- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Pipeline Foes See Options in Court Ruling
by frank young via EC 28 Aug '17

28 Aug '17

Pipeline Foes See Options in Court Ruling <http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2017-08-28/energy-policy/pipeline-foes-see -options-in-court-ruling/a59195-1> Share this page <http://www.publicnewsservice.org/print.php?key=59195-1> August 28, 2017 - Dan Heyman, Public News Service (WV) <http://www.publicnewsservice.org/mp3.php?f=rss-59195-1.mp3> Play Audio in Browser Window <http://www.newsservice.org/getimage.php?p=c2dpZD01OTE5NSZzaWQ9MQ==> Energy companies have proposed building a large number of pipelines to carry Marcellus and Utica natural gas. (Pixabay) Energy companies have proposed building a large number of pipelines to carry Marcellus and Utica natural gas. (Pixabay) CHARLESTON, <http://www.publicnewsservice.org/articlepx.gif?key=59195-1> W.Va. - In light of a new court ruling <http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3960330-DC-Circuit-Pipeline-Ruling.h tml> , opponents want to force regulators to look at the climate impact of the gas from two huge proposed pipelines. Last week the Washington, D.C. District Court ruled in favor of the Sierra Club that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have considered the greenhouse emissions from gas carried by a pipeline from Alabama to Florida. Kirk Bowers, pipelines program coordinator for the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club <http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2017/08/court-rules-ferc-faile d-adequately-review-environmental-impacts-sabal-trail> , says his group will push for that decision to be applied to the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines. He says burning gas from those pipelines would mean more carbon than all Virginia power plants now emit - nearly 100 million tons a year. "And that's almost double what we have now," he points out. "And that means that we're blowing our carbon budget at a time when we can't afford to use more fossil fuels and emit more greenhouse gasses." The companies behind the pipelines did include those carbon emissions in their applications. But Bowers calls their estimates "incomplete, inaccurate and low." Energy companies have plans for about a dozen new pipelines to carry Marcellus and Utica gas. They argue the projects are justified by future demand, although others dispute that. Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast are two of the three pipelines that would go from northern West Virginia to eastern Virginia and North Carolina. The Sierra Club has pushed for FERC to consider cumulative impacts and overall need - arguing the commission was created to prevent duplicate projects. But Bowers says FERC insists on looking at each pipeline separately. "FERC said they weren't in the business of determining whether they should have three pipelines or not," he states. "And we've got all these reasons why we don't need more pipelines, and FERC said they're taking a blind-eye approach." Bowers says FERC also will grant permission for pipelines to go ahead, even before the application process and court challenges are finished. He says in fact, the Alabama pipeline was finished and operating before last week's court ruling came down. --- You can change your settings to receive more or less content, or unsubscribe at any time by logging-in <http://publicnewsservice.org/login.php> from the Public News Service website. To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org and put the word "remove" in the subject line.

1 0

Sierra Club v. FERC Docket: 16-1329 Opinion Date: August 22, 2017 DC CIR Judge: Thomas Beall Griffith
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. via EC 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

Sierra Club challenged FERC decision approving the construction and operation of three new interstate natural-gas pipelines in the southeastern United States. Determining that it has jurisdiction to entertain Sierra Club's claims, the DC Circuit held that the FERC's environmental impact statement did not contain enough information on the greenhouse-gas emissions that will result from burning the gas that the pipelines will carry. However, the Commission acted properly in all other respects. Accordingly, the court granted Sierra Club's petition for review and remanded for preparation of a conforming environmental impact statement. William V. DePaulo, Esq. 122 N Court Street, Suite 300 Lewisburg, WV 24901 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 866-850-1501 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com

1 0

Request for proposals for lobby team coordinator. [1 Attachment]
by frank young via EC 08 Aug '17

08 Aug '17

Hi all, See attached and below. Please forward this to your contacts. West Virginia Environmental Council P.O. Box 1007, Charleston WV 25324 <http://www.wvecouncil.org> www.wvecouncil.org phone: 304-414-0143 August 7th, 2017 Request for Proposals for A Lobby Team Coordinator for the 2017 Interim sessions beginning no later than October of 2017 AND for the regular session beginning in January 2018. Lobby Team Coordinator: The WV Environmental Council (WVEC) is seeking proposals for a Lobby Team Coordinator to perform legislative lobbying during the 2017 Interim Legislative Sessions, beginning in October, 2017 and the regular session that runs from early January 2018 through mid-March 2018. It is anticipated that this would be a full-time position. The Lobby Team coordinator is expected to assist with assembling a lobby team, lobbying, and liaison as requested by the WVEC Government / Legislative Affairs Committee and the WVEC Board of Directors. Please include in your proposal the number of hours per day, week, or month to which you are willing to commit during the regular Session and the monthly 3-day interim sessions. Political savvy and capacity for relating to and influencing a wide variety of people are a plus. Dedication to environmental causes and policies that protect residents of WV from degradation of our water, land and air are essential. The ability to remain firm in your convictions in the face of opposition is a key skill Victories are few and far between , but they are that much more savored when attained. Proposals should include: personal background information, relevant experience, and monetary expectations- subject to negotiation of duties and time commitments. The Lobby Team Coordinator is expected to write articles for our GREEN Weekly newsletter regarding what's happening at the session. Lobbyists are also expected to meet as requested with the WVEC Governmental / Legislative Affairs Committee. Please include a writing sample in your proposal. The Lobby Team Coordinator is also expected to work in a team environment and communicate regularly with Member Groups regarding how activists from the Member Groups can be involved in lobbying efforts Experience in budget planning and fundraising a plus In your proposal, please address the following questions: 1- How would you propose to facilitate the use of WVEC member groups and other supporters in assisting our lobbying efforts? 2- How would you propose to collaborate with other lobbying groups, such as teachers, social workers, organized labor, children's issue advocates, health issue advocates, etc. into a coalition, as appropriate, to further enable WVEC to reach its environmental policy goals? 3. An analysis of the current WV Legislature and the political landscape in WV;. Such analysis should include a report of the current legislative leadership, any potential champions for environmental legislation, and what will likely be the themes and issues put forth by members of the House and State Senate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- All Proposals are due not later than August 25th, 2017, and should be sent both electronically and by hard copy. Please e-mail your proposal to WVEC Secretary, Karen Yarnell, at: karen.yarnell(a)fairmontstate.edu . A hard copy of your proposal, postmarked no later than August 25th, 2017 should be mailed to: WV Environmental Council P.O. Box 1007 Charleston WV 25324 You should hear back from the hiring team, no later than September 8th. Direct any questions to: WVEC Governmental Affairs / Legislative Committee Chair Bill Price by telephone to (304) 389-8822. No proposals will receive preferential treatment because of any applicant’s prior position(s) on the WVEC Lobby Team. Bill Price, Senior Organizing Representative Sierra Club 922 Quarrier Street, Room 206 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone 304-389-8822 (cell) Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org "If there's no struggle, there's no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet renounce controversy are people who want crops without plowing the ground..." Frederick Douglass 1817-1895 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WVEC Board - Business" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wvec-board+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to wvec-board(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wvec-board. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. __._,_.___ <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WVHCBOARD/attachments/725645050;_ylc=X3…> View attachments on the web _____ Posted by: "frank young" <fyoung(a)mountain.net> _____ <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WVHCBOARD/conversations/messages/30501;…> Reply via web post • <mailto:fyoung@mountain.net?subject=Re%3A%20Request%20for%20proposals%20for%20lobby%20team%20coordinator%2E> Reply to sender • <mailto:WVHCBOARD@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Request%20for%20proposals%20for%20lobby%20team%20coordinator%2E> Reply to group • <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WVHCBOARD/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X…> Start a New Topic • <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WVHCBOARD/conversations/topics/30501;_y…> Messages in this topic (1) _____ <https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON> <https://yho.com/1wwmgg> Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. _____ Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WVHCBOARD/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJkN2ZkNmQyBF9…> Visit Your Group <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJjbDM2anZtBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA…> Yahoo! Groups • <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy • <mailto:WVHCBOARD-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe • <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of Use . <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=108108/grpspId=1705064177/msgId=…> <http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227…> __,_._,___

