EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

EPA decision on coal plants could affect W.Va.
by Jim Sconyers 14 Nov '08

14 Nov '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "jim_scon(a)yahoo.com" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:56:36 AM Subject: [ Email Story ] EPA decision on coal plants could affect W.Va. jim_scon(a)yahoo.com sent you this article ----- November 13, 2008 EPA decision on coal plants could affect W.Va. By Ken Ward Jr. Staff writer The Bush administration has offered no valid legal reason to not limit greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants, a federal environmental appeals board ruled Thursday. Read more ----- EPA one step closer to requiring CO2 controls for new power plants.

1 0

Fwd: Fw: "Ruling: Coal Plants Must Limit C02"
by James Kotcon 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

It never rains, but it pours. In addition to the PA-PUC decision earlier today, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board issued this decision today in a case where Sierra Club appealed an air permit for the Deseret coal-fired power plant in Utah, on the grounds that the permit did not include limits on CO2 emissions. While the decision goes against the Club on several counts, it does conclude that EPA MUST include a BACT analysis in air permits for coal-fired power plants. It includes some interesting language that states that, because the Utah Chapter had raised the CO2 issue in its original comments (even before the May 2007 Supreme Court ruling that CO2 was a pollutant subject to regulation by EPA), EPA was obliged to consider CO2 in this permit. We have raised the CO2 issue in our comments on Longview, but I suspect that our settlement agreement precludes us from raising that issue here. However, we also cited the issue in our comments on TrAILCo power line, and we will certainly raise them with any new power plant. Hence, I think this is a pretty big decision with a lot of relevance for us in WV. Limits on CO2 will be inevitable for new power plants, and may be applicable to existing plants not too many years in the future JBK >>> Paula Carrell <Paula.Carrell(a)sierraclub.org> 11/13/2008 7:07 PM >>> ----- Forwarded by Paula Carrell/Sierraclub on 11/13/2008 04:06 PM ----- Christina Yagjian/Sierraclub 11/13/2008 03:49 PM November 13, 2008 Contact: Virginia Cramer, 804-225-9113 x 102 Ruling: Coal Plants Must Limit C02 In a move that signals the start of the our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions. “Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy,” said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. “This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America.” “The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century,” continued Spalding The decision follows a 2007 Supreme Court ruling recognizing carbon dioxide, the principle source of global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act. “Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. “Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric.” The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. “Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover,” said Nilles. To get background information and see how the case unfolded visit www.sierraclub.org/coal/plantlist.asp A copy of the decision can be found here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/PSD%20Permit%20Appeals%20(CAA… (Embedded image moved to file: pic31322.gif) Christina Marie Yagjian National Conservation Organizer Sierra Club, Global Warming and Energy 202.675.7911

1 0

Fwd: [Pa-transmission] PA PUC approves portion of TrAILCo project
by James Kotcon 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

>>> <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> 11/13/2008 1:25 PM >>> In case you haven't seen this--- bad news on the TrAILCo line. The 1.2-mile portion was the important part. Elena K. Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 2nd St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax) ----- Forwarded by Elena Saxonhouse/Sierraclub on 11/13/2008 10:21 AM ----- "Ginny Kreitler" <g.kreitler(a)comcast.net> Sent by: pa-transmission-bounces(a)lists.conserveland.org 11/13/2008 08:28 AM Please respond to PA Transmission Listserv <pa-transmission(a)lists.conserveland.org> To "listserve" <pa-transmission(a)lists.conserveland.org> cc Subject [Pa-transmission] PA PUC approves portion of TrAILCo project The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today approved an agreement that allows a 1.2-mile portion of the 37.2-mile transmission line proposed by the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. (TrAILCo) and stays the remainder of the proceeding for further consideration. More details below. PUC OKs Portion of TrAILCo Transmission Line, Establishes Collaborative Process for Other Issues November 13, 2008 HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today approved an agreement that allows a 1.2-mile portion of the 37.2-mile transmission line proposed by the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. (TrAILCo) and stays the remainder of the proceeding for further consideration. The Commission voted 4-1 to adopt a motion by PUC Chairman James H. Cawley that approves the 1.2-mile Pennsylvania segment of the 502 Substation to Loudoun line. Vice Chairman Tyrone J. Christy dissented. In a separate motion by Chairman Cawley, the Commission voted 3-2 to stay the remainder of the proposal and directed the active parties in the case to establish a collaborative process to discuss and develop possible alternatives regarding the remainder of the line. Vice Chairman Christy and Commissioner Wayne E. Gardner dissented. Audio of the PUC meeting is available here. “In approving the 502 Junction Facilities, it is important to note the seriousness this Commission attaches to regional reliability,” Chairman Cawley said in a statement. “We approved this project despite Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) policies that currently discourage regional cooperation. FERC policies make all PJM customers pay equally for major backbone transmission projects, independent of who actually benefits. More sound policies would rationally allocate most costs to beneficiaries, while allocating a smaller portion to all customers given the long term uncertainty and overall grid-wide reliability benefits of a well interconnected grid.” “As a PUC Commissioner, balancing the interests of the public with that of our utilities is my primary responsibility,” said Vice Chairman Tyrone J. Christy in his dissenting statement. “It is clear that customers in western Pennsylvania will receive little in return for the siting of these lines in their back yards except upward pressure on the price they will pay for generation and transmission. Only the stockholders, generation owners and perhaps customers in eastern PJM will benefit. I can not support a project that imposes all of the costs and none of the benefits on one segment of the public. I would like to make it clear that my comments should not suggest that I am opposed to the construction of new, large, high-voltage electric transmission projects in the Commonwealth. Transmission line siting cases present two fundamental issues to this Commission - whether the need for the line exists; and, whether the proposed route is the best of all alternatives considered. It is painfully apparent from the record that TrAILCo did not come close to meeting its burden of proof in this case on either count.” “There is a great need to improve the infrastructure of this Commonwealth and our country,” said Commissioner Robert F. Powelson in a statement. “This need extends well past improving our roads and bridges, but also to the facilities that transmit our necessary public utility services to us whether they be gas or water mains, telephone cables or electric transmission facilities. As a nation, the United States spends less than 2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product on infrastructure, compared to China, which spends 9 percent and India, which spends 6 percent. As policymakers, we play an important role in reversing this historic failure to invest, and that role starts with approving projects such as these.” Commissioner Kim Pizzingrilli made a statement from the bench. Commissioner Gardner also issued a statement. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission balances the needs of consumers and utilities to ensure safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates; protect the public interest; educate consumers to make independent and informed utility choices; further economic development; and foster new technologies and competitive markets in an environmentally sound manner. For recent news releases, audio of select Commission proceedings or more information about the PUC, visit our Web site at www.puc.state.pa.us. _______________________________________________ Pa-transmission mailing list Pa-transmission(a)lists.conserveland.org http://lists.conserveland.org/mailman/listinfo/pa-transmission To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.conserveland.org/mailman/listinfo/pa-transmission or email info(a)conserveland.org with the subject line UNSUBSCRIBE - TRANSMISSION LISTSERV.

1 0

Fw: [ Email Story ] Obama expected to tighten coal regulations
by Jim Sconyers 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

jim_scon(a)yahoo.com sent you this article ----- November 9, 2008 Obama expected to tighten coal regulations By Ken Ward Jr. Staff writer CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Coal industry watchdogs are looking for Obama to reverse Bush administration rule changes, beef up enforcement, and put the nation's first ever limits on carbon dioxide from power plants. Read more ----- forward it

1 0

Fw: The Obama Agenda
by Jim Sconyers 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

The timing couldn't be more propitious for the "Green New Deal" espoused by Van Jones. The perfect marriage of Keynesian economics ( the answer in depression), renewed infrastructure, good job creation, and energy solutions. No time to be timid. Krugman on "the Obama agenda" below. Question: How do we make it work in WV? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net> To: Undisclosed Recipients <fslider(a)verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:25:10 AM Subject: re: The Obama Agenda The Obama Agenda By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: November 7, 2008 Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you. Skip to next paragraph Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times Paul Krugman But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can. Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform. Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice. About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign. Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won. Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce. This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate. What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable? Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes. But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011. Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda. Now, the Obama administration shouldn’t emulate the Bush administration’s habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help — let’s cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work — let’s do some more!) But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer. And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump. So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs. The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself. More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on November 7, 2008, on page A35 of the New York edition. Past Coverage * ECONOMIC SCENE; Top Priority Is Stabilizing the Patient (November 6, 2008) * A Towering Economic To-Do List for Obama (November 6, 2008) * NEWS ANALYSIS; For Obama, Long-Term Ills and Short-Term Pain (November 6, 2008) * Obama Aides Tamp Down Expectations (November 6, 2008)

1 0

Fw: Al Gore Group Urges Obama To Create US Power Grid | CommonDreams.org
by Jim Sconyers 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Fred Heutte <phred(a)SUNLIGHTDATA.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:45:51 AM Subject: Re: Al Gore Group Urges Obama To Create US Power Grid | CommonDreams.org I have said this before so let me go through the basic points once more. The yearning for a "national grid" is the triumph of slogans over substance from well-meaning people. But in addition, there is a fleet of would-be financiers, construction, utility and power marketing deep thinkers who would love to make crazy money off the difference between physical rights and financial rights for long distance transmission under the guise of a national grid. Let me explain. Electric power transmission is effectively limited by the loss of power from resistive heating. Even at very high voltages -- 500 kilovolts (kv) and up, this means that with rare exceptions feasible transmission paths are about 800 miles or less. The longest transmission lines in the world, such as the two AC and one DC lines forming the Pacific Intertie from the Columbia River to southern California, exist because of special conditions. For example, the Intertie exists to accommodate "seasonal diversity exchange," where surplus spring and summer hydro from the Northwest is sent to California, and the energy is generally returned from surplus gas peaking capacity in the LA basin and other resources from this time in the winter through early spring. Planning for the Intertie was effectively in place in the late 1960s, -40- years ago. The longest Intertie path is just short of 1000 miles. The longest transmission line in the world, Inga-Shaba in Congo, is just slightly longer at 1,050 miles. It was constructed with Eximbank finance guarantees to promote copper and cobalt production in Katanga (and thus undermine the 1970s insurgency there), as a benefit to then-Zaire president Mobutu, who may have personally skimmed tens of millions of dollars from this project alone. The story is more complicated, but suffice it to say it was never economical and with the ongoing civil war in Congo, the line is basically permanently defunct. Very-high-voltage lines longer than about 600 to 800 miles are not feasible because they lose too much power (for AC lines) or synchronization costs too much (DC). For the AC Intertie lines, for example, power losses between the Columbia River and southern California range from 10% to 15%. When the Intertie is fully loaded (which is not very common), therefore, about 1,000 of its 8,000 megawatt capacity is lost due to resistive heating and other conditions. That's the equivalent of dropping two full-size coal, gas or hydro facilities over that distance. The only reason to do the Intertie was the special conditions prevailing with hydro variability between the winter and the summer in the Northwest. It was and is an appropriate exception to the rule for transmission distance (although it opened the Northwest to being clobbered through no fault of its own by California's catastrophic deregulation policy and the 2000-2001 power crisis that followed). It is absurd to think of generating solar power in Arizona or wind power in Montana and shipping it to Boston or Atlanta, which is the implicit promise of all the so-called national grid schemes. If this were tried, at least half the power would be lost over the transmission path. It isn't going to happen. Period. Proponents then quickly change the subject and start talking about advanced transmission technology to overcome resistive heating and other technical issues. They usually refer to superconductivity (and other variants). Certainly this is a way to decrease resistive losses, but the problem is that superconductive transmission line development has been in the labs for 40 years and will be there another couple decades barring a miraculous leap. There are other issues with a "national grid" as well, such as voltage regulation and phase synchronization, but I'll skip the details since I'm not a power engineer to begin with and there are plenty of resources on this around the Internet. Thus, it is no surprise that no new Intertie-length transmission lines have been built in the US since the 1970s, nor will there be in any foreseeable future, much less the backbone for a "national grid." We can't do it and we don't need it, since plenty of renewables exist in -all- regions to serve those regions over much shorter distances. Instead, I want to talk about the real motivation for the "national grid" concept, which is a combination of greed and power. Specifically, the greed comes from Wall Street and business interests who want to create a national system of financial rights for transmission and link the regional grids together -as if- they are a unified physical entity. This ignores the reality of voltage loss and lack of physical transmission paths and costs, of course, and would create yet another electric power casino for hot money to go and yield big quick profits and create grand market distortions, as happened on a smaller geographic scale in California and the west in 2000-2001 and on a lower but chronic level in the existing regional transmission organizations today (NEISO, NYISO, PJM, MISO and CAISO), where physical rights and financial rights at least have some bearing on each other. The current transmission policy at the federal level as promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission claims to produce four results: (1) lower costs; (2) higher reliability; (3) investment in new transmission where needed; and (4) greater accountability and transparency. In reality, the RTOs do none of those. Instead, they permit utilities and marketers to make more money by selling power over longer distances while increasing congestion, raising prices and decreasing reliability, while hiding behind "stakeholder" process games. The answer to these problems is to make the RTOs more complicated. For example, the California ISO MRTU (Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade) will basically add a bunch more features to the California power pool and lots of fancy and complicated software, while putting handcuffs on renewable energy development. Naturally, it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the project is already far over budget and years late. Yet the "primitive" west coast bilateral power market just hums along as it has for 20 years, filling power and transmission needs and keeping prices at a reasonable level. (The bilateral market wasn't intended for planning, however, so that is a big gap that should be filled.) We need real reform of federal electric transmission law. We need national standards for reliability and transmission sales that do not handcuff electric customers to a one-size-fits-all rigged market to benefit generators, transmission operators and speculators. We need to shorten the distance of physical and financial transmission deals, and we need to direct new transmission funding to where the renewable resources are, and keep the new lines away from high- impact lands and habitats. The answer is -not- to move toward a "national grid" which will go the next step toward beyond the ill-begotten "energy corridors" of the 2005 Energy Act in completely suppressing even poorly run state siting authority. The answer is also not to give in to Southern Co. and others who want to use the existing fragmentary and weak state siting process to lock in permanent dependence on coal. What we need is federal transmission policy reform that: (1) creates strong regional planning bodies that unlike RTOs do -not- operate transmission markets; and (2) provide national standards for reliability and environmental protection and renewable development while allowing regional flexibility. Neither a national nor a local focus is appropriate for transmission planning: the regional level, which is the natural and economically defined limit of transmission systems, is the right level. The "national grid" as presently envisioned will strip states of siting authority, proceed with new transmission corridors that override even federal law in some circumstances (already happened in the Energy Act of 2005), assign quasi-governmental authority, including the authority to override state jurisdiction, to private entities, the RTOs (already happened in 2005), rely on "the market" to make decisions about investment in new transmission with no reference to studies of need and environmental value and impacts (a system that has already failed at the regional level), and make short-term power and transmission market pools supreme over other market forms (including well-functioning bilateral markets) as well as avoid the hard work needed for transmission capacity assessment, planning and siting. In the words of my geek friends, the "national grid" poses a potential "epic fail." Unless we define "national grid" very differently than I have seen out there from any number of sources. fh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Regina Hendrix has sent you a message from truthout
by regina1936＠verizon.net 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

1 0

The RAND Corporation reports.............
by duane330＠aol.com 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

RAND study warns of liquid coal problems By Ken?Ward Jr., Staff writer, Charleston Gazette, November 5, 2008 CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Alternative sources of fossil fuels such as coal-to-liquids technologies have "significant economic promise," but also major environmental challenges, according to a recent study by the RAND Corp. Turning coal into liquid fuel could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, and the costs of reducing those emissions might make the process too costly, according to the study by RAND's Environment, Energy and Economic Development Program. "Because the potential environmental impacts are considerable, decision makers need to assess the economic and other benefits of alternative fuels relative to these environmental concerns," said Mike Toman, lead author of the report. The report, issued last month, analyzes coal-to-liquids fuels along with Canadian oil sands technologies, considers possible impacts of fuel costs from carbon dioxide limits and compares the costs of these alternative fuels to projected conventional petroleum prices in 2025. In West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin is pushing for coal-to-liquids plants. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has been running campaign ads to say that the state's coal miners "will free us from foreign oil." But many energy experts are worried that liquid coal creates perhaps twice as much carbon dioxide as traditional gasoline. Liquid coal would produce greenhouse gases when the fuel is made, and then again when it is burned. Producing liquid fuel from oil sands poses similar problems, and - like coal mining - can harm local water quality and cause large-scale disturbances of land. The RAND study found that liquid coal and oil sands "do not, in themselves, offer a path to greatly reduced [carbon dioxide] emissions, though there are additional possibilities for limiting emissions." RAND found that even when carbon dioxide emissions from fuel production are captured and stored, "life-cycle emissions of [carbon dioxide] for these alternative fuels are comparable to those of conventional fuels." "Large-scale production of these unconventional fuels does not reduce emissions of CO2," the RAND study said. RAND said the future cost of liquid coals could "be reasonably competitive" with conventional petroleum, provided that: Oil prices do not fall back to pre-2006 levels; there are further improvements in coal-to-liquids technology as production volumes grow; and carbon dioxide limits do not impose "too large a cost burden on liquid fuels from coal relative to conventional fuels." "Since major investments in coal-to-liquids become more likely if environmentally sound carbon capture and storage can be commercialized at relatively low cost, the future expansion of this fuel source will be strongly influenced by future private sector and government initiatives to support such commercialization," Toman said. "However, even with carbon capture and storage deployed, neither alternative fuel offers a path toward large long-term reductions in total carbon dioxide emissions to limit climate change," Toman added. "There will still be a need to develop lower-carbon fuel options, such as fuel synthesized from a mixture of coal and sustainably grown biomass." RAND is a nonprofit research organization "providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world." Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...(a)wvgazette.com or 348-1702. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2772241.html

1 0

Longview's Acid Rain Permit
by duane330＠aol.com 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

=========================================================== Thursday, November 6, 2008 @ 3:31 PM =========================================================== NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT/PROPOSED ACID RAIN PERMIT Under Phase II of the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR 72 and 45CSR33), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) proposes to approve a Phase II Acid Rain Permit, R33-56671-2013-1, for Unit 001 at Longview Power LLC’s Longview Power facility located near Morgantown, West Virginia. Longview Power is not eligible to receive sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance allocations from the U.S. EPA under 40 CFR part 73, but may acquire allowances from other sources. This unit is still obligated to hold SO2 allowances as required under and in accordance with 40 CFR §72.9(c)(1). One allowance authorizes the unit to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide. The permit does not affect Longview Power’s responsibility to meet all other existing local, state and federal requirements related to SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. The Designated Representative for Longview Power is Mr. Charles Huguenard of Longview Power LLC, 306 Dents Run Road, Morgantown, WV 26501. All written comments submitted by the public and affected state(s) pursuant to this notice must be received by the DAQ within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this notice. Under the Direct proposed procedures of 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(v), if no significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be deemed issued on the publication date of this notice or from the date the USEPA receives this draft/proposed permit, whichever is later. Written comments submitted by the USEPA must be received by the DAQ within forty-five (45) days from such date. If significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be issued in accordance with 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(iv). In the event that the 30th//45th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the comment period will be extended until 5:00 p.m. on the following regularly scheduled business day. Copies of the Draft/Proposed Permit may be downloaded from the DAQ's web site at the following address: http://www.wvdep.org/daq The Draft/Proposed Permit and the Administrative Record, except information protected as confidential, are available for public review at the following location(s) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Contact: Frederick Tipane (304) 926-0499 ext. 1215 OR WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality North Central Regional Office 2031 Pleasant Valley Road, Suite #1 Fairmont, WV 26554-9295 (304) 368-3910 Send comments, and/or requests for a public hearing to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality, at the above Charleston address. Submit all comments in duplicate and identify the permit to which the comments apply. The submission shall include the commenter’s name and address, the commenter’s interest in this matter and the affiliation, if any, the commenter has to the owner or operator of the unit(s) covered by the permit. All relevant, timely comments will be considered except for those pertaining to any standard requirement under 40 CFR §72.9 and issues not related to the permit, such as the environmental effects of acid rain or permit issuance procedures or actions on other permit applications not relevant to the issuance or denial of the permit. Any person who requests a public hearing must state the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. If the DAQ finds that a hearing will contribute to the decision making process by clarifying significant issues affecting the draft/proposed permit, a hearing will be announced.

1 0

Fw: Bottle bill as climate response
by Jim Sconyers 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2008 12:40:37 AM Subject: Bottle bill as climate response I don't normally bother with petitions, but we really need a national bottle bill as part of a climate response. The petition is just a token effort, but it might be something that some of you can pass along. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-a-national-bottle-bill If you want to know a whole lot more about bottle bills, go to http://www.container-recycling.org/ A national bottle bill would be a free way to create 100,000 new jobs, recycle about 1.5 billion containers every year, and save a percent or so of our national energy each year. 14 states have bottle bills and nothing industry has ever said to oppose this legislation is true. - Ned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC