowing them to be buried and poisoned." This wholesale exemption for mountaintop removal mining will have significant impact to downstream water quality, permanently filling and destroying important headwaters that feed larger waters that function as drinking water sources and fishing and recreational waters for thousands of Americans. Already, mountaintop removal mining has flattened more than 500,000 acres and permanently buried 2,000 miles of streams. "The OSM essentially wants to destroy our most valuable, life-giving resource to extract a filthy, polluting resource," said Vernon Haltom of Coal River Mountain Watch. "We who live near mountaintop removal sites are having our future sustainability destroyed for someone else's short-term profits." "This proposal amounts to a stamp of approval for the nation's most destructive form of coal mining," said Ed Hopkins, Director of Sierra Club's Environmental Quality program. "Instead of loosening protections for our waters, we should be strengthening our commitment to cleaner, renewable sources of energy that can protect our communities, boost the economy and help fight global warming." -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club Wildlife & Endangered Species Comm. 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fw: Biston Globe editorial
by Allan Tweddle 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

Jeff Regardless of how we are thinking, this editorial is increasingly the way most of the rest of the country is thinking. To remain competitive, and get off the bottom of Forbes' list, we need an aggressive approach to diversify the State's economy, including the energy industry. As I have said so often, and will not let up stating, "We MUST participate, and/or even be seeking leadership roles, in the rapidly growing alternative and renewable energy technologies, including their manufacturing and jobs potential!". I am concerned that yesterday's meeting, while interesting, was not particularly helpful in considering the changes in thinking, as well as the unique future policies and actions needed for the participating in the energy dynamics, not of the past, but of the today and the future. We certainly must avoid a token, pacifying or just tolerant approach. I did not come away from the meeting with any sense of accomplishment. You will recall that Charles Bayless urged you and I to look at the Ontario Power web pages for their innovative and aggressive efforts at energy conservation and efficiency. I did, and it is quite revealing. Global Warming is real. Mandating efforts for efficiency and conservation is appropriate from the power plants on down to the consumer, residential, commercial and industrial. When is the appointment with WV Tech's Charles Bayless and faculty rescheduled, and why was it cancelled? The potential for clean safe jobs in the construction and operation of CSP plants must be investigated...the PEA made that decision several meetings ago, and the investigation is dragging on much too slowly. Progress should be reported at the next PEA Meeting, billed as the "Renewable Energy Public Hearing". We were asked again at the meeting yesterday why we are not investigating this, and no answer was provided. I don't enjoy being embarrassed. The agenda yesterday called for members to speak. We skipped that, and went to the public. It seems to me that we would be better served if we have Q&A after each speaker, and, as I tried to do yesterday, that we have a dialogue with those who speak so that they feel we are listening and value their input. Jeff, I trust that you understand I am submitting these thoughts in an effort to help us all improve these important hearings. Allan http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007…<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007…> Coal miner's nation August 23, 2007 LATE IN HIS presidency, George Bush finally brought himself to lament the nation's addiction to oil. But neither he nor leading Democratic politicians have ever rallied the country to break its addiction to a more lethal form of energy: coal, which supplies half the nation's electricity. This month, an accident in Utah entombed six miners, forever. Three more died trying to rescue them. Four days after the first accident, three coal miners plunged down a shaft to their deaths in an Indiana mine. In China, which has the world's worst coal-mining fatality record, 181 miners are trapped in a flooded mine shaft with little hope of survival. More than 2,000 Chinese coal miners have died in accidents this year. Then there are the respiratory conditions, including asthma, that are made worse by the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and fine particulates emitted in coal's combustion. Coal-burning power plants are also the principal man-made source of the nerve-system poison mercury. Its buildup in many species of fish has caused the Food and Drug Administration to advise women of child-bearing age to limit consumption of that otherwise healthful source of protein. Despite such warnings, women in the United States face a 10 to 15 percent risk of bearing children with mercury levels high enough to slow their mental development. In Appalachia, mining by mountaintop removal is changing the face of the earth. Coal burning is changing the climate of the earth. Of all the fossil fuels, coal emits the most carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. Forty percent of the US total of carbon dioxide comes from coal burning, mostly to produce electricity. Gasifying coal before burning it makes it possible to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions, but the process raises the cost of the electricity produced and has yet to be tested at full scale. In the meantime, utilities in the United States and elsewhere continue to build coal-fired plants without controls on carbon dioxide. Last year alone, China built more than 90 major coal-fired power plants. Legislation passed by the US House that would force utilities to start getting more of their power from renewable sources faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where it is opposed by senators from states without ready access to renewables. The United States cannot wean itself from coal overnight. But as Congress and all Americans chart the nation's energy future, coal's environmental costs, especially its contribution to global warming, have to be factored into the equation. So do those accidents in Utah, Indiana, and China. No other energy solution -- not wind, solar, nuclear, biomass, natural gas, geothermal, and certainly not conservation and efficiency -- takes a toll in lives and environmental destruction that is at all comparable to coal's.

1 0

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING PROPOSED REGULATION ON M.T.R.
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

ATTACHED IS A LINK TO A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/us/23coal.html?ex=1188619200&en=f3f537189…>YESTERDAY DISCUSSING THE PROPOSED MTR RULE FROM OSM, IT IS, IN PLAIN ENGLISH, A BLANK CHECK TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PRACTICE OF MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY BARRIER OF ANY TYPE. THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE IS ATTACHED AS A .TXT FILE AND WAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER TODAY. THERE IS A 60-DAY COMMENT PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 23, 2007. I BELIEVE THE SIERRA CLUB, NATIONALLY, SHOULD BE ON RECORD AGAINST THE PROPOSAL IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE IN IT COURT LATER. BILL -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

(no subject)
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Aug '07

23 Aug '07

THE PHILLIP MERRILL CENTER HAS ADDED MORE GREEN FEATURES The Philip Merrill Center is the headquarters of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and is presently the only office building in the world to be platinum certified by the U.S. Green Building Council's program _Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design _ (http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEED_main.asp) (LEED). (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/exitepa.htm) Some of its outstanding features are an extensive rainwater collection system which is used for non-potable purposes such as dish and floor washing, compostable toilets, waterless urinals, natural ventilation, geothermal heat exchange, structural insulation panels, and solar panels. The center has added a new green feature, a vegetated roof for cooling and reducing storm water runoff impacts. More about the Center: _http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?_ (http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_sub_merrill&JServSessionI…) ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] DOE classifies report that finds no advantage in touted carbon capture technology]
by Regina Hendrix 23 Aug '07

23 Aug '07

FYI. I wanted to be sure you saw this one. Regina

1 0

Re: [EC] TRAIL - NOTICE OF STATUS HEARING ON 9-14-07, EVIDENTIARY HRG 11-28-07 & 12-7-07
by Barbara Fallon 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

How do we get enough money to pay an expert witness by mid-September? I am working with national now re:foundation money, and personal donars. We have some leads, but the time will not be for September. I also know that we can do a targeted audience fund raising campaign, but we won't get close to our targeted amount of money. Thoughts? ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: Esq. William V. DePaulo <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>; EC(a)osenergy.org Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:45:50 PM Subject: Re: [EC] TRAIL - NOTICE OF STATUS HEARING ON 9-14-07, EVIDENTIARY HRG 11-28-07 & 12-7-07 A realistic schedule would be to expect to have expert testimony 4-6 weeks in advance of the evidentiary hearings, with rebuttal testimony due 2-4 weeks before the hearings. So we need to have an expert identified by mid September if that [person is to get a month to prepare and be ready by late November. Sooner would be better. JBK >>> "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> 8/22/2007 11:58 AM >>> I HAVE ATTACHED A NOTICE OF HEARING OF A STATUS CONFERENCE FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2007. ADDITIONALLY, IN THIS NOTICE THE PSC SETS EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS FOR 11-28 AND 12-7. FINALLY, THE PSC NOTES THAT IT WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN A NUMBER OF COUNTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED LINE. THIS EFFECTIVELY SETS THE DEADLINE FOR US TO GET TESTIMONY FROM AN EXPERT. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON OUR POSSIBLE EXPERTS WITH THE 11-28 AND 12-7 DATES IN MIND. OUR TESTIMONY WOULD NEED TO BE ON FILE IN ADVANCE OF THOSE DATES. I WILL ADVISE AS TO THE SPECIFIC DATE IT IS DUE. BILL -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

2 1

TRAIL - NOTICE OF STATUS HEARING ON 9-14-07, EVIDENTIARY HRG 11-28-07 & 12-7-07
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

I HAVE ATTACHED A NOTICE OF HEARING OF A STATUS CONFERENCE FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2007. ADDITIONALLY, IN THIS NOTICE THE PSC SETS EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS FOR 11-28 AND 12-7. FINALLY, THE PSC NOTES THAT IT WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN A NUMBER OF COUNTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED LINE. THIS EFFECTIVELY SETS THE DEADLINE FOR US TO GET TESTIMONY FROM AN EXPERT. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON OUR POSSIBLE EXPERTS WITH THE 11-28 AND 12-7 DATES IN MIND. OUR TESTIMONY WOULD NEED TO BE ON FILE IN ADVANCE OF THOSE DATES. I WILL ADVISE AS TO THE SPECIFIC DATE IT IS DUE. BILL -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

2 1

GLOBAL WARMING STRATEGIES
by Allan Tweddle 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

Vivian Can you give me Mel Tyree's contact info...e-mail & phone. It's long overdue that he and I get together to talk global warming education strategies. I thought that op-ed in today's Gazette was right on, and the one I have been drafting would be a excellent follow on. Allan Allan Tweddle Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum Sir Henry Royce, 1924

1 0

Fwd: Re: FRED Weekly -- understanding legislatures, E-Efficiency & $, Amory Lovins, liquid coal
by James Kotcon 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

Here are three articles from the Club's State Government Programs list serve. They are long, but this is important info on the CTL and TrAILCo battles we are currently fighting. Which of these can we use? JBK >2. Efficiency, decoupling and the next step >3. Energy -- It's the economics, stupid. >4. Liquid Coal > > > >2. Powering Down >Can utilities make money on energy efficiency? >Governing Magazine for August, 2007 >By CHRISTOPHER SWOPE > > Saving electricity has never been a big priority in North Carolina. Power >is cheap and plentiful, as it is across much of the South. These days, >however, rising demand â€” what they call â€œloadâ€ in the electricity business >â€” is catching up with supply. For the first time in two decades, the state >needs a massive new workhorse of a power plant, whatâ€™s known as a baseload >plant. Actually, according to Duke Energy, the stateâ€™s largest utility, >North Carolina needs two of them. > For an investor-owned utility such as Duke, planning a pair of huge power >plants is just another turn in a familiar cycle: grow demand, build supply, >sell more power, generate more profit. Itâ€™s a cycle geared for growing >load, not shrinking it. Itâ€™s a cycle that rewards Duke when consumers use >more power. Itâ€™s a cycle that encourages burning dirty coal, as Duke >proposed with its two plants, since coal is so cheap. And itâ€™s a cycle that >regulators in North Carolina, as in most states, acquiesced to for most of >the past century. > Not anymore. When Dukeâ€™s plan for the two coal plants went before the >North Carolina Utilities Commission early this year, the regulators pushed >back. Go ahead and build one coal plant, commissioners told Duke. As for >the rest of the demand, Duke could make it up through energy efficiency. >That wasnâ€™t all. Duke would have to spend 1 percent of its annual revenues >â€” about $35 million â€” on helping its customers save electricity by buying >energy-efficient appliances and lights and through other measures. For a >state that had taken its energy abundance for granted, this was a >staggering mandate. > What happened next was even more unusual. Duke went back to state >regulators with an entirely new pitch. The problem with energy-saving >programs, Duke said, is that utilities donâ€™t make money on them. In fact, >utilities lose money because they donâ€™t sell as much of their product. Duke >proposed to turn that equation around through a radical new regulatory >approach it calls â€œsave-a-watt.â€ The idea is pretty simple: Let the utility >earn profits by helping customers conserve power, just as it does by >selling them more power. In fact, as Duke proposes it, energy efficiency >might even become one of the companyâ€™s most profitable lines of business. >Duke CEO Jim Rogers says heâ€™ll propose a version of the same idea in >Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina, the other states where Duke >does business. > As North Carolina regulators mull Dukeâ€™s plan this summer, theyâ€™ll have a >lot to consider. Critics accuse Duke of trying to greenwash its way to >windfall profits. But many environmentalists, including some who are still >fighting Dukeâ€™s right to build any coal plants at all, find the premise >behind save-a-watt encouraging. The nation canâ€™t get serious about >conserving energy and fighting global warming, they say, until utilities >see dollar signs in it. Utilities have always run modest efficiency >programs, â€œbut they donâ€™t usually put their heart into them,â€ says Michael >Shore, the Southeast air quality manager for Environmental Defense. â€œIf >efficiency is too successful, it goes against their business model. We need >to develop models so that the utilities can make money through promoting >energy efficiency.â€ > >LIP SERVICE > Whether or not North Carolina regulators accept the save-a-watt approach, >itâ€™s clear that states and utilities alike are fast changing their views >toward energy efficiency. Not since the energy crisis in the 1970s have >states pushed utilities to save electricity with so much zeal. Big new >initiatives are underway in California, Minnesota and New York â€” perennial >leaders when it comes to efficiency. Now, however, states that enjoy cheap >power, including Arkansas, Idaho and North Carolina, are pinching as well. >For all the headlines about the nuisances of coal and the distant hope of >wind, solar and biofuels, what states are coming to see is that the easiest >solution to their problems with energy is simply to use less of it. > â€ If you actively engage in energy efficiency, you can push out the date >when youâ€™ll need new generating resources,â€ says Marsha Smith, a utilities >regulator in Idaho. Smithâ€™s state enjoys the nationâ€™s cheapest power, but >is nevertheless asking utilities to ramp up their efficiency efforts. >â€œWhether youâ€™re a low-cost state or a high-cost state, the further you can >push that out, the better off youâ€™ll be.â€ > Thatâ€™s always been the case, of course. But efficiency is back on the >agenda only because several forces collided at roughly the same time. For >one, high fuel costs are driving up the price of electricity. According to >the Energy Information Administration, average rates across the country >have increased by 19 percent over the past three years. Rate pain is >especially acute in states that deregulated their power markets. When price >caps came off last year, rates in Maryland increased 70 percent and rates >in Delaware increased 60 percent. The flip side of these high power prices >is that investing in efficiency now seems cheap by comparison. > Another factor is the huge and growing expense of building power plants. >In North Carolina, Duke believed as recently as two years ago that it could >build the two coal plants it wanted for $1 billion each. Now, thanks to the >rising cost of building materials, Duke expects the bill for just the one >plant it got approved to come in around $1.8 billion. That cost would >translate directly into higher rates for customers. With eye-popping >figures such as this on the table, states are beginning to see that the >least expensive power plant is the one that never has to be built at all. > Finally, concern over climate change is also fueling the efficiency push. >Across the country, utilities have proposed building 150 coal-burning power >plants. Coal plants are cleaner and more efficient than they used to be, >but coal nevertheless remains a leading source of carbon dioxide. Itâ€™s hard >to see todayâ€™s coal boom as a moment of truth when the plant proposals come >up one by one before the 50 state utility commissions. But a moment of >truth is exactly what this is. If states allow all of these coal plants >now, theyâ€™ll be stuck with them and their greenhouse gases for two >generations. On the other hand, if they can reduce demand for electricity, >they just might prevent many of those coal plants from needing to be built >in the first place. > The good news is that thereâ€™s a lot of low-hanging fruit, as far as >policies for reducing energy demand go. States can adopt efficiency >standards for appliances, electronics and boilers that go beyond the >federal governmentâ€™s minimum standards. They can upgrade their building >codes and provide tax breaks or expedited permitting for green buildings. >They can use tax breaks to help customers make smarter appliance purchases, >trade in clunky old freezers or weatherize their homes. And they can lead >by example, by improving energy performance within government buildings. At >this micro-level, there are literally hundreds of ways to power down, and >many have been shown to work when there is sustained effort put into it. > The problem with demand-side efficiency programs, however, is that states >typically ask the electric companies to run them. Thereâ€™s a certain logic >to that â€” utilities already maintain ties to customers. But utilities also >have a built-in conflict with the job theyâ€™re being asked to do. Quite >simply, theyâ€™re in the business of selling electricity. Economists have a >name for this natural urge to sell more power and make more profit. They >call it the â€œthroughput incentive.â€ Harris B. McDowell III, a state senator >from Delaware, describes it this way. â€œAsk yourself: how hard would General >Motors work to convince people they donâ€™t need a car? How hard does RJ >Reynolds try to get people to stop smoking? Itâ€™s the same problem when >efficiency programs operate under the utility. Theyâ€™ll give lip service, >but they wonâ€™t pour their hearts out.â€ > As McDowell sees it, utilities canâ€™t be entrusted with responsibility for >energy efficiency. Instead, he prefers circumventing them altogether. >McDowellâ€™s efficiency plan, which the Delaware legislature passed in June, >sets up a competing â€œsustainable energy utilityâ€ whose sole task is to help >customers save energy. The utility will subsidize purchases of >energy-efficient appliances, and also aid customers who want to generate >their own energy on site using solar, wind or geothermal technologies. >Delaware will bankroll the new nonprofit with revenues from a $30 million >bond sale. The hope is that after 10 years, the utility can sustain >positive cash flow by taking a cut of the savings customers see on their >energy bills. > Delawareâ€™s sustainable utility is a twist on a similar program that has >been showing positive results in Vermont. McDowell thinks itâ€™s the best way >to break the electric system of its gluttonous habits. â€œThat structure >knows only one thing, and that is to increase supply,â€ McDowell says. â€œItâ€™s >whatâ€™s comfortable. The utilities know exactly how many consultants to hire >to tell you to do that. But building more supply is a self-fulfilling >prophecy. If you build it, theyâ€™ll use it.â€ > >THE GRAPH > There are other ways to neutralize the throughput incentive. And electric >utilities, which seem resigned to a future with some kind of carbon >regulation, are increasingly open to talking about them. The Edison >Electric Institute, the national voice of investor-owned utilities, >recently hired Diane Munns to direct its energy-efficiency operations. >Munns was a utility regulator in Iowa and co-chaired a panel that produced >the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency â€” a solid synopsis of >barriers to efficiency and methods for overcoming them. Asked if any >particular method works better than others, Munns said, â€œIâ€™m not going to >say there is a best way to do it. I think whatever gets you going is good. >We need to get moving on efficiency.â€ She continued, â€œItâ€™s whatever gets it >done for you â€” whatever you can put together that you think can promote >efficiency and keep your shareholders whole.â€ > California thinks it has a method that works. The Golden State is the >established leader in energy efficiency, and has been for some time. The >proof is in what energy experts there simply call â€œthe graph.â€ What â€œthe >graphâ€ (on page 27) shows is electricity use per capita, for both >California and the rest of the United States. The line for the other 49 >states trends steadily upward from the 1950s through today â€” a proxy for >Americansâ€™ ever-growing appetite for electronics and big houses. The >California line, however, goes flat in the late â€™70s, when the state >adopted the nationâ€™s first efficiency standards for appliances and >buildings. California hasnâ€™t eliminated the need for new power plants â€” its >load continues to grow along with the population. But the average >Californian today consumes about the same amount of power as he did a >generation ago. > Whatâ€™s more, California began tackling the throughput incentive in the >early 1980s. The tool it devised was called â€œdecoupling.â€ To understand >what that means, it helps to know how rate regulation works. Typically, >states allow utilities to recover their fixed costs, such as debt on power >plants, and in addition earn a reasonable rate of return. These >calculations are penciled out every so often in rate cases before public >utility commissions. In the meantime, if utilities sell more power than >they anticipated, they earn windfall profits. If demand is lower than >expected, their profits suffer. What decoupling does is sever the link >between a utilityâ€™s sales and its profits. From time to time, regulators >tweak rates in a way that smooths out ups and downs in revenue. The utility >still makes its profit. But it also becomes agnostic on the question of >whether itâ€™s better to sell more electricity or less of it. > Californiaâ€™s decoupling experiment worked so well that a few other states >also began tinkering with it. Then deregulation fever set in, and all the >states pushed decoupling aside for what seemed like a much sexier idea: >competitive power markets. Deregulation, as everyone knows, failed. Shortly >after its blackout crisis of 2001, California went back to decoupling. This >was one way California renewed its vows to energy efficiency. (Another key >policy was called the â€œloading order,â€ which put efficiency above renewable >and fossil fuels in the list of utilitiesâ€™ options for meeting electric >demand.) > Californiaâ€™s second run with decoupling seems to be working. The stateâ€™s >three investor-owned utilities are in the midst of one of the nationâ€™s most >aggressive efficiency campaigns ever. Between 2006 and 2008, theyâ€™re >investing $2 billion toward the goal of helping reduce customer demand for >their product. Peter Darbee, CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric, attributes his >companyâ€™s newfound enthusiasm for efficiency to decoupling. Testifying >before Congress, he said decoupling â€œmeans our financial health doesnâ€™t >depend on selling more energy.â€ Dian Grueneich, a public utility >commissioner in Sacramento, agrees. â€œWe believe strongly that decoupling is >an essential part of doing a good job on energy efficiency,â€ she says. â€œYou >canâ€™t just expect a business to want to do something where they lose >money.â€ > Now other states are looking at decoupling. Idaho just began a three-year >pilot with Idaho Power in June. Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin are >studying decoupling for electric utilities. Eleven states have adopted >decoupling for their natural gas utilities. > Decoupling has its critics, especially among consumer advocates. Because >of how the mechanism works, customers end up paying higher rates when they >use less power â€” and it doesnâ€™t matter whether thatâ€™s because efficiency >programs are working or because of mild weather or a slow economy. >Neutering the utilitiesâ€™ profit motive may make them lazy about controlling >costs. Utilities might also forfeit their traditional role of helping >government promote industry and economic development, a job that utilities >always did in order to grow their load. And Californiaâ€™s Grueneich admits >that all decoupling does is level the playing field for efficiency >programs. It eliminates a disincentive, but it doesnâ€™t make efficiency >financially appealing for utilities, either. > California expects to correct that last problem soon. Later this month, >the state utilities commission is due to introduce a package of financial >incentives for utilities that would allow them to earn profits on >efficiency programs. Other states have tinkered with such incentives, but >Grueneich says the plan California is working on will be characteristically >groundbreaking in its comprehensiveness. â€œDecoupling is a major first >step,â€ Grueneich says. â€œBut the second step is that utilities make an >approximately similar amount of money as they would if they took the same >money and put it on the generation side.â€ > >AN EPIPHANY > If this way of thinking is nothing new in California, itâ€™s almost unheard >of in North Carolina. Some credit for the new mindset goes to Jim Rogers, >the CEO of Duke Energy. Rogers has been an outspoken advocate of a national >cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. He also served as Munnsâ€™ >co-chair on the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. > Rogers recently told the Charlotte Observer that he had an epiphany. It >happened in February, he said, during a dinner with 14 environmentalists. >They told him Duke should support renewables and take a more aggressive >approach on energy efficiency. Rogers says now that heâ€™s following their >advice. Surely, the epiphany was helped along by North Carolinaâ€™s decision >to limit Duke to one coal plant rather than two. Rogers began calling >energy efficiency the â€œfifth fuel,â€ right behind nuclear power, coal, >natural gas and renewables. And he began laying the groundwork for >save-a-watt. â€œWe need a new regulatory compact,â€ he wrote in an op-ed in >March, â€œthat puts investments in energy efficiency on an equal footing with >new generation investments.â€ > On the surface, save-a-watt sounds similar to what California is doing. >But Dukeâ€™s plan actually is quite different. It has nothing to do with >decoupling, for example. Rather, what Duke is proposing is to make >efficiency programs extremely lucrative â€” so much so that the utility wonâ€™t >just want to run them but run them with gusto. Richard Sedano, a director >at the Regulatory Assistance Project, a Vermont think tank, describes it >this way: â€œSave-a-watt attempts to overwhelm the throughput incentive with >financial counter-incentives.â€ > Hereâ€™s what Duke proposed: In exchange for helping its customers save >electricity, Duke wants to charge them for 90 percent of the cost of the >power plant it no longer has to build. Duke says customers would save money >compared with business-as-usual. And Duke would collect only if independent >auditors verify that the load reductions are for real. â€œItâ€™s a fundamental >shift,â€ says Duke spokesman Tom Williams. â€œEfficiency is a business line >for the utility now.â€ > Some of the efficiency programs Duke would invest in are old standbys. >For example, Duke would pay for energy audits of customersâ€™ homes and >businesses, offering energy-saving suggestions, and it would subsidize >purchases of compact fluorescent light bulbs and high-efficiency heating >and cooling systems. Duke also would test new energy-saving technologies, >such as advanced metering, as well as ways of remotely shutting off >customersâ€™ air conditioners, freezers and hot water heaters for brief >periods of time. The idea is to save energy without inconveniencing people. >These steps would reduce demand by 1,700 megawatts by 2012. To sweeten the >deal, Duke would retire 800 megawatts of its oldest, dirtiest coal plants >as the energy savings come online. > Nobody in North Carolina disputes that Dukeâ€™s save-a-watt plan is an >innovative approach. The question now is whether North Carolina regulators >will go along with it. The hang-up may be deciding whether Duke is trying >to make efficiency too profitable. â€œThe incentives are larger than what >youâ€™d normally see,â€ Sedano says. â€œWhat a commission tries to decide about >any cost it asks consumers to pay is, is it worth it?â€ James McLawhorn, >director of the electric division of the North Carolina commissionâ€™s public >advocacy arm echoes the concern. â€œWe recognize there needs to be some >incentive,â€ McLawhorn says. â€œBut how much is enough and how much is too >much?â€ > >More resources on electric utilities and energy efficiency: > >Delaware sustainiable energy utility report >http://www.seu-de.org/docs/final_report_4-21.pdf > >ACEEE energy efficiency policy toolkit >http://www.raponline.org/showpdf.asp?PDF_URL=Pubs/Efficiency%5FPolicy%5FToo… 2Epdf > >ACEEE decoupling http://www.aceee.org/pubs/u061.htm > >Duke's "save a watt" >http://ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/webview/senddoc.pgm?dispfmt=&itype… =TAAAAA72170B&parm3=000126792 > > >3. Amory Lovins: How to Face Today's Greatest Energy Challenges >Read this interesting interview on Alternet at > >http://www.alternet.org/environment/58460 > > >4. Scientific American magazine on Liquid Coal >July 15, 2007 >The full article, "Worse Than Gasoline," can be found at www.sciam.com > >.. . . > The conversion technology is well established (the Germans used it during >World War II), and liquid coal can power conventional diesel cars and >trucks as well as jet engines and ships. Coal industry executives contend >that it can compete against gasoline if oil prices are $50 a barrel or >higher. But liquid coal comes with substantial environmental and economic >negatives. On the environmental side, the polluting properties of >coalâ€”starting with mining and lasting long after burningâ€”and the large >amounts of energy required to liquefy it mean that liquid coal produces >more than twice the global warming emissions as regular gasoline and almost >double those of ordinary diesel. As pundits have pointed out, driving a >Prius on liquid coal makes it as dirty as a Hummer on regular gasoline. > One ton of coal produces only two barrels of fuel. In addition to the >carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates >almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Which is to >say, one ton of coal in, more than two tons of carbon dioxide out. >Congressional and industry proponents of coal-to-liquid plants argue that >the same technologies that may someday capture and store emissions from >coal-fired plants will also be available to coal-to-liquid plants. But even >if the carbon released during production were somehow captured and >sequesteredâ€”a technology that remains unproven at any meaningful scaleâ€”some >studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8 percent more >global warming pollution than regular gasoline. > Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. Lawmakers from coal states are >proposing that U.S. taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction >loans for production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and >guarantee big purchases by the government for the next 25 years. Their >mantra is that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline. But no >operating coal-to-liquid plants exist in the U.S., and researchers at the >Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70 billion to >build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. >Some energy experts worry that the scale of the incentives could lead to a >repeat of the disastrous effort 30 years ago to underwrite a synthetic >fuels industry. > The country would be spending billions in loans, tax incentives and price >guarantees to lock in a technology that produces more greenhouse gases than >gasoline does. This is unacceptable at a time when leading scientists from >all over the world are warning that greenhouse gases must be cut by at >least 60 percent over the next half a century to avert the worst >consequences of global warming. Instead of spending billions to subsidize a >massively polluting industry, we should be investing in efficiency and in >renewable energy technologies that can help us constrain global warming >today. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to: LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CONS-FRED

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] US Senate Majority Leader declares war on U.S. coal-fired power]
by Regina Hendrix 21 Aug '07

21 Aug '07

Wanted to be sure Energy Committee members saw this one. Regina Hendrix

1 0

FW: Zero Waste Policy: Cradle to Cradle Version 8.4
by Grubb, Karen 21 Aug '07

21 Aug '07

This was sent out for Conservation Committees to comment on. Since we have an Energy Committee instead, is anyone interested in reading this and sending comments? Karen Grubb Conservation Chair ________________________________ From: Sierra Club Chapter and RCC Conservation Chairs [mailto:CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Debbie Neustadt Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:11 PM To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [CH] [Fwd: FW: Zero Waste Policy: Cradle to Cradle Version 8.4] Hi: The Zero Waste Committee has completed another round of edits to the draft "Zero Waste Policy: Cradle to Cradle". We would appreciate any comments your committee would like to make. We would like to bring this policy to the Board of Directors at their November meeting so we would appreciate your prompt review of draft policy. Please send any comments to Bill Sheehan at Bill.Sheehan(a)sierraclub.org and to me at Ann.Schneider(a)sierraclub.org. If your committee does not plan to make any comments could you please tell us that so we won't wait for your comments. Our plan is to make changes and then forward to the next approval body as soon as we know all comments have been received. We truly do thank you in advance for getting us your comments as quickly as you are able. Sincerely, Ann Schneider Chair, Zero Waste Committee Ann.Schneider(a)sierraclub.org 650 697-6249 Millbrae, California - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubsribe from the CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

FW: [CH] Political Training
by Grubb, Karen 20 Aug '07

20 Aug '07

________________________________ From: Sierra Club Chapter and RCC Conservation Chairs [mailto:CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Pat Maculloch Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:06 AM To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [CH] Political Training Richard Isaac of the Political Committee asked that this message be posted. The application deadline is August 31. Thanks Steve Baru ________________________________ Subject: Sierra Club Political Committee National Training, Oct. 12-14 Folks, There are still spaces available for this training, which can be really helpful in building your chapter's political program. Please review the material below , and feel free to apply to Peter Goldin (peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org) with the attached application and/or forward it to other Club activists who may be interested. Thanks! Richard Isaac, Training Subcommittee Chair Sierra Club Political Committee (H) 973-716-0297 - - - - - - - - Sierra Club Political Committee National Training What: SCPC is proud to announce the 2007 SCPC National Political Training. This training is an exciting 2-1/2 day event where volunteers from across the country will come to learn important electoral skills, hear from inspirational public figures and guest speakers, network with other SC volunteers -- including SCPC members and meet SC political staff. The training syllabus was developed based on feedback from the SCPC Needs Assessment Survey conducted earlier this year. Topics will include those most requested by survey respondents: Media Tactics, How to Build your Political Committee, Volunteer Recruitment and Retention, Fundraising, Creating a Candidate Support Plan, Compliance Overview and How to Integrate your Political Program with other Conservation Goals. When and Where: October 12-14, 2007 in Silver Spring, Maryland (suburb of Washington, DC). Registration begins at 4:00pm Friday Oct. 12 and the training will end at noon on Sunday Oct. 14. Who: There is limited space available at the facilities. All Chapters are invited and encouraged to send not more than 2 participants. The ideal training candidates are new Chapter Political Chairs, new Group Political Chairs, likely future leaders and/or current activists who are interested in electoral politics/campaigns, and new Chapter/Group Conservation Chairs. [Note: in the event that available slots do not fill up by the application deadline, we will put on a waiting list for possible late acceptance any additional applications from Chapters that have already submitted 2 applications]. How to Apply: If you are interested in attending, please contact your Chapter Chair for approval and complete the attached application. All applications must be submitted by August 31. Please send all applications to political staff member, Peter Goldin at: Sierra Club, 408 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, ATTN: Peter Goldin. You may also fax your application to Peter Goldin's attention at (202) 547-6009 or email to peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org . If your application is accepted by SCPC, you will receive notice acceptance and further logistics information about the event (i.e., directions, instructions for booking hotel, agenda, materials, etc.) Costs: Covered by SCPC: Lodging, some meals (Sat. breakfast, lunch and 2 breaks/snacks and Sun. breakfast and 1 break/snack) and materials. Covered by Chapter (or attendee): All transportation to and from Maryland/DC area and the training venue and some meals (Friday dinner, Saturday dinner). Note: no Sunday lunch provided. Please contact peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org for more information. Peter J. Goldin Political Project Representative Sierra Club 202/547-1141 (main) 202/675-7902 (direct) 202/547-6009 (fax) peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org www.sierraclub.org ________________________________ Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubsribe from the CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

2 1

(no subject)
by Allan Tweddle 20 Aug '07

20 Aug '07

Colleagues A couple of days ago, there was an article reporting how Governor Manchin has "finally" gat the attention of former President Bill Clinton about the need for coal to be the solution to our energy crisis." In today's Gazette, there is a report by Tim Huber of Associated Press with the headline "Support Needed for Coal To Liquid" in section A...(I clipped it...so did not get the page number). It outlines our challenge. Supporters of seeking Federal Government subsidies for funding CTL, because Wall Street won't without the Government guarantees, Congressmen Rahall and Murtha and sadly, Senator Rockefeller. Here's Rockefeller's statement, which is unbelievably wrong...but probably politically correct:. "Coal-clean coal-must be the solution for our energy needs"....It is the only solution to our energy needs. That is what is so ridiculous about all of it. It is what we have got. God gave it to us" There is total disregard for Global warming, and the economic opportunities that reversing it present. We must mount a massive two part public education effort. I have tried to outline the issues below, and bear with me, as I know all of you know the issues and alternatives. First we need to refute, and educate, with independent studies and evidence, Rockefeller's arguments: 1.. There is no clean coal technology yet developed that is commercially viable. 2.. CTL is NOT the only solution to our energy needs...by a long shot. To start with, Energy conservation and efficiency is very low hanging fruit that can dramatically cut our imported oil addiction. 3.. The widespread independent opinions about the horrors of CTL, 4.. The truth that carbon sequestration technology on the scale that will be required is not proven or viable...as the Australians have already concluded 5.. God delivers more energy every single day in sunlight than we would need, or could consume in 20+ years. We need to start with Rockefeller and the rest of the WV Delegation, (well maybe excluding Capito) and educate them that 1.. Solar energy is coming down in cost at such a rate that it will be competitive with coal by 2015. 2.. The Renewable energy industry, whether it be solar, wind or biomass and alternative fuels, but particularly the solar manufacturing industry is growing so rapidly that West Virginia is going to be in worse economic shape if it does not participate NOW 3.. Several States have already embraced the inevitable switch to renewable energy, including Murtha's Pennsylvania. 4.. There needs to be aggressive support for raising the C.A.F.E. Standards...because the battery technology exists to achieve 100 m.p.g. in a plug in Prius, so the technology to get higher gas mileage is here and emerging...so Government support needs to be focused on accelerating and incentivizing its adoption. When can we all get together and develop a strategy, and a program to counter the effort that the CTL crowd are going to make? I urge you all to see this as a major crisis requiring bold and immediate action. There are National organizations in addition to the Sierra Club that may have resources to help us. We need a ground swell of opposition to thwart this CTL crowd. And proposing alternatives will bring a positive focus to our efforts, and show that we are not opposed to jobs and economic development, quite the contrary, there are just as well paying jobs in renewable energy that are safer, (Sago, Utah Miners) , do not pollute or use our precious water and air. We all have a lot on our plates right now, I am sure. I am quite immersed in starting anew manufacturing business, that ironically, will save jet fuel in commercial airlines when brought to fruition. But stopping this CTL effort, and educating the citizens of this State that the ere are alternatives energy policies and technologies that will be better for almost everyone except the Blankenship CEO types and politicians he and his ilk have bought and paid for. I for one am ready, with my available slides and training from the Gore Climate Project, to get on the road and get "our side" of this case out there. But I cannot do it alone.... Let me hear from you all...am I just a ranting old man, (I turned 75 today), or are you with me? Timing is NOW...bring me your commitment so we can together move this effort forward...and it will be the best birthday present that I could ever want... Allan Allan Tweddle Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum Sir Henry Royce, 1924 Allan Allan Tweddle Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum Sir Henry Royce, 1924

6 8

networking and fundraising
by Barbara Fallon 17 Aug '07

17 Aug '07

As promised, I am pursuing funds to support our legal fees and expert witnesses re: PSC intervention. Jim Kotcon and others have been working to find expert witnesses. Both processes are slow going. I have found some money and Jim has found a potential witness. The fee this expert witness has proposed was an eye opener for me. He is talking about $20 - $30,000!!! And along with this he is not sure he can be prepared by October, which is when we might need to have our case ready (although it might be Nov or Dec.) Regardless, time is getting close and it always takes lots of time to get lots of money. I need someone (s) to step forward who is involved with neighborhood groups along the proposed power line who can serve as the Sierra energy liaison. I need this person to represent our interests to the other groups and I need this person to report back to the committee. The over-riding effort at this time is to find "like-minded" groups with whom we can share our expert witness expenses. I know several of you are involved with various groups that are strategizing for intervention. Who among us can bring these groups and our monies together? Barbara ____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting

1 0

Fwd: New Animation - Innovations in Energy
by Paul Wilson 16 Aug '07

16 Aug '07

If you missed this Mark Fiore cartoon on energy it is a good one. enjoy, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Wilson <pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com> Date: Jul 9, 2007 8:56 AM Subject: Fwd: New Animation - Innovations in Energy To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Fiore <mark(a)markfiore.com> Date: Jun 21, 2007 12:49 AM Subject: New Animation - Innovations in Energy To: pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com <http://markfiore.com/email/lt/t_go.php?i=136&e=MjAzNDY=&l=http://www.sfgate…> The new animation "Innovations in Energy"<http://markfiore.com/email/lt/t_go.php?i=136&e=MjAzNDY=&l=http://www.sfgate…>has just been posted! -Mark -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club Wildlife & Endangered Species Comm. 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: FYI - No to nukes L.A. Times July 23, 2007
by Paul Wilson 16 Aug '07

16 Aug '07

somewhat long but good article on Why not to have nuclear power. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Wilson <pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com> Date: Aug 1, 2007 4:11 PM Subject: Fwd: FYI - No to nukes L.A. Times July 23, 2007 To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> No to nukes It's tempting to turn to nuclear plants to combat climate change, but alternatives are safer and cheaper. July 23, 2007 L.A. Times JAPAN SEES NUCLEAR POWER as a solution to global warming, but it's paying a price. Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused dozens of problems at the world's biggest nuclear plant, leading to releases of radioactive elements into the air and ocean and an indefinite shutdown. Government and company officials initially downplayed the incident and stuck to the official line that the country's nuclear plants are earthquake-proof, but they gave way in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Japan has a sordid history of serious nuclear accidents or spills followed by cover-ups. It isn't alone. The U.S. government allows nuclear plants to operate under a level of secrecy usually reserved for the national security apparatus. Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby. A report on the accident from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was hidden from the public, and only came to light because one of the commissioners wrote a memo on it that became part of the public record. The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. No U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978 (that order was later canceled), and until recently it seemed none ever would. But rising natural gas prices and worries about global warming have put the nuclear industry back on track. Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don't release greenhouse gases. They make a weak case. The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process — far too slow to make a difference on global warming. That's just as well, because nuclear power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks. Glowing pains Modern nuclear plants are much safer than the Soviet-era monstrosity at Chernobyl. But accidents can and frequently do happen. The Union of Concerned Scientists cites 51 cases at 41 U.S. nuclear plants in which reactors have been shut down for more than a year as evidence of serious and widespread safety problems. Nuclear plants are also considered attractive terrorist targets, though that risk too has been reduced. Provisions in the 2005 energy bill required threat assessments at nuclear plants and background checks on workers. What hasn't improved much is the risk of spills or even meltdowns in the event of natural disasters such as earthquakes, making it mystifying why anyone would consider building reactors in seismically unstable places like Japan (or California, which has two, one at San Onofre and the other in Morro Bay). Weapons proliferation is an even more serious concern. The uranium used in nuclear reactors isn't concentrated enough for anything but a dirty bomb, but the same labs that enrich uranium for nuclear fuel can be used to create weapons-grade uranium. Thus any country, such as Iran, that pursues uranium enrichment for nuclear power might also be building a bomb factory. It would be more than a little hypocritical for the U.S. to expand its own nuclear power capacity while forbidding countries it doesn't like from doing the same. The risks increase when spent fuel is recycled. Five countries reprocess their spent nuclear fuel, and the Bush administration is pushing strongly to do the same in the U.S. Reprocessing involves separating plutonium from other materials to create new fuel. Plutonium is an excellent bomb material, and it's much easier to steal than enriched uranium. Spent fuel is so radioactive that it would burn a prospective thief to death, while plutonium could be carried out of a processing center in one's pocket. In Japan, 200 kilograms of plutonium from a waste recycling plant have gone missing; in Britain, 30 kilograms can't be accounted for. These have been officially dismissed as clerical errors, but the nuclear industry has never been noted for its truthfulness or transparency. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki contained six kilograms. Technology might be able to solve the recycling problem, but the question of what to do with the waste defies answers. Even the recycling process leaves behind highly radioactive waste that has to be disposed of. This isn't a temporary issue: Nuclear waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years. The only way to get rid of it is to put it in containers and bury it deep underground — and pray that geological shifts or excavations by future generations that have forgotten where it's buried don't unleash it on the surface. No country in the world has yet built a permanent underground waste repository, though Finland has come the closest. In the U.S., Congress has been struggling for decades to build a dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada but has been unable to overcome fierce local opposition. One can hardly blame the Nevadans. Not many people would want 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste buried in their neighborhood or transported through it on the way to the dump. The result is that nuclear waste is stored on-site at the power plants, increasing the risk of leaks and the danger to plant workers. Eventually, we'll run out of space for it. Goin' fission? Given the drawbacks, it's surprising that anybody would seriously consider a nuclear renaissance. But interest is surging; the NRC expects applications for up to 28 new reactors in the next two years. Even California, which has a 31-year-old ban on construction of nuclear plants, is looking into it. Last month, the state Energy Commission held a hearing on nuclear power, and a group of Fresno businessmen plans a ballot measure to assess voter interest in rescinding the state's ban. Behind all this is a perception that nuclear power is needed to help fight climate change. But there's little chance that nuclear plants could be built quickly enough to make much difference. The existing 104 nuclear plants in the U.S., which supply roughly 20% of the nation's electricity, are old and nearing the end of their useful lives. Just to replace them would require building a new reactor every four or five months for the next 40 years. To significantly increase the nation's nuclear capacity would require far more. The average nuclear plant is estimated to cost about $4 billion. Because of the risks involved, there is scarce interest among investors in putting up the needed capital. Nor have tax incentives and subsidies been enough to lure them. In part, that's because the regulatory process for new plants is glacially slow. The newest nuclear plant in the U.S. opened in 1996, after having been ordered in 1970 — a 26-year gap. Though a carbon tax or carbon trading might someday make the economics of nuclear power more attractive, and the NRC has taken steps to speed its assessments, community opposition remains high, and it could still take more than a decade to get a plant built. Meanwhile, a 2006 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the world would need to build a new plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. Even if that were feasible, it would overwhelm the handful of companies that make specialized parts for nuclear plants, sending costs through the roof. The accelerating threat of global warming requires innovation and may demand risk-taking, but there are better options than nuclear power. A combination of energy-efficiency measures, renewable power like wind and solar, and decentralized power generators are already producing more energy worldwide than nuclear power plants. Their use is expanding more quickly, and the decentralized approach they represent is more attractive on several levels. One fast-growing technology allows commercial buildings or complexes, such as schools, hospitals, hotels or offices, to generate their own electricity and hot water with micro-turbines fueled by natural gas or even biofuel, much more efficiently than utilities can do it and with far lower emissions. The potential for wind power alone is nearly limitless and, according to a May report by research firm Standard & Poor's, it's cheaper to produce than nuclear power. Further, the amount of electricity that could be generated simply by making existing non-nuclear power plants more efficient is staggering. On average, coal plants operate at 30% efficiency worldwide, but newer plants operate at 46%. If the world average could be raised to 42%, it would save the same amount of carbon as building 800 nuclear plants. Nevertheless, the U.S. government spends more on nuclear power than it does on renewables and efficiency. Taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry amounted to $9 billion 2006, according to Doug Koplow, a researcher based in Cambridge, Mass., whose Earth Track consultancy monitors energy spending. Renewable power sources, including hydropower but not ethanol, got $6 billion, and $2 billion went toward conservation. That's out of whack. Some countries — notably France, which gets nearly 80% of its power from nuclear plants and has never had a major accident — have made nuclear energy work, but at a high cost. The state-owned French power monopoly is severely indebted, and although France recycles its waste, it is no closer than the U.S. to approving a permanent repository. Tax dollars are better spent on windmills than on cooling towers. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club Wildlife & Endangered Species Comm. 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

FW: Chapter excomm August 11 Lewsiburg meeting agenda & Directions
by Beth Little 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

-----Original Message----- From: Allan Tweddle [mailto:allantweddle@msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:42 AM To: Lar; gregg_wvwc.edu; AbbyC; LouiseF; Navneet; BethL; LynnY; MaryW; daves_labyrinth.net; pjhunt_xemaps.com; joecarney50_hotmail.com; AutumnB; mjanes_hardynet.com; imaginemew_aol.com; shalom.tazewell_citynet.net; HelenM; KellyB; Candice; DougP; duaneN; AllanC; zapple; Stratf; EdK; CoreyB; AdrienneS; NateP; CarolG; DaleF; TomS; FredS; Makana; Liz; matt.keller; GaryR; LarryG; GilW; TwilaM; MatthewS; Frank; CarolynI; LGibson; JudyB; DaveMilam; MikeP; Paul Wilson Subject: Re: Chapter excomm August 11 Lewsiburg meeting agenda & Directions CONFIDENTIAL TO EC EXCOM MEMBERS. Paul I apologize, but I cannot attend the ExCom Meeting. I had planned to, but have construction going on at my home that requires me to be here Saturday. Please bear with me, this memo is long and involved, but I think quite critical to action that should be considered at the ExComm. I would like to suggest that the agenda should address the stated intention of the Public Energy Authority to begin to conduct public hearings, as required by SB 177 passed this last Session, leading to the development of a Comprehensive Energy Policy and Plan, (CEPP), or as the administration is now calling it, an "Energy Opportunities" document. That should be accessed at http://www.wvdo.org/community/eep.html The plan is required by SB177 to be delivered by December 1 to the Legislature. Attached is the context of a memo from Jeff Herholdt inviting Ed Snyder to speak at the September meeting, the new Chairman of the PEA and Director of the New Department of Energy. Note that I have highlighted the date for the August meeting which will address energy efficiency. I would hope that the SC can present the case for a much more broad approach to energy efficiency and renewable energy than I believe the Manchin administration is fostering. I am trying to influence the direction as I work with the administration behind the scenes, and then as I sit publicly on the PEA. But as you all well know, our thoughts about energy efficiency and renewable energy don't start and end with the "C" word! I suggest that we need to submit ideas and a comprehensive plan for : 1. tax incentives for solar installations to consumer, commercial and industrial buildings, * 2. expansion of net metering, * 3. across the board commitment to minimum standard Energy Star and 4. L.E.E.D Certification in all buildings built with tax payers dollars as a start to energy efficient building codes, 5. Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards *...like New Mexico's Governor Richardson has proposed 6. Significantly improved C.A.F.E. Standards for all vehicles 7. Requirements for hybrid vehicles in the State Fleet.* 8. A commitment to use bio diesel in all school buses, and eventually in all State owned diesel vehicles.* In every recommendation, we should take the posture, and support it with any documentation that other States/Provinces have developed, like PA, IL, ON that these ideas will in fact increase the job opportunities, will encourage business expansion and formulation, and will increase tax revenue to the State. I have asterisked the ideas that there is very serious and high level opposition to. These are my thoughts for your consideration. I have been quite vociferous and have forced my way into a leadership role in the sub committee that wrote the first draft of the CEPP. We have never had feedback from the Governor, however, I can now see where the feedback is being channeled towards the new leadership. Please consider the above. I am on the PEA because of the requirement for one member that has demonstrated a role of environmental advocacy. I can tell you that I am however not alone. Joe Freeland of New Martinsville WV is also quite environmentally oriented. Because of him, we voted yesterday to seek the transfer of two permits to modify two flood control dams on the Ohio River and install hydro generators. So look at these ideas and possibilities. I will be here in Kanawha City struggling with contractors on the renovations to my house, but can be reached by cell phone at (303) 610-2656. Have a good meeting. Allan Allan Tweddle Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum Sir Henry Royce, 1924 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Herholdt Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:06 AM To: Ed Snyder Cc: Kelly Bragg; Allan Tweddle; Bill Willis; Clarissa Mathews; Kelly Bragg Subject: Public Hearings The meeting is September 27th, not the 29th as earlier identified. Thanks Cal. If the link below does not work, you can use http://www.wvdo.org/community/eep.html to access the Energy Opportunities document. . We are having issues with migrating our web page and email addresses to a Division of Energy site. We are required to conduct Public Hearings on our energy plan. We term this the Energy Opportunities document. It can be found at: www.energywv.org The public hearings will be conducted at meetings of the Public Energy Authority. We are holding our renewable meeting on September 27 here in Charleston. I would like you to join us to provide a brief (5 to 10 minute) presentation on our past and future use of Shepherd University to provide solar technology information to the public. You would be joined on the agenda by Pat Mann (wind), Joe McNeel (wood to fuels), and Cal Kent (energy data base). A hydro speaker is also a possibility. This meeting will be preceded by an energy efficiency hearing on August 23 and followed by a fossil energy hearing on October 25. We appreciate your help. Please feel free to call with questions. Jeff Herholdt, Acting Director West Virginia Division of Energy (304) 558-2234 (304) 558-0362 Fax jherholdt(a)energywv.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Wilson To: Lar ; gregg_wvwc.edu ; AbbyC ; AllanT ; LouiseF ; Navneet ; BethL ; LynnY ; MaryW ; daves_labyrinth.net ; pjhunt_xemaps.com ; joecarney50_hotmail.com ; AutumnB ; mjanes_hardynet.com ; imaginemew_aol.com ; shalom.tazewell_citynet.net ; HelenM ; KellyB ; Candice ; DougP ; duaneN ; AllanC ; zapple ; Stratf ; EdK ; CoreyB ; AdrienneS ; NateP ; CarolG ; DaleF ; TomS ; FredS ; Makana ; Liz ; matt.keller ; GaryR ; LarryG ; GilW ; TwilaM ; MatthewS ; Frank ; CarolynI ; LGibson ; JudyB ; DaveMilam ; MikeP Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: RE: Chapter excomm August 11 Lewsiburg meeting agenda & Directions You are cordially invited to attend the 3rd Chapter Executive Committee meeting of 2007! Directions to Bill Depaulo's office in Lewisburg, WV: Accommodations are available for Friday & Saturday nights at Bill's. Bill will have drinks ready at 6:45 pm and dinner at 7:30 pm Friday. Directions: exit I-64 at exit # 169. Go 1 ¼ mile south to intersection of Rt. 60 and Rt. 219. Turn Right on to Washington St and go 1 block to Court St. Turn Right on to Court and go to the Masonic Bldg at 122 Court St (across from Theatre). Bill's flat is on the second floor. Agenda, August 11, 2007 Chapter Executive Committee meeting 1. Call to Order and Modifications/Approval of Agenda: 10:00am 2. Review, modify and approve Minutes of May 5, 2007 Excomm meeting 3. Treasurer Report, Fundraising, Fundraising Training A. Treasurer's Report/2006 Budget (Mary D.) B. Proposals and projects applying for Chapter funding C. Fundraising; March appeal (Paul), Cheat Canyon (?) others? 4. Staff reports 5. Litigation: CWA Enforcement Intervention 6. Chapter Energy Committee (Karen G.) 7. Conservation: West Virginia Issues A. Wilderness Campaign (Dave S., Beth L.) B. ApTrail Powerline intervention (Bill D.) C. WV E-Council Energy campaign D. Cheat Canyon (Paul) E. Blair Mountain (Regina) F. Coal-Liquids Conf. in Beckley G. Cranberry Wilderness Bear Sanctuary (Paul) H. Stover Cemetary issue (Regina) J. Slatyfork Sharps Family Farm sewage issue (Tom S.) 8. National Club Issues (Paul) A. Resolution on Coal for CCL (Regina) B. National Coal Campaign (Paul) 9. Outings (Nate) 10. Groups A. Mon (Autumn) B. SSC (Joe) C. Charleston Section (Regina) 11. Newsletter (Sally W.), Newsletter deadline is Aug. 12th 12. Chapter Website (Paul) 13. Calendar A. next Excom meeting Oct. in Morgantown B. Set Excom conf. calls for August and September 14. Announcements 15. Adjourn (approx. 5-6 pm) Paul Wilson Sierra Club WV Chapter Chair 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 h:304-725-4360/cell:304-279-6975 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get all the Hottest Artists on Your Cell Phone - Plus 10 Bonus Tones Today! Find Your New Ringtone at Lycos Mobile. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.13/947 - Release Date: 8/11/2007 2:29 PM

1 0

CLEANBRIER- NEWS - Meeting Date (change) WEDS AUG 15th 6 PM .....
by Beth Little 06 Aug '07

06 Aug '07

So the Cleanbrier Meeting will be Weds Aug 15th at Bill Turners Sue Rossshirts Home, 203 Church St Lewisburg We will buy Pizzas for all that will be coming , Bring a beverage Thanks Please email Mark at markb(a)mountain.net before then! Please let us know if U will be there so we know how many to order THANKS No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/933 - Release Date: 8/2/2007 2:22 PM

1 0

Make Your Voice Heard!
by Karen Grubb 04 Aug '07

04 Aug '07

I just took action on improving fuel economy standards that I consider very important. I urge you to take action yourself and spread the word! To take action on this issue, click on the link below: https://secure2.convio.net/sierra/site/Advocacy?s_oo=Z3Gig2aVi1u-ilwjg1dWVw… If the text above does not appear as a link or it wraps across multiple lines, then copy and paste it into the address area of your browser.

1 0

TRAIL PETITION TO INTERVENE
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 01 Aug '07

01 Aug '07

ALL BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR THREE WEEKS, AND WANTED TO BE SURE I HADN'T MISSED A FILING, I EARLIER TODAY CALLED PHIL MELICK, THE LEAD ATTY AT JACKSON KELLY IN THE TRAIL CASE AT THE PSC, TO ASK IF THEY EITHER HAD FILED, OR INTENDED TO FILE, AN OPPOSITION TO THE SIERRA CLUB'S PETITION TO INTERVENE. PHIL CALLED BACK A MOMENT AGO TO SAY THAT THEY DID NOT PLAN TO OPPOSE THE SIERRA CLUB'S INTERVENTION, BASED IN LARGE PART ON THEIR RESPECT FOR THE CLUB AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY'VE OPPOSED VIRTUALLY ALL PETITIONS, INCLUDING (I THINK) THE PETITION TO INTERVENE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, I GUESS I AM SURPRISED. IN ANY EVENT, IT'S A PLUS. SEE YOU ON AUG 11 BILL -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC August 2007