1 0

Long Promised, the Global Market for Natural Gas - "Part of what persuades nations to invest in infrastructure to import and burn gas is a belief its price will stay low. There are no signs supply growth is slowing."
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. via EC 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

WALL ST JOURNAL - JUNE 6, 2017 <https://www.wsj.com/news/types/business> Long Promised, the Global Market for Natural Gas Has Finally Arrived Liquefied gas, new infrastructure and revamped contracts have changed the calculus for consumers, countries and companies By Russell Gold and Alison Sider June 6, 2017 11:03 a.m. ET 38 COMMENTS <https://www.wsj.com/articles/long-promised-the-global-market-for-natural-ga…> One day in March, the Rioja Knutsen tanker, filled with liquefied natural gas, was traveling from the U.S. to Portugal. Suddenly, Mexico’s power company lobbed in a higher bid for its cargo. At the Bahamas, the ship abruptly made a starboard turn and headed south. How natural gas is bought and sold in the world’s scattered regional markets for the fuel is changing rapidly. Ships such as the Rioja Knutsen are stitching those regions together and a single global market is emerging. This is already how nearly every other hydrocarbon, from crude oil to obscure petrochemicals, is sold. As gas joins the club, the effects will ripple through energy prices, company profits, the environment and geopolitics. Behind the evolution is improving technology for moving gas as a liquid, which means it can go to many more places rather than simply where a pipeline runs. In addition, a glut of gas has producers working to develop new consumers all over the world. The result is growing flexibility in once-rigid gas contracts and a convergence in prices long dictated by local factors such as weather. Going Global The seaborne trade in liquefied natural gas has grown significantly in recent years. LNG import volumes in millions of metric tons, by country: [image: Source: IHS Markit] Source: IHS Markit The share of gas moving by sea reached 40% of total trades in 2015, and the International Energy Agency forecasts that seaborne gas will account for a bigger share of trading than pipelines by 2040. Thirty-nine countries now import LNG, up from 17 a decade ago, according to data and analytics firm IHS Markit. Several more, among them Uruguay, Bahrain and Bangladesh, are expected to lift the total to 46 in the next couple of years. In one sign of how gas is going global, the U.S. and China are working on a trade deal that could send vast quantities of gas pumped in Texas and Pennsylvania to factories in Shanghai and Guangdong. Improved access for U.S. exporters to China’s giant energy markets could boost overall global shipments. The changes are contributing to rapidly narrowing price differences from place to place. In 2012, Asia spot prices for LNG were $5.74 per million British thermal units higher than natural-gas prices in Europe, according to S&P Global Platts. This year so far, the difference has averaged less than $1, something analysts expect to continue. Worries by U.S. political leaders that gas exports would drive domestic prices significantly higher haven’t been borne out, at least so far, as Energy Department studies show only marginal effects. The U.S. appears to be exporting its low gas prices rather than importing higher ones from the rest of the world. As LNG import terminals open in more locations, gas pricing and trading mechanisms are developing as well. Some investors are increasingly using the gas price at a pipeline intersection in Louisiana, called the Henry Hub, as a global benchmark. Trading in the New York Mercantile Exchange’s Henry Hub gas futures contract is becoming more global, said Peter Keavey, global head of energy at Nymex owner CME Group <http://quotes.wsj.com/CME> . In May, Standard & Poor’s and the Intercontinental Exchange launched the first futures contract based on LNG produced in the U.S. Seaborne gas is reducing some countries’ historic dependence on pipelines that run through potentially unfriendly territory. Poland, for instance, opened its first import terminal a year ago, lessening its reliance on gas piped from Russia. When global trade in LNG began in the 1960s, the cost of liquefying gas was so high it was a niche product, affordable only by developed countries such as Japan. As the technology proved reliable, trade in LNG became more common, but contracts to deliver the fuel by ship were decadeslong and had ironclad destination clauses. Gas contracted for Tokyo couldn’t be rerouted to Seoul. Traders called gas tankers “pipelines at sea.” Now, contracts are getting shorter and starting to allow gas to be diverted to where demand is greatest. Earlier this year, three large LNG buyers in Japan, China and South Korea agreed to work together to push sellers for more contract flexibility and fewer onerous restrictions. At any given time, there are about 170 tankers filled with LNG on the world’s oceans, up from 150 a year ago, according to a tracker firm called ClipperData. Before long, traders will be able to “make a very quick phone call to get that gas to whatever market is in distress at that particular time,” said Charif Souki, chairman and founder of Tellurian <http://quotes.wsj.com/TELL> Inc., which is seeking to export gas from the U.S. Gulf Coast. At the heart of the changes is supply. Huge new discoveries in the U.S., Middle East, East Africa and Australia, along with recovery techniques such as fracking, have expanded the amount of gas available for export. Companies and countries are moving to develop new markets to where they can sell it all. One pioneer is Houston-based Cheniere Energy Inc. Founded and led for years by Mr. Souki, Cheniere initially developed terminals to import gas along the U.S. Gulf Coast. When U.S. gas production soared in recent years, the company converted its facilities into export terminals. It has spent more than $19 billion on plants at Sabine Pass, La., and Corpus Christi, Texas, that cool gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it turns into liquid and can move by tanker. The U.S. continues to import some gas via pipeline from Canada. By next year, Sabine Pass and other LNG terminals are expected to turn the U.S. into a net gas exporter. In a quest for customers, Cheniere has invested in a Chilean project to build a power plant, LNG terminal, storage facility and pipeline. The company is willing to put in “early-stage capital, modest amounts of equity...to grow the LNG market,” said Anatol Feygin, chief commercial officer. Oil titans Total <http://quotes.wsj.com/TOT> SA and Royal Dutch Shell <http://quotes.wsj.com/RDS.B> PLC also are offering to build facilities to burn gas. The two and their partners are building an import terminal and pipeline for an estimated $200 million in Ivory Coast, which will feed a power plant in the West African country’s economic hub of Abidjan. Part of what persuades nations to invest in infrastructure to import and burn gas is a belief its price will stay low. There are no signs supply growth is slowing. Qatar, the longtime LNG leader, recently lifted a self-imposed moratorium on the development of its North Field, the single largest gas reservoir in the world. The volume of LNG expected to be delivered this year, 294.1 million metric tons, is up 22% in three years. It is likely to rise 21% more by 2020, according to IHS data and forecasts. “We are going into a period of oversupply, and prices will face downward pressure for some time,” said Gautam Sudhakar, an LNG analyst with IHS Markit. LNG faces competition even at low prices, because in some places it is cheaper to keep burning coal than to build gas facilities. In India, one of the world’s largest consumers of coal, it is renewables such as solar power, rather than natural gas, that may be mounting the strongest challenge. In nuclear power, Japan recently restarted some idled plants and China is building several new ones. “LNG is going to have to fight for its place in the global energy mix,” said Keo Lukefahr, general manager of natural gas for the Americas arm of PetroChina International. “It has a narrow window to establish itself as a cost-competitive clean energy resource if it is going to realize its potential in the world’s energy supply.” To take advantage of the window, producers are looking for new ways to finance gas-burning projects. Virginia-based AES <http://quotes.wsj.com/AES> Corp. is building a $1 billion project, including an import dock and gas-burning power plant, near the mouth of the Panama Canal, the recent widening of which has enhanced trading <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-lng-for-china-arrives-via-panama-canal-147…> by letting larger tankers pass. The project is aided by a $150 million loan from the World Bank’s International Finance Corp. It became involved both to provide Panama with needed power and because the plant will displace electricity from dirtier fuels such as diesel. Helping make gas more accessible is a relatively new technology—floating LNG facilities. Offshore plants can be built in about half the three years it takes to put up a land-based LNG import terminal. Their mobile nature also is an advantage in certain markets where an importer doesn’t have spotless credit. If it can’t pay, the terminal can weigh anchor and relocate. The first floating terminal was christened in 2005. Today there are 25, according to the International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers, a trade association. Excelerate Energy, a Houston company that developed this technology, is working on new floating terminals in Namibia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and elsewhere. The equipment to liquefy gas can also now be put on a large vessel that can be anchored offshore. One sea creature owes its life to this new, interconnected gas market. When the Rioja Knutsen tanker abandoned its Portugal destination to take advantage of an opportunity in Mexico, the Algerian energy company Sonatrach stepped into the breach, sending a tanker of LNG to Portugal. That tanker, the Cheikh El Mokrani, returned to Algeria to fill up with a new cargo on April 9. As it idled off the coast, its crew spotted a small whale trapped in a fishing net. A sailor jumped in to untangle it. A video posted online showed the whale swimming free as the rest of the crew cheered. —Christopher M. Matthews contributed to this article. *Corrections & Amplifications * In May, the Intercontinental Exchange launched the first futures contract reflecting LNG produced in the U.S., based on S&P Global Platts Gulf Coast price assessments. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Standard & Poor’s and the Intercontinental Exchange launched the contract. (June 6) *Write to *Russell Gold at russell.gold(a)wsj.com and Alison Sider at alison.sider(a)wsj.com William V. DePaulo, Esq. 122 N Court Street, Suite 300 Lewisburg, WV 24901 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 866-850-1501 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com

1 0

Clarksburg Exponent Telegram editorial on Pleasants transfer
by James Kotcon via EC 28 May '17

28 May '17

Attached is a copy of the editorial calling for careful review and more competition of First Energy's proposed transfer of the Pleasants power plant to Mon Power and Potomac Edison. When even a very conservative paper such as the ET starts questioning this deal, we need to seize the opportunity. I also attach our fact sheet on this issue. This would be a great opportunity to contact the editor of your local paper and ask them to consider running something like this. We need to generate more media coverage of the issue, and highlight the risks of investing in yet another coal-fired power plant. Is that something you would consider doing? Alternatively, we could draft an op/ed to submit. I would be happy to circulate a first draft if you would be willing to co-sign. Let me know if this is something you would like to do, or if you have any other ideas we can use. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

1 0

AEP offers utility customers $10, 000 rebate to buy electric car
by James Kotcon via EC 26 May '17

26 May '17

Wonder if they would do that in WV? What a great way to spur off-peak electricity consumption! JBK http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170525/aep-customers-offered-10000-rebate-if… [http://www.dispatch.com/storyimage/OH/20170525/NEWS/170528998/AR/0/AR-17052…]<http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170525/aep-customers-offered-10000-rebate-if…> AEP customers offered $10,000 rebate if they buy Nissan Leaf<http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170525/aep-customers-offered-10000-rebate-if…> www.dispatch.com American Electric Power customers can get a $10,000 rebate on the all-electric Nissan Leaf under a new incentive from the automaker.The vehicle has a base

1 0

(no subject)
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. via EC 29 Apr '17

29 Apr '17

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-colorado-wells-20170428-story…

1 0

Fw: more first eneryg problems
by James Kotcon via EC 24 Apr '17

24 Apr '17

This news story suggests that court verdicts expected in Pennsylvania Tuesday could lead to a bankruptcy filing by First Energy. Should we be following this? I tend to agree that FE's closure of the Hatfields Ferry plant, and perhaps others, was an effort to blame EPA's mercury rules for the closure, when it was, in reality, poor management decisions. The mercury rules would not have required closure before 2015, so why were those plants closed in 2012. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: johnbird(a)frontier.com <johnbird(a)frontier.com> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:02 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: more first eneryg problems Jim, article on first energy http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies/2017/04/24/FirstE… John

2 1

Fw: Judge slams FERC's climate review
by James Kotcon via EC 19 Apr '17

19 Apr '17

Very important case, as this will set precedents here for the MVP and ACP. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: stop-pipelines-wvva(a)googlegroups.com <stop-pipelines-wvva(a)googlegroups.com> on behalf of Lorne Stockman <lorne(a)priceofoil.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:33 AM To: Stop The Pipelines WVVA Subject: Judge slams FERC's climate review Judge slams FERC's climate review Ellen M. Gilmer<https://www.eenews.net/staff/Ellen_M_Gilmer>, E&E News reporter Published: Tuesday, April 18, 2017[Pipelines] Judges have questioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s climate analysis approach for pipelines. Photo by Bilfinger SE, courtesy of Flickr. A panel of judges grilled the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today on its approach to studying climate impacts from natural gas pipelines. The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit centered on a project in the Southeast, but Judge Judith Rogers spent much of today's oral arguments airing broader concerns about FERC's typical treatment of downstream greenhouse gas emissions. "FERC just doesn't have to do its duty because it thinks someone else will," she said, responding to the agency's argument that many downstream impacts fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups filed the lawsuit last year, challenging FERC's decision to issue certificates for the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, which includes the Florida Southeast, Hillabee Expansion and Sabal Trail projects. The groups say FERC violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately consider downstream climate impacts and the effects on environmental justice for communities along the project's route. Sierra Club attorney Elly Benson argued today that FERC had tools available to conduct the downstream greenhouse gas analysis — and was prodded by U.S. EPA to use them — but ultimately opted for a less-detailed approach. "There's no reason to not engage in reasonable forecasting," she told the panel, which included Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith, both George W. Bush appointees. FERC attorney Ross Fulton pushed back, noting that the agency conducted a more general downstream analysis that concluded the project would not significantly contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas impacts because power plants receiving natural gas from the pipelines were switching from coal, which emits more carbon dioxide. "And the commission found that it could rely upon the plants being subject to federal and state air permitting processes for pertinent emissions and mitigation requirements and that these permitting bodies are best positioned to receive relevant air quality information," FERC told the court in a brief earlier this year. Moreover, he said, the agency determined that the linkage between the pipelines and the power plants was not direct enough to merit closer FERC review, as the commission has no control over how the natural gas is used. Brown seemed receptive to that argument, but Rogers jumped on it, noting that contracts with end-users have already been signed. "When would FERC ever have enough information and enough certainty" to look more closely at downstream greenhouse gas emissions, she asked. She also rejected the notion that the case was analogous to other D.C. Circuit decisions that held FERC had no obligation to conduct in-depth downstream analyses because other agencies held the keys to final approval. In last year's EarthReports Inc. v. FERC, for example, the D.C. Circuit ruled that FERC was not required to consider indirect effects of increased liquefied natural gas exports from a FERC-licensed facility because the Department of Energy alone has authority to increase exports. In today's case, Rogers said, FERC has final authority over the Southeast projects. Griffith also appeared skeptical of FERC's position, asking Fulton and counsel for industry intervenors why they were so resistant to the idea of attempting to quantify downstream emissions. "It wouldn't have been hard to do, right, with all that information available?" he asked Fulton. Fulton responded that "it would not have been hard to do, but it would have been hard to do in a meaningfully informative way," because it is difficult to estimate how much of the project's natural gas would be used to replace coal in power plants. The environmental groups are asking the court to vacate the certificates and remand to FERC. Twitter: @ellengilmer<https://twitter.com/ellengilmer> Email: egilmer(a)eenews.net<mailto:egilmer@eenews.net> Lorne Stockman Senior Research Analyst Oil Change International 714 G Street SE, Suite 202 Washington, DC 20003 P: 1 540 679 1097 W: priceofoil.org<http://www.priceofoil.org/> FB: /priceofoil<http://www.facebook.com/priceofoil> T: @priceofoil<https://twitter.com/priceofoil> -- @LorneStockman<https://twitter.com/LorneStockman> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stop The Pipelines WVVA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stop-pipelines-wvva+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:stop-pipelines-wvva+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to stop-pipelines-wvva(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:stop-pipelines-wvva@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/stop-pipelines-wvva/CAJjkHJD61UMx4a6s%2Ba…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/stop-pipelines-wvva/CAJjkHJD61UMx4a6s%2Ba…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

Fw: [MVCAC] EPA Should Not Be Allowed to Dodge Clean Power Plan Ruling, Cities and States Tell Court | InsideClimate News
by James Kotcon via EC 09 Apr '17

09 Apr '17

Very important story on the on-going appeal of the Clean Power Plan. Click the link to read the Environmental Intervenors" brief. Thank you Duane for posting this. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: MVCAC <mvcac-bounces(a)osenergy.org> on behalf of Duane via MVCAC <mvcac(a)osenergy.org> Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 12:11 AM To: MVCAC(a)osenergy.org Subject: [MVCAC] EPA Should Not Be Allowed to Dodge Clean Power Plan Ruling, Cities and States Tell Court | InsideClimate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06042017/epa-clean-power-plan-donald-tru… [http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/DonaldTrump7GettyImages.jpg]<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06042017/epa-clean-power-plan-donald-tru…> EPA should not be allowed to dodge clean power plan ruling, cities and states tell court<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06042017/epa-clean-power-plan-donald-tru…> insideclimatenews.org Coalition of states, cities and green groups urges D.C. Court of Appeals to reject Trump administration request to stall decision on cornerstone climate regulations. EPA Should Not Be Allowed to Dodge Clean Power Plan Ruling, Cities and States Tell Court Coalition of states, cities and green groups urges D.C. Court of Appeals to reject Trump administration request to stall decision on cornerstone climate regulations. By John Cushman, Inside Climate News, April 6, 2017 The Trump Administration is seeking to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's climate policies. A coalition of states, cities and environmental groups filed twin briefs on Wednesday accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of trying to "perpetually dodge" court decisions that could keep alive the Clean Power Plan<https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/clean-power-plan>, which the Trump Administration wants to dismantle. They urged the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the administration's new petition to put the Clean Power Plan<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032017/clean-power-plan-climate-change…>, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's climate policies, into an indefinite state of limbo, while the EPA<https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/epa> sends the rule back to the drawing board. The appeals court heard oral arguments in the case months ago and should be ready to rule at any time. A quick ruling could, within a year, put the regulations on the docket of the Supreme Court, which issued a stay in 2016. The tussle over how to proceed now that President Donald Trump<https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/donald-trump> has ordered the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/trump-executive-order-climate-c…> suggests that those who favor the rule are more eager for an appeals court verdict than those who oppose it. A prolonged delay would "concretely harm" people living in their states, the brief said<https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2017.04.05_states_opp_to_ab…>—"many of whom have sought for more than a decade to compel EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants." The brief even made a veiled threat that if the courts ultimately rule that states have no recourse under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2, they might fall back on a tactic that worked for them in the past: suing polluters under common law for the "nuisance" of intense storms, rising seas and damage to public health. That was a reference to an earlier lawsuit, Connecticut v. American Electric Power, which was tossed out when the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act pre-empted common law. The brief noted that it's not clear how the EPA could even conduct a thorough review of the Clean Power Plan under Trump's latest budget proposals. Recently leaked draft documents<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03042017/donald-trump-environmental-prot…> describe deep cuts to staff working on climate change, including the score of lawyers working on the Clean Power Plan for the agency's general counsel. In a companion brief<https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2017.04.05_ngo_opp_to_abeya…>, several environmental groups made similar complaints. The Trump team's motion to put the case in abeyance, they wrote, is an atttempt "to do what it could not do otherwise: effectively and indefinitely suspend a duly promulgated rule without proposing, taking comment on, justifying, or defending in court any legal or factual premises that might support such a result." The briefs cited extensive precedents for rejecting the Trump argument. But one might carry particular weight: a ruling on April 3, when the Supreme Court itself rejected a comparable request for an abeyance on a different rule, under the Clean Water Act. "An order mothballing this case would leave our millions of members with no federal protections in place from this dangerous pollution with long-term impacts," the green groups pleaded. "Moreover, the combination of the judicial stay and abeyance would leave scant incentive for EPA to act." Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net<http://www.FrackCheckWV.net>

1 0

FE Sells part of Hatfields Ferry for a gas plant
by James Kotcon via EC 07 Apr '17

07 Apr '17

First Energy announced, April 5, the sale of 33 acres and the two cooling towers at the Hatfields Ferry power plant for $40 million to APV Renaissance Partners of New Jersey. APV announced plans to build a 1000 MW gas-fired power plant at the site. http://www.observer-reporter.com/20170405/company_reveals_plans_for_natural… http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/prnewswire/press_releases/Pennsylvani… I suspect that, if the cooling towers are gone, FE will not be re-opening Hatfields Ferry for coal. But Allegheny Energy had spent $650 million for scrubbers in 2009, then closed the plant in 2013, so we ratepayers will still be paying off those scrubbers for years to come! There had been rumors that FE would re-start the plant, but it appears that additional mercury controls would be needed, and those would not be cost-effective. Jim Kotcon

1 0

U.S. coal companies ask Trump to stick with Paris climate deal
by James Kotcon via EC 06 Apr '17

06 Apr '17

Who'd a thunk it! JBK Remaining in the global deal to combat climate change will give U.S. negotiators a chance to advocate for coal in the future of the global energy mix, coal companies like Cloud Peak Energy Inc and Peabody Energy Corp told White House officials over the past few weeks, according to executives and a U.S. official familiar with the discussions. "The future is foreign markets, so the last thing you want to do if you are a coal company is to give up a U.S. seat in the international climate discussions and let the Europeans control the agenda," said the official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. See full story at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-coal-companies-ask-trump-stick-paris-climate-2…

1 0

Fw: PJM
by James Kotcon via EC 03 Apr '17

03 Apr '17

Interesting article from John. This will have implications for the Pleasants transfer. Comments from Cathy Kunkel at last week's event in Morgantown. Although FE is projecting a "Capacity shortfall", PJM apparently does not. It would be helpful to understand the source of that, but I did not get a chance to talk to Cathy about the technical details. Second comment, at a recent talk to the Morgantown Rotary Club, one audience member (with strong gas industry connections) insisted that more gas pipelines and power plants were needed to maintain grid reliability because renewables were "intermittent" and could not be relied upon without keeping a series of backup gas plants running. I replied that (based on EPA's Clean Power Plan analysis last year) America already has enough gas plants, and that additional investments in infrastructure were not needed. But we will likely need better sources than that to back up our assertions. Any advice? Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: johnbird(a)frontier.com <johnbird(a)frontier.com> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 11:56 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: PJM Jim Some information on the PJM study. John https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mid-atlantic-grid-can-stay-rel… [https://www.greentechmedia.com/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/art…]<https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mid-atlantic-grid-can-stay-rel…> Mid-Atlantic Grid Can Lose Coal and Nuclear, and Remain Reliable With Natural Gas and Renewables<https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mid-atlantic-grid-can-stay-rel…> www.greentechmedia.com PJM’s study does set boundaries for wind and solar penetration, but maintains that a mix of resources can keep the future grid stable.

1 0

Hatfields Ferry site for a gas-fired power plant (was: update Mar 8
by James Kotcon via EC 08 Mar '17

08 Mar '17

Anybody seen or heard anything about this one? JBK ________________________________ From: Betty Wiley <betty.w304(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 8:46 AM To: Potomac Water Watch; bpallay(a)comcast.net; brian_bliss(a)hotmail.com; ceh65471(a)windstream.net; meg daniels; curtis.n.meeder(a)usace.army.mil; dhopey(a)post-gazette.com; ed.presley(a)hotmail.com; ejdennis(a)hotmail.com; fredam999(a)gmail.com; GCWA Admin; kathleen martincic; James Kotcon; Jim O'Connell; keith.breitenstein(a)gmail.com; Leo Edmiston-Cyr; mgodby303(a)aol.com; sck(a)andrew.cmu.edu; shellyangel2005(a)yahoo.com; Wallace Venable; woodswoman49(a)hotmail.com; Adam Webster; andrew & vanessa price; andrew sandy liebhold; Ann Payne; Bob Niedbala; Brad. Durst; Brent Bailey; Carol Nix; charlotte wright; collier; Dana Dudra; Deborah Ludwig; diane bozic; Donald Strimbeck; Craig Mains; Duane330(a)aol.com; Eb Werner; Frank Borsuk; Friends of Deckers Creek; Funka Petery, Susan - Lemont Furnace, PA; George Street; jeff and kathy fedan; jfd22(a)juno.com; Jim Sconyers; Joseph Donovan; John Harshbarger; john yesenosky; Julieann F. Wozniak; Linda Tennant; Lyokochi; Madonna Maroulis; Margaret WV; Martin Christ; Melinda Wiley; michael blackburn; Mountaineers RalwaysFree; paul and fran baker; Paul Ziemkiewicz; Margaret Pings; Pete Zapadka; petra and john wood; ralph jannini from Jim O'Connell; Rick W. Buckley; robert vagnetti; Rosemary; Tim Craddock; tomyv1(a)hotmail.com; Warren1; Wendy Clayton; Zane Shuck Subject: update Mar 8 att

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] 2016 U.S. Electricity
by James Kotcon via EC 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

Ned Ford is a long-time Sierra energy expert in Ohio. He is the kind of guy whose quantitative energy analyses make me look petty and shallow by comparison. Key take-home message: Coal-fired generation dropped 8.5 % in 2016, compared to 2015. Gas-fired generation replaced less than half of the losses in coal. Renewables and energy efficiency accounted for the majority of the loss in coal-fired generation. So when the industry tries to tell you that it is gas that is displacing coal, the data show that it is actually Clean Energy that is winning! Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)fuse.net> Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:36 PM Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] 2016 U.S. Electricity To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hi Folks, Here are some preliminary numbers for 2016. EIA just released these last Friday, so they are very fresh, although a few people have seen some of this coming by watching the monthly reports. U.S. coal generation fell from 33.18% of total generation to 30.4% of generation. That's an 8.5% reduction in coal use. Natural gas generation rose from 32.66% of total generation to 33.84%. Natural gas is officially the largest source of electric generation in the U.S. Note that the increase of natural gas was only 42.51% of the decrease of coal. Wind and solar made up most of the difference. Efficiency caused the rest of the decrease and more, as follows. Wind increased from 4.67% of total generation to 5.55%. Solar increased from 0.94% of total generation to 1.38%. EIA started estimating the amount of distributed (behind-the-meter) generation in the U.S. three years ago, but this estimate is utility-scale solar only. The two previous years where EIA estimated distributed solar varied a lot, so I'm happy to guess that total solar is about 35% larger than this reported value, but don't anyone quote that. They reported their estimate for 2016, but I haven't taken the time to find it and plug it into my spreadsheet. Efficiency is impossible to measure accurately. It is much large than most people think. My approach pegs U.S. electric utility efficiency at a rate of new savings of about 1.7% in 2016. But that obscures the fact that what actually happened in 2016 was that cumulative efficiency programs and efficiency standards eliminated something more than ten percent of total electricity consumption which would have happened without the efficiency. In other words, efficiency has eliminated all new growth since the Great Recession. It has also saved several tens of billions of dollars per year. U.S. electricity spending in 2016 was $381 billion (down $10 billion from 2015). It is also impossible to know exactly how much growth would have happened without the efficiency, but it is a safe bet that that $10 billion in savings was due to efficiency. Without efficiency there would probably have been more growth, and the savings are probably larger. To accurately estimate efficiency savings you must decide on a start year. Or you can do as I have done here, and estimate savings for a single year - somewhere between $38 billion and perhaps $48 billion. Skip Laitner testified to Congress in 2006 or 2007 that efficiency had added 77% of all new capacity to U.S. energy from 1970 to 2005. That is all fuels, and includes the substantial savings caused by the CAFE standards. But it also gives a sense of the power and importance of efficiency. I can get into details of all of this, but I find that there is very little interest in the fine grained info. I encourage anyone who is interested in solving climate change to contact me for updated information about our efficiency programs in Ohio. They are hardly the strongest in the nation, but we have eliminated over 8% of utility carbon in seven years as of the end of 2015. I'm going to update the Ohio numbers after I post this message. Our Ohio programs have created about $10 billion in savings, $6 billion of which have been realized and $4 billion of which are assured by installed hardware with remaining useful life. Most states don't produce the sort of data which is necessary to do this sort of calculation accurately, so the Ohio experience is important in that it is an example of how powerful efficiency is, and how much money it saves. - Ned * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)lists.sierraclub.org <CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@lists.sierraclub.org?subject=Unsubscribe+from+CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS&body=SIGNOFF+CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS>, or visit Listserv online <http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?SUBED1=CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAI…>. For Listserv basics, technical tips, and community guidelines, check out our General FAQ <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq>. Listserv content is subject to the Sierra Club's Email List Policy <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/policy> and Terms and Conditions <http://www.sierraclub.org/terms>.

2 1

Fwd: A Rare Republican Call to Climate Action - The New York Times
by Jonathan Rosenbaum via EC 14 Feb '17

14 Feb '17

-------- Original Message -------- SUBJECT: A Rare Republican Call to Climate Action - The New York Times DATE: 2017-02-13 12:36 FROM: Len Conly <lconly(a)lmi.net> TO: CONS-TRANS-CHAIRS-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/a-rare-republican-call-to-climat… > > A RARE REPUBLICAN CALL TO CLIMATE ACTION > > By THE EDITORIAL BOARD [1]*FEB. 13, 2017 > > Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg > > The most important thing about a carbon tax plan [2] proposed last week may be the people behind it: prominent Republicans like James Baker III, George Shultz and Henry Paulson Jr. Their endorsement [3] of the idea, variations of which have been suggested before, may be a breakthrough for a party that has closed its eyes to the perils of man-made climate change and done everything in its power to thwart efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. > > This gang of Republican elder statesmen -- they call themselves the Climate Leadership Council [4] -- is not made up of the usual environmentalists, which is why their proposal might gain traction, though probably not right away. > > Their proposal [5] would tax carbon emissions at $40 a ton to start and would be paid by oil refineries and other fossil fuel companies that would pass costs on to consumers with higher gas and electricity prices. The money raised would be returned to Americans through dividend checks; a family of four would get about $2,000 a year to start. This would help people adjust to higher energy prices and give them an incentive to reduce consumption or switch to renewable sources of energy. Most lower-income and middle-class families would get back more than they pay in taxes. To avoid placing American industry at a disadvantage, imports from countries that do not impose a comparable tax would be subject to a per-ton tax on the carbon emitted in the production of their products, while exports to those nations would not be. > > Scientists and economists have long argued that putting a price on carbon would encourage conservation and investment in renewable energy. Ireland, Sweden and British Columbia already have carbon taxes [6]. The European Union, Quebec, California and Northeastern states like New York and Massachusetts have adopted cap-and-trade systems [7] that use emission permits to lower emissions over time. > > The last serious effort to impose a national price on carbon came in 2009 with cap-and-trade legislation [8] by Edward Markey and Henry Waxman, both then Democratic House members. The bill passed the House, but never received a vote in the Senate. Since then, Republican control of one or both houses of Congress has thwarted ambitious climate legislation. As a result, President Obama turned to administrative actions to reduce emissions, including the Clean Power Plan [9] and higher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. Those regulations and standards are now on the chopping block under the Trump administration. > > The new Climate Leadership Council argues that conservatives should support a carbon tax because it is a more market-friendly approach than Mr. Obama's regulations. And after a carbon tax is put in place, the council says, the government should eliminate most of those rules, since they won't be needed. But there are legitimate fears that the tax alone might not achieve emission reductions on the scale needed to save the planet from out-of-control warming, and that regulations and other policies like public investments in renewable energy will be needed, too. > > Neither President Trump nor Republicans in Congress have embraced the proposal. Many conservatives believe they'll be able to dismantle Mr. Obama's regulations through administrative, legal or legislative maneuvers, without compromising. Plus, many are philosophically opposed to, and politically fearful of, any new taxes. > > Their dismissal of the council's proposal is myopic and puts their party out of step with the country. A large majority of Americans want the government to address climate change -- 78 percent of registered voters [10] support taxing emissions, regulating them or doing both, according to a Yale survey conducted after the election. The Republican elders are offering their party an opening to change the conversation. It should take the cue. Links: ------ [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-… [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-… [4] https://www.clcouncil.org/ [5] https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCasefor… [6] https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/ [7] https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works [8] https://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/111/acesa [9] https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants [10] http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-n…

1 0

Fw: New England's Shrinking Need for Natural Gas
by James Kotcon via EC 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Compliments of the Mass and Conn Chapters,(and others), this is the kind of report we need to help fight the WV pipelines. JBK ________________________________ From: Synapse Energy Economics <bcopes=synapse-energy.com(a)mail119.suw11.mcdlv.net> on behalf of Synapse Energy Economics <bcopes(a)synapse-energy.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 11:49 AM To: James Kotcon Subject: New England's Shrinking Need for Natural Gas Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser<http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672&id=bd427c9cf6…>. [http://gallery.mailchimp.com/bef0f8c2ef390a88c3e173e7c/images/Synapse_small…]<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b…> February 7, 2017 Contact Us<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b…> [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672/images/35506952-12c…]<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672/images/fec3f9c4-1be…] <http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> ________________________________ New England's Shrinking Need for Natural Gas Synapse is thrilled to announce the release of a new report, New England’s Shrinking Need for Natural Gas<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…>. This report examines the need for, and the cost of, the Access Northeast (ANE) natural gas pipeline. As proposed, the ANE pipeline relies on a novel funding mechanism whereby electric ratepayers would pay for new gas pipelines. This unprecedented funding proposal has spurred controversy and litigation: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission both rejected this approach, declaring that it violates state laws enacted to restructure the electric utility sector and to protect consumers from undue financial risk. Pipeline proponents claim that the ANE pipeline is needed to relieve capacity constraints on New England’s natural gas pipeline system and that the cost of the pipeline is justified because it will ultimately save money for New England electric ratepayers. Our analysis shows otherwise. Any savings created by the ANE pipeline are likely to be outweighed by its costs, which are more than twice what proponents have generally reported. Our analysis also indicates that the need for natural gas in New England will decrease dramatically within a few years of ANE’s construction. This would alleviate the capacity constraints cited to justify the pipeline. We modeled energy use, prices, and emissions<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> in a base scenario in which there is no new pipeline compared to a scenario in which the ANE pipeline is constructed. Read the <http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> report<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> for our analysis and findings. This report was prepared for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Consumers for Sensible Energy, Mass Energy Consumers Alliance, Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast, Sierra Club Connecticut, and Sierra Club Massachusetts Short on time today? Check out report highlights on our blog<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…>. ________________________________ Newsletter Subscription You are receiving this newsletter because we think you will find the information interesting and relevant to your work. If for any reason you don't wish to receive these emails, you may unsubscribe by emailing marketing(a)synapse-energy.com.<mailto:marketing@synapse-energy.com> Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 485 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 2 Cambridge, MA 02139 www.synapse-energy.com ©2017 Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. All rights reserved. This email was sent to jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu> why did I get this?<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/about?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672…> unsubscribe from this list<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> update subscription preferences<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e46…> Synapse Energy Economics · 485 Massachusetts Ave · Suite 2 · Cambridge, MA 02139 · USA

1 0

WV State Journal New Op/Ed by Brooks McCabe
by James Kotcon via EC 23 Jan '17

23 Jan '17

McCabe is a member of the PSC, so these may give insights into his position on PSC issues, as well as provide arguments that may resonate. Key initiatives he supports include: * Support and invest in the Appalachian Storage Hub to create the multistate pipeline backbone for the petrochemical manufacturing resurgence that is on the immediate horizon based on the Marcellus and Utica Shale resources in West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio and eastern Kentucky. * Support accelerated development of the Rock Creek Development Park on the abandon Hobet Mine site as a future hub for industrial, commercial and residential development using the federal government's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. * Nature-based economic development that matches the state's natural resources to economic opportunities with a thoughtful overlay of current and future impacts on the environment offers major opportunities. Using the best-available science, state-of-the-art development practices and conservation can put the state ahead of many of its competitors in agriculture, forestry and natural gas and minerals extraction. * Increase state government and industry research funding for alternative uses of coal and natural gas with a logical source of funding being future severance taxes available after the market resets to a new normal. Industry needs to address the technical and environmental issues related to extraction, refinement and use of these energy resources. The future of both industries will be based, in no small part, on new technologies and practices. West Virginia and its universities, research parks and private industry all need to be at the table. Full story is at: http://www.theet.com/statejournal/new-administration-capable-of-several-gam…

2 1

Wyoming Considers Ban On Solar And Wind Energy
by James Kotcon via EC 19 Jan '17

19 Jan '17

Should we be watching for this in WV? >>>>> Wyoming's legislature is considering a bill<http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/SF0071.pdf> that would effectively outlaw renewable energy in the state. The so-called "Electricity Production Standard<http://trib.com/news/electricity-production-standard/article_224f2c66-3112-…>" proposes to penalize utilities in Wyoming for generating electricity from solar and wind energy. The bill would allow electric power to be generated using one of six pre-approved sources, including oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower and coal, to be used by Wyoming utility companies for electricity generation. Neither solar nor wind energy are included on the list of allowed fuel sources. If the bill is passed, utilities in Wyoming would incur a penalty of $10 per megawatt hour whenever they used wind or solar to produce electricity for state customers. "I don't know how seriously to take it," Rep. Marti Halverson, R-Etna, told the Jackson Hold News & Guide<http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/legislature/bills-could-deter-use-of-ren…>. "My guess is that it's a little push back to the legislation that is being passed in other states that's saying, 'No coal, no how.'" The proposed legislation is arguably the most benighted of the half-baked proposals to promote coal energy floated to date in coal-friendly states. Full story is at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2017/01/18/wyoming-considers-de… Jim Kotcon

1 0

Fwd: WV Senators and the White House
by Yarnell, Karen via EC 17 Jan '17

17 Jan '17

_____________________________ From: Matt Kearns <mkearns(a)wvrivers.org<mailto:mkearns@wvrivers.org>> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:57 PM Subject: WV Senators and the White House To: Birth Place of Rivers <birthplaceofrivers(a)tws.org<mailto:birthplaceofrivers@tws.org>> http://www.theet.com/news/free/gauging-west-virginia-s-relationship-with-wh… Matt Kearns Public Lands Campaigns West Virginia Rivers Coalition 304-873-6556 office | 304-444-4567 mobile WVRivers.org<http://WVRivers.org> |Sign up for e-news<http://www.wvrivers.org/make-a-difference/join-us>

2 2

Great LTE by Carol Nix in today's Dominion Post
by Sally Wilts via EC 16 Jan '17

16 Jan '17

So, which one is it? Almostheaven or almost hell?You ’ve seen the acres of greenplastic pipe piling up along thewest bank of the Monongahlea River,you’ve seen the trains bringingmore every day, and maybe youknow that it will be used for theAtlantic Coast Pipeline.But did you know that thispipeline hasn’t even been approvedyet? Can you smell a rubber stamp?Did you know that it’s designed tocarry West Virginia gas to an exportterminal in Norfolk, Va.? And to anout-of-state power plant? That none ofthat gas will be for West Virginians’use? That the pipeline will cut throughthe Monongahela National Forest insidea ditch 30 feet deep, will crossstreams more than 600 times throughour steep and scenic mountains.It will require that trees be cuton a right-of-way wider than a footballfield, and this will have to bemaintained by massive doses of herbicidesforever. It will require newaccess roads through farms andwild forest that trample the rightsof wildlife and landowner alike.But the worst effect of thispipeline will be the immediate andhorrendous escalation of frackingin our state.We can expect the gas companies’profits to go elsewhere, andtheir waste products to stay righthere, their radioactive brinesspread on our roadways andpumped into groundwater, “hot”drill cuttings in our landfills, klieglights, trucks, noise and fumes inevery neighborhood.It takes a lot of gas to fill a 38-inch pipeline 650 miles long. WillWest Virginians stand for this?Haven’t we learned anything as thecoal companies move on, leaving ourstreams acidic and lifeless, our mountainsflat and our miners pensionless?Our Native American brothersin North Dakota showed us how tofight for what we love. They stoodup against another pipeline andare, for the moment, winning.Climate change is real, andmethane is just another fossil fuel.A real transition to renewable energyis possible and necessary, andother countries are doing just that.This pipeline locks us into backwardness,and maybe even annihilation.It is not in the best interestsof West Virginia or the atmosphere.Will we have the courage ofthose Native Americans in theDakotas, or will we be rubberstamped upon? Make your voiceheard, the choice is ours —almostheaven or almost hell?Carol NixIndependence

1 0

Study finds net benefit for fracking communities
by James Kotcon via EC 14 Jan '17

14 Jan '17

I have not done a thorough review, but since this is likely to get a lot of press, be aware that the study admits three glaring weaknesses. 1) The study assumes that local property owners own their mineral rights and we see lease revenue as a gain in income. 2) the study assumes that all workers are "homogeneous", and have an equal chance of getting jobs with fracking companies. But an older worker without the specialized skills needed for fracking is very unlikely to ever get a job, or the training to even compete for those jobs. 3) The study does not address climate change or incorporate the Social Cost of Carbon. Those will likely ring true to many listeners in West Virginia, and we should emphasize those to the industry people who will tout this study. http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-business/20170110/study-finds-net-benefit…

2 2

Accuracy of climate projections.
by James Kotcon via EC 06 Jan '17

06 Jan '17

Great You-Tube video comparing 40 years of climate projections from meteorologists, versus actual NASA temperature records, showing remarkable consistency and accuracy. Be sure to watch through to the end for a comparison with climate models by "contrarians". Please share with any "denier" colleagues. Jim Kotcon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90&feature=youtu.be

1 0

"Clean Coal " trying for a comeback
by James Kotcon via EC 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

In the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/science/donald-trump-carbon-capture-clean… [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/03/science/03SCI-CarbonCover/03SCI-…]<http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/science/donald-trump-carbon-capture-clean…> Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper Under Trump?<http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/science/donald-trump-carbon-capture-clean…> www.nytimes.com Progress has come in fits and starts, but supporters believe a new plant in Texas may provide a clear economic argument for fighting global warming. And from an earlier story about the Kemper plant. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html?acti… [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/08/us/00KEMPER1/00KEMPER11-facebook…]<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html?acti…> Piles of Dirty Secrets Behind a Model 'Clean Coal' Project<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html?acti…> www.nytimes.com A Mississippi project, a centerpiece of President Obama's climate plan, has been plagued by problems that managers tried to conceal, and by cost overruns and questions of who will pay. This second one kind of reminds me of the current efforts to build gas pipelines. Enjoy. JBK

1 0

EQT Corp. will drill 43 wells in the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia in 2017 and an undisclosed number in the Utica Shale, the company has announced.
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. via EC 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

so, what are YOUR plans for 2017? *CLICK <http://www.theet.com/statejournal/eqt-announces-wv-gas-well-drilling-plans/…>* *AND THAT'S NOT ALL....* Lewis County and state oil and gas industry to grow in 2017 and beyond <https://www.theet.com/news/local/lewis-county-and-state-oil-and-gas-industr…> - by Darlene J. Swiger STAFF WRITER - Dec 25, 2016 WESTON — Lewis County is poised for tremendous growth, as the oil and gas industry is expected to rebound in 2017 and beyond, officials say. EQT rig <https://www.theet.com/eqt-rig/image_90e0db69-ae36-5025-95dd-797c5e4f59ad.ht…> - Submitted photo - Dec 23, 2016 - EQT employees work at a rig site. The company plans to drill 43 wells in West Virginia in 2017. EQT pipeline construction <https://www.theet.com/eqt-pipeline-construction/image_ca3a3d5a-2d68-5c85-84…> - Submitted photo - Dec 23, 2016 - EQT will be a key player in the Mountain Valley Pipeline project to take West Virginia’s abundant supply of natural gas to new markets. EQT construction site <https://www.theet.com/eqt-construction-site/image_bc6a3a1f-ef7f-5f01-98f5-d…> - Submitted photo - Dec 23, 2016 - EQT is expanding its footprint in the state, where it currently has about 500 employees. William V. DePaulo, Esq. 122 N Court Street, Suite 300 Lewisburg, WV 24901 Tel 304-342-5588 <(304)%20342-5588> Fax 866-850-1501 <(866)%20850-1501> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC