- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Washington Post -- use of coal by europe rising
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 08 Feb '13

08 Feb '13

http://m.washingtonpost.com/

1 0

FW: Where does your gas money really go?
by Beth Little 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

From: Union of Concerned Scientists [mailto:action@ucsusa.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 5:41 PM To: blittle(a)citynet.net Subject: Where does your gas money really go? <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12457.jpg> <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=gR8l9n1oqJAe8psn-2jRAA> Forward this email <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=08bzufgBRHExASitJ4tusQ> Sign up <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=sxtLMsw-kc6lp10TGyQ-7A> Donate Union of Concerned Scientists <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12460.jpg> <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12419.gif> <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12419.gif> It's Time to Talk REAL Oil Savings Americans spend a lot of money on gas. But that money doesn't benefit your gas station or you, even if you own oil company stock. Most of the money goes to one place: oil company coffers. <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=BAXOJ8uHC4Ukus-uYWIFwA> Where your gas money goes Help us tell the real story of where your gas money goes. <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=v2Sa7vDKezMBvOJ9FY5-Kw> <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12434.gif> Where Does Your Gas Money Really Go? Dear Elizabeth, Several major oil companies recently released their 2012 earnings, and their profits soared to new heights. It is not breaking news that oil companies reap huge benefits from our oil use. In fact, as a new Union of Concerned Scientists report shows, the vast majority of what you spend at the pump ends up in oil company coffers. Oil companies are using a portion of their profits to improve their public image, arguing that these record-breaking earnings benefit the millions of Americans who own stock in oil companies-so go ahead-fill up your gas tank and help out your fellow citizen's retirement portfolio. But this rhetoric begs the question: Does your oil use benefit you? In Where your Gas Money Goes <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Lq0WHD5DOaIpz7o9S6eDeA> , UCS calculated how much money an average consumer spends on gas, where that money really goes, and what a consumer can expect in return on their oil stocks. Our analysis shows that the 'average' ExxonMobil shareholder gets far less than a penny back from their annual gas expenditures. Even ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who owns 1.7 million shares of company stock, would get only 34 cents back from a full year of purchasing gas only from his own company stations. The good news is that we can all benefit by investing in oil saving solutions. In fact, whether you are an average driver or an oil company CEO, reducing your own oil use is always a smart fiscal strategy. Here are some encouraging numbers: . $9,000 - the amount you would save on fuel costs by investing $3,500 in purchasing the Ford Fusion SE Hybrid instead of the conventional model; . 11 million - the number of barrels of oil we could save every day by 2035 by investing in efficiency and innovative solutions instead of standing still; . 9% over 9 years - the amount that Exxon has reduced energy use at its refineries by investing in efficiency. Together we can cut projected oil use in half over the next 20 years, but we need a strong and informed chorus of voices to stop oil companies from blocking progress. While we don't have the same marketing budgets as the oil companies, we do have dedicated supporters like you who think it's time to spend less at the pump and invest in solutions that will protect consumers, the climate, and our environment from the growing costs of our oil use. Will you help us start a REAL conversation on oil spending and oil solutions? Check out our new Where Your Gas Money Goes <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=8B8ci73wElBZb_gVheGWdw> report and share it with your friends and family on Twitter and Facebook. <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=85LuKFArZnSK6CAdPyf5YQ> And if you're not on Twitter or Facebook, you can help spread the word here. <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=3BOdhF6z5LGDmDfdAgMlGA> Thanks for working toward a "Half the Oil" future. Sincerely, Rachel Cohen <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/Rachel_Cohen.jpg> Rachel Cohen National Field Organizer Clean Vehicles Program Union of Concerned Scientists The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. UCS is a 501(c)(3) organization. All gifts are tax deductible. You can be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely. <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=xtwkP6sRQKycEP_tooMW1g> <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12435.jpg> Union of Concerned Scientists 2 Brattle Square | Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Telephone: 800-666-8276 | Fax: 617-864-9405 ucsaction(a)ucsusa.org www.ucsusa.org To stop receiving emails from UCS about clean vehicles, click here to update your interests <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=j4YjomPl6jJ5EcJXQHOV8g> . About UCS <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=lOPDgTITGxMKCTQLtxl9iw> | Take Action <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=GcJ1msKtP1d4QA3-bwiabg> | Donate <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=xobKOlCWrgbREfVpMT03GA> | Contact Us <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=N0vZ9Eco9X4bYdAbwSzMNQ> | Privacy Policy <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Sbgtg6z_61Ch5NTjrqI2BQ> | Unsubscribe <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/CO?i=Nc71S2b4Bl0BP6FELy9Ji4qG4iruV3kO&cid=178 5> | Update Your Profile <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=zU57OWjx5TALPTf1skbl1A> C Union of Concerned Scientists. All rights reserved. <http://action.ucsusa.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12419.gif> <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/PixelServer?j=ABoQqjWkFZ8C1WmeZF9E7w> <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=hyWjUuVfqW9VEJJYEUrttA> powered by CONVIO nonprofit software <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=So4LK-DMkBnWkVwXYBvRTg> _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6081 - Release Date: 02/04/13

1 0

For electric power generation, the end of fossil fuel is in sight
by James Kotcon 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

my new blogpost: U. Delaware study shows an all-renewable grid by 2030 is possible ( http://groups.google.com/group/va-sun/t/6623d3dabe2dd68b ) Ivy Main <ivymain(a)cox.net> Feb 04 03:58PM -0500 This new study answers the questions we always get about what to do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. It is available at www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower Below is my blogpost about the study, which you can find at my blog, www.powerforthepeopleva.com, or at http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/04/1184546/-For-electric-power-generati… Ivy Main Vice Chair, Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club home: 703-448-7618 cell: 703-967-2876 ivymain(a)cox.net Read the Virginia Energy Blog: PowerforthePeopleVA.com For electric power generation, the end of fossil fuel is in sight by Ivy Main Feb 04, 2013 9:53am PST The rap on renewable energy is that it’s too variable to meet society’s demand for a constant supply of electricity. The answer to the problem turns out to be: More renewables. Climate change is acting like an ever-tightening vise on our energy options. Each year that passes without dramatic decreases in our use of carbon-emitting fuels means the cuts we have to make simply get more drastic. By 2030, say experts, we must entirely replace coal with efficiency and renewable energy, or fry. Even the most intrepid environmentalists wonder if it can be done without huge price hikes and wholesale changes in how we live and use energy--changes that society may not accept. A new study out of the University of Delaware shows it is possible to power the grid 99.9% of the time with only solar and wind energy, at a cost comparable to what we are paying today. This counters the conventional wisdom that we will always need large amounts of fossil fuel as a backup when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. It also means the goal of getting largely beyond fossil fuels by 2030 is not just achievable, but practical. The study focused on a regional transmission grid known as PJM, which encompasses parts or all of fourteen states, mostly in the Mid-Atlantic. Researchers ran 28 billion computer simulations to find the most cost-effective combinations of wind and solar that could power the entire grid, at the least possible cost and with minimal amounts of energy storage. The winning combination relied on natural gas turbines for backup on only five days out of the four years modeled. The study authors looked for the least cost taking account of carbon and other external costs of fossil fuels, which are not being accounted for today, but they also assumed no technology improvements over time, making their cost estimates conservative overall. All the least-cost combinations used much more storage than we have today, but needed it for only 9 to 72 hours to get through the entire four years modeled. The secret to dealing with the inherent variability of wind and solar, it turns out, is to build even more wind and solar. One wind turbine is unreliable, but tens of thousands spread across a dozen states greatly reduces the variability problem, and tens of thousands of wind turbines balanced with millions of solar panels is better still. To get to 99.9% renewables, you keep adding wind turbines and solar panels until you are producing three times the electricity that you actually need to meet demand. To power the grid with renewables just 90% of the time, you would have to produce “only” 1.8 times the electricity needed. (And yes, we have the windy sites and the sunny places to support all those projects.) While it may sound strange to build more generation than you need, that is already the way grid operators ensure reliability. To take one example, if you were in Virginia when the “Big One” struck in 2011, you will recall that the earthquake caused the North Anna nuclear plant to shut down for four months. Nuclear energy provides a third of the electricity in Dominion Virginia Power’s service territory, and yet the lights stayed on. That’s because the grid wizards at PJM simply called on other power sources that had been idle or that had spare capacity. The other component of reliability is the ability to match demand for power, which rises and falls with the time of day, weather, and other factors. So-called “baseload” plants like nuclear, coal, and some natural gas turbines don’t offer that flexibility and must be supplemented with other sources or stored energy. PJM currently uses more than 1,300 different generating sources, as well as about 4% storage in the form of pumped hydro. The right combination of other sources can replace baseload plants entirely. Pairing wind and solar improves their ability to meet demand reliably. Onshore wind tends to blow most strongly at night, while solar energy provides power during the peak demand times of the day. Offshore wind power is also expected to match demand well. Combining them all reduces the need for back-up power. But until now policy makers have assumed that solar and wind won’t be able to power the grid reliably, even when combined and spread out over PJM’s more than 200,000 square miles, and with the addition of wind farms off the coast. Critics have insisted that renewable energy requires lots of back-up generating capacity, especially from some natural gas turbines that can ramp up and down quickly. New gas turbines have even been designed specifically to integrate with renewables in anticipation of increasing amounts of wind and solar coming onto the grid. This makes the work of the U. Delaware researchers a game-changer by showing that wind and solar can be backed up primarily by more wind and solar. And so we can begin planning for a future entirely without fossil fuels, knowing that when we get there, the lights will still be on. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group va-sun. You can post via email ( mailto:va-sun@googlegroups.com ). To unsubscribe from this group, send ( mailto:va-sun+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com ) an empty message. For more options, visit ( http://groups.google.com/group/va-sun/topics ) this group. -- VA SUN is an open community of people who share a common interest in going solar or promoting solar energy in Virginia. Anyone is welcome and encouraged to join this group. As a group we do not represent any particular installer or company, but instead seek to share neutral, informed, and accurate information and to promote a vibrant, transparent, open and fair market for solar. This group is open to anyone who shares this vision. The group is not open to advertising for a specific product or company. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VA SUN" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to va-sun+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to va-sun(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: Mississippi power plant poll
by fmoose39＠hotmail.com 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

We should have a poll. I would go as far as saying we need billboards like FOC have. It should state the cost and how much we may have to pay. I would say we need to have several in the larger cities. Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ----- Reply message ----- From: "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: <Duane330(a)aol.com>, <almostnixie(a)cs.com>, <daniel.chiotos(a)gmail.com>, "Jim Sconyers" <jimscon(a)gmail.com>, <ec(a)osenergy.org>, "Bill Price" <Bill_Price(a)sierraclub.org>, <wjreilly99(a)yahoo.com> Subject: [EC] Fwd: Mississippi power plant poll Date: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 7:24 PM The line below caught my attention: "75 percent of respondents say cost overruns should be paid by utility shareholders." This is exactly the issue with the First Energy and AEP transfers. Stockholders want to preserve their profits by dumping uncompetitive power plants on ratepayers. Would it make sense to commission a similar poll in WV? JBK ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Caitlin Pixley <caitlin.pixley(a)sierraclub.org>Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:52 PMSubject: Fwd: TestTo: CONS-FRED(a)lists.sierraclub.org--------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MS: Poll shows customer opposition to rate hikes via Kemper coal plant (Sierra Club) The Sierra Club was supposed to release last Thursday the results of a poll meant to gauge Mississippi Power Co. ratepayers’ attitudes toward the Kemper County coal plant. The environmental group delayed the results because of a hearing in which the Mississippi Public Service Commission reached a rate case settlement with the utility. The delay ended Wednesday morning. The poll, conducted by Fondren Strategies, surveyed by landline and mobile telephone 400 respondents that a press release says were certified to be Mississippi Power customers. The results say 65 percent of those polled said the possibility of their electricity rates going up approximately 33 percent once the plant is finished erodes their support of the project. About 75 percent of respondents say cost overruns should be paid by utility shareholders. Mississippi Power has already filed to recover $172 million in financing costs associated with the project. The filing came one day after last week’s settlement, which lowered the maximum cost recoverable via PSC ratemaking proceedings from $2.88 billion to $2.4 billion. If the PSC grants the $172 million recovery request, Mississippi Power says rates will go up an average of 21 percent, starting in April and lasting through 2013, for customers who use an average of 1,000 kWh per month. The project’s overall rate impact, the company said on an analyst call Friday, will hover around 25 percent. The Sierra Club has opposed the plant since its inception in 2009, calling it an expensive and unnecessary environmental hazard. The club has called for the plant to be converted to a natural gas-fired facility, which it says is cleaner than the lignite coal the plant will eventually use. The project is on time for a May 2014 completion, Mississippi Power said recently. Sierra Club’s own press release can be found here. Fondren Strategies interviewed 400 voters in MS from Jan. 14 – 17; MoE is +/- 4.9% points at the 95% CI -- Caitlin PixleyConservation AssociateSierra Club Atlantic Chapter353 Hamilton StreetAlbany, NY 12210(518)426-9144caitlin.pixley(a)sierraclub.org Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/SierraClubAtlanticChapter- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

4 4

Coal ash findings could have big impact on power companies | RenewablesBiz
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/13/02/coal-ash-findings-could-have-big… If the Plant Scherer lawsuits filed Thursday in DeKalb County State Court are successful, they could have broad implications for power companies. -- Sent via http://www.addtoany.com

2 1

This uranium enrichment plant produces a larger carbon footprint than .........
by Frank Young 02 Feb '13

02 Feb '13

<http://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F199849692677%2Fpermalink%2F101516811641 72678%2F&mid=7775ee2G3ecf0b71G401277aG96&bcode=1.1359831477.AblQPLpU6mX7n6Sp &n_m=fyoung%40mountain.net> Michael Leonardi posted in Green Party of Ohio <http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=790837421&mid=7775ee2G3ecf0b71G40 1277aG96&bcode=1.1359831477.AblQPLpU6mX7n6Sp&n_m=fyoung%40mountain.net> This uranium enrichment plant produces a... <http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=790837421&mid=7775ee2G3ecf0b71G40 1277aG96&bcode=1.1359831477.AblQPLpU6mX7n6Sp&n_m=fyoung%40mountain.net> Michael Leonardi 1:57pm Feb 2 This uranium enrichment plant produces a larger carbon footprint than the output from the largest Nuclear Plant in North America. Yet some people out there still think that nuclear power is CARBON FREE! Wake Up Y'all! The gaseous diffusion plant covers 750 acres (300 ha) of a 3,425 acres (1,386 ha) site. The four process buildings cover 74 acres (30 ha), and consume a peak electrical demand of 3,040 megawatts. How's that for a carbon footprint??? <http://www.facebook.com/l/9AQH9wBezAQENqOOQY4aCK2LNRXAbTL6swyHdNbZ_1hrpLQ/e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paducah_Gaseous_Diffusion_Plant> <http://www.facebook.com/l/QAQFztZL2AQGAypyF9VOvAB-svNZhSOns-SW4bkPou_4w_Q/e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paducah_Gaseous_Diffusion_Plant> Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <http://www.facebook.com/l/QAQFztZL2AQGAypyF9VOvAB-svNZhSOns-SW4bkPou_4w_Q/e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paducah_Gaseous_Diffusion_Plant> en.wikipedia.org The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is a facility located in McCracken County, Kentucky, near Paducah... <https://www.facebook.com/email_open_log_pic.php?mid=7775ee2G3ecf0b71G401277 aG96> <http://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F199849692677%2Fpermalink%2F101516811641 72678%2F&mid=7775ee2G3ecf0b71G401277aG96&bcode=1.1359831477.AblQPLpU6mX7n6Sp &n_m=fyoung%40mountain.net> View Post on Facebook . <http://www.facebook.com/n/?settings&tab=notifications&section=group_notific ation&mid=7775ee2G3ecf0b71G401277aG96&bcode=1.1359831477.AblQPLpU6mX7n6Sp&n_ m=fyoung%40mountain.net> Edit Email Settings . Reply to this email to add a comment.

1 0

Fwd: Mississippi power plant poll
by James Kotcon 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

The line below caught my attention: "75 percent of respondents say cost overruns should be paid by utility shareholders." This is exactly the issue with the First Energy and AEP transfers. Stockholders want to preserve their profits by dumping uncompetitive power plants on ratepayers. Would it make sense to commission a similar poll in WV? JBK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Caitlin Pixley <caitlin.pixley(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:52 PM Subject: Fwd: Test To: CONS-FRED(a)lists.sierraclub.org --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MS: Poll shows customer opposition to rate hikes via Kemper coal plant (Sierra Club) ( http://msbusiness.com/magnoliamarketplace/2013/01/30/sierra-club-poll-subst… ) The Sierra Club was supposed to release last Thursday the results of a poll meant to gauge Mississippi Power Co. ratepayers’ attitudes toward the Kemper County coal plant. The environmental group delayed the results because of a hearing in which the Mississippi Public Service Commission reached a rate case settlement with the utility. The delay ended Wednesday morning. The poll, conducted by Fondren Strategies, surveyed by landline and mobile telephone 400 respondents that a press release says were certified to be Mississippi Power customers. The results say 65 percent of those polled said the possibility of their electricity rates going up approximately 33 percent once the plant is finished erodes their support of the project. About 75 percent of respondents say cost overruns should be paid by utility shareholders. Mississippi Power has already filed to recover $172 million in financing costs associated with the project. The filing came one day after last week’s settlement, which lowered the maximum cost recoverable via PSC ratemaking proceedings from $2.88 billion to $2.4 billion. If the PSC grants the $172 million recovery request, Mississippi Power says rates will go up an average of 21 percent, starting in April and lasting through 2013, for customers who use an average of 1,000 kWh per month. The project’s overall rate impact, the company said on an analyst call Friday, will hover around 25 percent. The Sierra Club has opposed the plant since its inception in 2009, calling it an expensive and unnecessary environmental hazard. The club has called for the plant to be converted to a natural gas-fired facility, which it says is cleaner than the lignite coal the plant will eventually use. The project is on time for a May 2014 completion, Mississippi Power said recently. Sierra Club’s own press release can be found here ( http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2013/01/new-poll-shows-ms-powe… ). Fondren Strategies interviewed 400 voters in MS from Jan. 14 – 17; MoE is +/- 4.9% points at the 95% CI -- Caitlin Pixley Conservation Associate Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter 353 Hamilton Street Albany, NY 12210 (518)426-9144 ( tel:%28518%29426-9144 ) caitlin.pixley(a)sierraclub.org Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/SierraClubAtlanticChapter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-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

Farewell, Don Gasper
by Frank Young 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

Don Gasper's personal warmth and his spirit of boundless pressure, applied endlessly, toward the goal of sane environmental stewardship policies will always be with us. Frank _____ From: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dsgjr(a)aol.com Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:56 AM To: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: [wvec-board] Farewell, Don Gasper My good friend and fishing buddy, Donald C. Gasper, died late last night, February 1st, at his home. He will be cremated and his ashes spread over at least one West Virginia stream that he loved so much. He told his family that he did not want a funeral or memorial service of any kind. But there may be a small private gathering of just family members. Rest in peace, my friend. Don Garvin __._,_.___ <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYmJmbm9uBF9TAzk3 MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRtc2dJZAMzMTYxBHNlYwNm dHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1OTcyNjkzNQ--?act=reply&messageNum=3161> Reply via web post <mailto:DSGJr@aol.com?subject=Re%3A%20Farewell%2C%20Don%20Gasper> Reply to sender <mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Farewell%2C%20Don%20Gaspe r> Reply to group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNmNmbmRlBF9TAzk3 MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBj BHN0aW1lAzEzNTk3MjY5MzU-> Start a New Topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/message/3161;_ylc=X3oDMTM1bmo4anRh BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRtc2dJZAMzMTYx BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1OTcyNjkzNQR0cGNJZAMzMTYx> Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOWg5bmZjBF9TAzk3MzU5N zE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0a W1lAzEzNTk3MjY5MzU-> Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXByZWhhBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIxN Tg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM1OTcyNjkzN Q--> Yahoo! Groups Switch to: <mailto:wvec-board-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20F ormat:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:wvec-board-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest > Daily Digest . <mailto:wvec-board-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use . <mailto:ygroupsnotifications@yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback . <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=21584041/grpspId=1705365392/msgI d=3161/stime=1359726935/nc1=5898816/nc2=3848621/nc3=4025373> __,_._,___

1 0

Thursday - Thomas E. Lovejoy discusses Climate Change at WVU
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Thomas E. Lovejoy will be lecturing at 11 a.m., Thursday, January 31, 2013 at the Marlyn E. Lugar Courtroom, WVU Law Center about Climate Change. There will be a live webcast at http://lawmediasite.wvu.edu/Mediasite/Catalog/catalogs/default . http://law.wvu.edu/lovejoy Along with Michael Brune, Thomas is one of the Climate Cabinet leaders for the Sierra Club's Climate Recovery Partnership: http://www.sierraclub.org/crp/leadership/cabinet.aspx Here is the press release: http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2013/01/22/renowned-biologist-to-discuss-climate-… -Jonathan

1 0

Fracking rules in NC, and DEPs lawyers. (was: DAILY UPDATE 29 January 2013. News of interest to Mon river watershed denizens.
by James Kotcon 29 Jan '13

29 Jan '13

Two stories out today. Note the tracers in NC. I am not sure we will be ready for legislation this year, but this should remain a priority. JBK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mall, Amy" <amall(a)nrdc.org> To: "cog" <cog(a)lists.earthworksaction.org> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:34 AM Subject: [COG] North Carolina: Fracking board set to propose nation's toughest rules Fracking board set to propose nation's toughest rules By John Murawski - jmurawski(a)newsobserver.com<mailto:jmurawski@newsobserver.com ( mailto:jmurawski@newsobserver.com%3Cmailto:jmurawski@newsobserver.com )> Published in: Business North Carolina’s fracking board is considering what its members say would be among the nation’s strictest rules governing shale gas exploration as the panel delves into the arcana of updating the state’s 1940s-era energy regulations. The N.C. Mining & Energy Commission completed two days of meetings Friday and expects to continue discussions in March about requirements for chemical disclosures, water testing and wastewater disposal by exploration and drilling companies. Those have been some of the most contentious issues related to fracking in other states, where the practice has been blamed for drinking water contamination, chemical spills and other problems. Commissioner George Howard said the board could vote as early as March 8 on the first of the proposed rules, but other members said they’re not that optimistic they will be ready. “We’re trying to come up with the toughest reasonable laws,” Howard said. “We’re cherry-picking the best laws out there.” The commission, formed last summer by the state legislature, is still getting its sea legs on the issue. During Friday’s public meeting, several members spent more than a half-hour in a meandering discussion about the uneven quality of media coverage of their work and about whether they should hire a press secretary. Several voiced frustration about uninformed, emotional comments from the public at previous workshops. No members of the public made comments Friday. Fracking is an industry term for hydraulic fracturing of shale rock with high pressure water and chemicals to release natural gas trapped inside the prehistoric formations. The technology remains controversial and won’t be legal in this state until the commission writes about 100 regulations to govern the practice, and the state legislature signs off on the regulatory program. The commission has a deadline of October 2014 to complete its task. It will develop rules on well casings and property owners’ rights, among a host of legal and environmental issues. A similar process in New York state took about three years. That state currently has a moratorium on fracking. The board has begun discussing what its members say would be the most stringent standard in the nation for well water testing before drilling and fracking could get under way. It is proposing that a drilling company, at its own expense, test every water source within 5,000 feet of a natural gas wellhead. Other states generally require testing within 1,000 or 2,000 feet, said Hannah Wiseman, a law professor at Florida State University who tracks fracking laws and rules. North Carolina’s testing standard, if approved, would require drillers to test about a dozen wells, based on well density averages in northwestern Lee County, which is believed to be the epicenter of the state’s shale gas reserves. A thorough laboratory water content analysis could cost more than $2,000 per well, said Melinda Chapman, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Raleigh office. The agency tested 56 local private wells last year and had to use eight different labs to analyze the water samples. Commissioner Amy Pickle said the 5,000-foot testing distance is just one of several factors. Another important issue the commission will have to decide is what constituents it will require testing for. Commissioner Howard said the board also will discuss injecting tracers into fracked gas wells to help determine whether the wells are leaking chemicals and methane gas. He said the commission is guided by the state law passed last summer that holds drillers responsible for any water contamination within 5,000 feet of a wellhead unless they can prove otherwise. “The beauty of a presumptive liability law is that it protects companies from paying for bad water they didn’t cause,” Duke University environmental scientist Robert Jackson said. “It protects homeowners in case their water quality changes.” Duke University also has tested about 55 private wells in Lee County to establish baseline quality measures. Duke’s testing analyzes the presence of such metals as boron and arsenic, salts and methane gas, such chemicals as benzene and toluene, as well as radioactive elements. These are elements that are either injected into wells during fracking, or elements agitated underground during the process and liable to flush out of the well over time. Energy law firm picks up DEP’s senior counsel Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:07 AM EST Updated: Jan 28, 2013 10:16 AM EST By Taylor Kuykendall, Reporter The senior counsel for the Department of Environmental Protection has been hired by business law firm Lewis Glasser Casey & Rollins PLLC. According to a news release from the law firm, Joseph Jenkins, as senior counsel at the DEP, has successfully defended a challenge to state notice, comment and appeal procedures for oil and gas well permits and was actively involved in defending challenges to surface mining and pollution discharge permits issued by the agency. "As one of the premier energy law firms in the Appalachian Basin, we wanted to enhance Lewis Glasser's full-service capabilities with Joe's unique environmental law and regulatory knowledge," said Nick Casey, managing member. "Joe's background in regulatory matters, litigation and legislative rule-making will serve our clients well." Jenkins also served as counsel to the West Virginia Senate Committees on Energy, Industry and Mining and Transportation and Infrastructure during the 2011 Legislative Session. The law firm said it is expanding its energy practice, particularly in the natural gas sector. "Joseph has joined the firm as an associate, and his practice focuses mainly on energy and natural resources law, environmental law, legislation, rule-making and litigation with an emphasis in oil and natural gas, mining and quarrying, including SMCRA, Clean Water Act and state and federal environmental permitting, compliance and enforcement," the news release stated. The firm also "maintains an active government relations practice" through LGCR Government Solutions LLC. The firm has offices in Charleston, Morgantown and Ohio.

2 1

Re: [EC] Fwd: Gen Transfer Case --- Power Plant Visits
by James Kotcon 28 Jan '13

28 Jan '13

Anyone interested? This is a great opportunity for a new volunteer to learn about these plants, just wander along and listen to PSC Staff and FE people ask and answer questions. No time is listed, but I suspect it would be mid-day-ish, and you would want to contact Gary Jack (below) to confirm time and directions. Jim Kotcon >>> Mark Kresowik <mark.kresowik(a)sierraclub.org> 1/25/2013 4:25 PM >>> I think it'd be a good idea to have someone there.On Jan 25, 2013 4:23 PM, "Zachary Fabish" <zachary.fabish(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: See below. Anybody interested in visiting the plants? -Zack ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <gjack(a)firstenergycorp.com> Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:16 PM Subject: Gen Transfer Case --- Power Plant Visits To: jauville(a)psc.state.wv.us, william.depaulo(a)gmail.com, jroberts(a)cad.state.wv.us, sriggs(a)spilmanlaw.com, pmaroney(a)mwwplaw.com, scott.j.rubin(a)gmail.com, zachary.fabish(a)sierraclub.org, mbecher(a)appalmad.org, dhanna(a)hannalawpllc.com, dwilliamson(a)spilmanlaw.com Cc: ccallas(a)jacksonkelly.com, gblanke(a)firstenergycorp.com All: PSC Staff engineers have requested we arrange power plant visits for them at Pleasants and Harrison. We have arranged to have power plant tours for Pleasants on Wednesday, January 30th and for Harrison on Monday February 4. Anyone else is welcome to attend. If you plan to attend, please let me know. Thanks. Gary A. Jack Senior Corporate Counsel FirstEnergy 5001 NASA Blvd. Fairmont, WV 26554 Phone: 304-534-7409 ( tel:304-534-7409 ) Internal: 333-7409 ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. -- Zachary M. Fabish Staff Attorney 50 F Street, NW - 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 (202) 675-7917 (202) 547-6009 (fax) zachary.fabish(a)sierraclub.org CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client communications and/or confidential attorney work product. If you receive this e-mail inadvertently, please notify me and delete all versions on your system. Thank you.

4 4

Chapter Energy Committee Update
by James Kotcon 25 Jan '13

25 Jan '13

To the Energy Committee Please pardon any duplicate messages. We currently have this address for you as part of our Energy committee list, but it is a new year and time to update our Committee roster. If you are interested in continuing to be active on the Chapter Energy Committee, please respond affirmatively. We also would like contact info and a phone number for more urgent actions. If you can not commit to an active role tight now, please let us know that too. The Chapter is launching a major campaign on energy efficiency, and we will be calling on active members to write letters, make phone calls, and meet with public officials to encourage more energy efficiency in west Virginia. Right now, we have a target of opportunity with state utilities who have filed petitions with the WV Public Service Commission to acquire some used coal-fired power plants from Ohio affiliates (total cost ~$2.5 billion). We will be urging people to ask that the PSC require the utilities invest in energy efficiency instead of more coal-fired power plants. So West Virginia is facing a choice in the next couple months between continued intensification of our reliance on coal versus shifting toward a clean, energy efficient future. An Energy Committee conference call will be held next Thursday, Jan. 31, at 7 PM and we would like to get all active members of the committee to join in to help plan and execute this campaign. Jim Kotcon Chapter Conservation Chair 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

2 1

from Center for Media and Democracy: Fracking Industry Goes After Promised Land Film
by Paul Wilson 24 Jan '13

24 Jan '13

Fracking Industry Goes After Promised Land Film [image: Image of Promised Land poster]Before Gus Van Sant's latest film Promised Land even premiered, the energy industry was up in arms, gearing up to counter the film's apparent anti-fracking stance with a barrage of "community" responses (read: thinly veiled corporate PR). James Schamus, chief executive of Focus Features the distributor of the film, expressed shock about the attacks on Promised Land: "We've been surprised at the emergence of what looks like a concerted campaign targeting the film even before anyone's seen it." With blogs, astroturf websites, Facebook pages, internet ads, and theater ad buys in advance of the movie, the industry is working hard to spin the conversation in a more fracking-friendly direction. Read more<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=nUCyXR%2FfF%2BEo45Pb…> -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

2 1

from ScienceDaily e-newsletter: Analysis of fracking wastewater yields some surprises
by Paul Wilson 23 Jan '13

23 Jan '13

Analysis of fracking wastewater yields some surprises<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/U96…> Posted: 22 Jan 2013 07:21 AM PST Hydraulically fractured natural gas wells are producing less wastewater per unit of gas recovered than conventional wells would. But the scale of fracking operations in the Marcellus shale region is so vast that the wastewater it produces threatens to overwhelm the region's wastewater disposal capacity, according to new analysis. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: Take Action: Tell Dept. of Energy to take a time out on LNG exports!
by James Kotcon 22 Jan '13

22 Jan '13

In addition to the LNG export sign-on letter, i urge each of you to comment individually. Click below. Jim Kotcon >>> Deb Nardone <deb.nardone(a)sierraclub.org> 1/17/2013 3:15 PM >>> Team WV, An extremely important deadline is approaching. With the Dept. of Energy (DOE) considering exporting up to 40% of current US gas production through 19 different LNG export terminals, your voice couldn't be more important than now. Exporting even a fraction of that gas will have significant negative impact on our communities, the environment, and our climate. Yet, DOE has failed to seriously analyze these impacts. With the most recent economic study being completed, DOE is now accepting comment on this seriously flawed report, which fails to consider the lasting impacts exports will cause. Please consider taking action, then help spread the word! We have until January 24th to flood the Dept. of Energy with comments. Thank you for all you do! Deb TAKE ACTION LINK Dear Friend, Tell DOE Secretary Chu to go back to the drawing board and look at how exporting fracked gas could hurt our communities. Would you hire a consulting firm with strong fossil fuel industry ties to study whether or not exporting fracked gas is a good idea? The Department of Energy (DOE) did just that, and you probably won't be surprised by the industry-friendly results. This report has more holes than a block of swiss cheese, focusing on how the natural gas industry and the wealthiest people in our country will profit. The costs to our communities -- air and water pollution, environmental destruction, lost jobs, climate disruption and even increased energy costs -- are completely ignored or dismissed as unimportant to big business. Will you help get 10,000 letters by Friday to DOE Secretary Steven Chu telling him he needs to look at the full effects on our communities before any decision can be made? Send your letter today. Tell Secretary Chu not to make any decisions about the future of exporting fracked gas without looking at the whole picture. If Secretary Chu plans to consider exporting natural gas, then we deserve a study with the real numbers, the real costs, and all of the real facts. Allowing the natural gas industry to frack even more and export this fossil fuel without considering the harm to our communities is unacceptable. Tell Secretary Chu you want the real story about how more fracking and exporting natural gas will impact you and your community. Thanks for all you do to protect the environment, Deb Nardone Director, Beyond Natural Gas Campaign Sierra Club P.S. Please share this email with friends and family, and help get 10,000 letters to Sec. Chu by Friday! -- Deborah J. Nardone, Director Beyond Natural Gas Campaign Sierra Club O: 814-308-9767 C: 814-932-6668 -- Deborah J. Nardone, Director Beyond Natural Gas Campaign Sierra Club O: 814-308-9767 C: 814-932-6668

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] Fwd: Webinar Invite: Going Local: Efficiency for Local Governments & Muni Utilities
by Paul Wilson 22 Jan '13

22 Jan '13

it would be nice to have more of a lead time on these announcements, fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jennifer Miller <jen.miller(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:54 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] Fwd: Webinar Invite: Going Local: Efficiency for Local Governments & Muni Utilities To: coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org Going Local: Efficiency for Local Governments & Muni Utilities Join us for > a Webinar on January 23 @ 3PM EST OR 7PM EST > > Updating streetlights, greening government buildings, and improving waste > water treatment facilities are surefire ways for local governments to > reduce energy waste, cut pollution from dirty energy, and to protect > taxpayers from high energy bills, making more room in the budget for city > services like schools and parks. Experts at the American Council for an > Energy Efficient Economy will highlight a number efficiency opportunities > for local governments and tools that activists can use to help push city > and county governments to prioritize efficiency. > > There are a number of Municipal Utilities making strides in energy > efficiency across the country. Our guests will also highlight some best > practices for Municipal Utilities as well as tools activists can use to > promote efficiency by Munis. > > *For the 3PM EST webinar, please register by clicking this link:* > https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/972661567 > * > * > *For the 7PM EST webinar, please register by clicking this link: * > https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/770729543 > After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing > information about joining the Webinar. > > *System Requirements* > PC-based attendees > Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 ServerMac®-based attendees > Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer > Mobile attendees > Required: iPhone®, iPad®, Android™ phone or Android tablet > > -- > > Jen Miller > > (614)563-9543 > > Senior Campaign Representative for Energy Efficiency > > Sierra Club National Beyond Coal Campaign > <https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/770729543> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jen Miller > > (614)563-9543 > > Senior Campaign Representative for Energy Efficiency > > Sierra Club National Beyond Coal Campaign > > > > pst....My work is now national in scope, but I'm still based in Columbus, > Ohio (the Eastern Time Zone)! > > > -- *Conservation Chair, Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club* *Energy Chair, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club* * * *Once you choose hope, anything's possible. -- Christopher Reeve* -- Jen Miller (614)563-9543 Senior Campaign Representative for Energy Efficiency Sierra Club National Beyond Coal Campaign pst....My work is now national in scope, but I'm still based in Columbus, Ohio (the Eastern Time Zone)! -- Jen Miller (614)563-9543 Senior Campaign Representative for Energy Efficiency Sierra Club National Beyond Coal Campaign pst....My work is now national in scope, but I'm still based in Columbus, Ohio (the Eastern Time Zone)! -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: comment re sierra club attorney request
by James Kotcon 18 Jan '13

18 Jan '13

Anyone want to reply? JBK >>> Betty Wiley <betty.w304(a)gmail.com> 1/18/2013 10:11 AM >>> Jim, see the message below from Craig Segall, attorney working for Sierra Club apparently. He seems in a hurry for information and then says he checks email infrequently and to call him for a quick reply. I would interpret that as a poor way to get responses. Betty Wiley On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Craig Segall - Sierra <craig.segall(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: Hi all, We're working on comments on DOE's LNG export study. I'd like to raise the costs experienced by gas field communities in partial response. If folks can point me towards the latest, greatest studies on community impacts and on the treatment costs for gas wastes, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks! Craig -- I check email infrequently. Please call me if you need a quick reply. Craig Segall Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 50 F St NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20001 (202)-548-4597 ( tel:(202)-548-4597 ) (202)-547-6009 ( tel:(202)-547-6009 ) (fax) Craig.Segall(a)sierraclub.org

1 0

McKinley on Carbon taxes.
by James Kotcon 18 Jan '13

18 Jan '13

See article below on McKinley's carbon tax resolution. The reporter, David Beard, has asked to do a follow-up interview for a series on shale gas and fracking. Anyone want to chime in? JBK P.S. The only error Beard made was describing the spending on SuperStorm Sandy as "millions". The correct figure is "billions". McKinley reintroduces resolution on a national carbon tax sec=news;pos=top;sz=160x600;tile=2;ord=88732447;abr=!ie;abr=!aol"sec=news;pos=top;sz=160x600;tile=2;ord=88732447;abr=!ie;abr=!aol" width="160" height="600" border="0"&gt &lt/a&gt Copyright (C) 2013, The Dominion Post, Morgantown, W.Va. Jan 17, 2013 -- Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., has reintroduced his November resolution proposing to express Congress' opposition to a national carbon tax on fossil fuels. "A carbon tax would increase the cost of everything from driving a car to heating and cooling a home," he said in a Wednesday release. "It would be especially burdensome on middle class Americans and prevent our economy from recovering. Raising taxes on everyone from manufacturers to homeowners is not the way to improve our economy and Congress should reject this idea." McKinley introduced the resolution -- House Concurrent Resolution 8 -- on Tuesday. There is no active pro-carbon tax bill in Congress. The Library of Congress shows the most recent was the Save Our Climate Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. It proposed an annual excise tax on carbon-based fuels -- including coal, natural gas ( http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/NG_/M ) and petroleum -- until carbon dioxide emissions for a calendar year would not exceed 20 percent of the level of emissions for calendar year 1990. This bill died in the Ways and Means Committee. A carbon tax advocacy group, the Carbon Tax Center, sees the tax as a kind of economic sanction to force social and technological change. It says such a tax will reduce the use of fossil fuels and their attendant emissions of carbon dioxide. By driving the costs up, the tax will force energy suppliers to seek other forms of fuel. And it will force consumers to use lower-carbon products -- including home energy and vehicle fuels -- to save money. Sources speaking on background told The Dominion Post the White House has no plans to propose a carbon tax. White House Regional Communications Director Keith Maley said in an email exchange, "The President has made clear that he believes that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human activity and that we must continue to take steps to confront this threat. In the President's first term the administration has taken historic action including proposing the first national standard for harmful carbon pollution from new power plants, as well as establishing unprecedented standards for cars and trucks that will slash emissions of carbon pollution while, at the same time, saving consumers billions of dollars at the pump. The President has made clear that his administration will continue to build on this progress and climate change will be a priority in his second term." HCR8 is identical to McKinley's November resolution and is before the House Committee on Ways and Means. McKinley is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Energy Chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Chairman Emeritus Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, are co-sponsors. McKinley's West Virginia colleagues, Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall and Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, are also cosponsors. McKinley said again, "Given our current economic climate, this is the worst time to implement another tax on coal, oil ( http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CL_/M ) and gas -- industries that fuel our economy. Affordable and abundant electricity ( http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/JM/M ) from coal and natural gas ( http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/NG_/M ) is essential to our way of living and a carbon tax would increase the cost of electricity ( http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/JM/M ) and put a financial burden on American families." McKinley's resolution notes several problems with such a tax, among them: A carbon tax will have a dramatic, immediate impact on transportation costs, with the greatest impact being felt by low-income Americans and their families who already spend the largest share of their income on energy and are least able to afford a carbon tax. A carbon tax is designed to result in substantial, immediate increases in the price of electricity, making electricity ( http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/JM/M ) less affordable for millions of Americans. A carbon tax would be punitive and harmful to the American people by artificially raising electricity ( http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/JM/M ) costs. A carbon tax will drive the unemployment rate even higher. A carbon tax is likely to have an uneven effect, hitting different regions of the country and segments of the economy much more severely than others. A carbon tax will have no impact on China, India, and other major sources of carbon emissions throughout the world, except to put United States exporters at a competitive disadvantage by increasing domestic manufacturing production costs. McKinley's is the first anti-carbon tax resolution of the new Congress, the 113th. There were two others, along with McKinley's in the 112th. Rep. Mike Pompeo, RKan., introduced HCR 144 in December. It had five bullet points, compared to McKinley's 10. Capito also co-sponsored this one. Pompeo is a co-sponsor of HCR8. On the Senate side, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., introduced a twin to HCR 144 in December. According to reports, a carbon tax has virtually no chance of moving forward in the House. The conservative group Americans for Prosperity reported last July that the entire House GOP leadership team has signed its "No Climate Tax" pledge. Sierra Club West Virginia Chapter Energy Committee Chairman Jim Kotcon said of the resolution, "We certainly understand his concern about the economic impact of a carbon tax on West Virginia. But Congressman McKinley has to recognize that West Virginia is already paying for climate change." He cited the millions spent on Superstorm Sandy recovery and more millions on other extreme weather events across the state. Real costs ensue from dependence on fossil fuels, Kotcon said, and Republicans should be finding new ways to address climate change. "And it is important we start immediately. If not a carbon tax, what will we do?" Kotcon said no single method can address climate change. We need to send the right market signal regarding carbon dioxide emissions, but in a way that provides economic justice for West Virginians. Energy efficiency is important, he said. "A more efficient economy has got to be good for business." And promoting clean sources -- solar, wind and biomass fuels -- will help begin the transition from rapidly depleting fossil fuels.___ (c)2013 The Dominion Post (Morgantown, W.Va.) Visit The Dominion Post (Morgantown, W.Va.) at www.dominionpost.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: New Analysis: Evidence of Climate Change Stronger Than Ever
by Paul Wilson 18 Jan '13

18 Jan '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:35 AM Subject: WVNS story: New Analysis: Evidence of Climate Change Stronger Than Ever To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> New Analysis: Evidence of Climate Change Stronger Than Ever Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/30358-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (01/18/13) CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Climate experts say the evidence is stronger than ever that climate change is happening, and that it comes with devastating consequences for West Virginia and the rest of the nation. A new draft of the National Climate Assessment, released this week, says the impacts of climate change, including extreme weather events, are becoming more apparent. Carol Browner, former White House director of Climate and Energy, says those impacts will increase as global emissions continue to rise. "This new assessment really confirms what the scientists have been telling us and what our eyes are telling us. It's getting hotter. We're seeing more violent, more frequent storms. We're seeing impacts on the economy and we're seeing impacts on public health." The report <http://ncadac.globalchange.gov> comes as 2012 made the record books as the hottest year in U.S. history. It presents a grim outlook for future extreme weather events. Browner says we need to do more to reduce greenhouse gases. The assessment is issued every four years, and the current draft is available for public comment until April 12th. The Obama administration has implemented several regulations to curtail emissions of carbon dioxide. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first-ever carbon pollution standard for new power plants. That provoked harsh criticism from the coal industry and it's political allies, but Browner says there is much more work to be done. "The administration has already taken some important steps, but we've got to really continue, as a country, to take this issue seriously. That's what this report is telling us." Many of West Virginia’s most important business and political leaders maintain climate change is unproven and some even charge that it's a hoax. Jim Sconyers, chair of the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, says people need to get their heads out of the sand, especially given the dramatic damage West Virginia has suffered during recent climate events. "Climate change is real. People like to keep saying there's this side of the story and then there's the other side of the story. Well, there's no 'other side' of the story. I was just out walking in the forest today. Where I was walking the devastation is just on a scale that I have never seen before." Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/30358-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/30358-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

e-mail messages lost
by Frank Young 16 Jan '13

16 Jan '13

Friends, I have had a serious crash of my e-mail handling system. Apparently I have lost all "Inbox" messages from about February 1, 2012 up to about January 14, 2013- almost a year of e-mail messages. Messages that I had set aside into designated "folders" appear to all be intact. But stuff in my Inbox received during that time period- some maybe 5000 messages- are gone. So if some of you are waiting for me to respond to messages you sent within that time period- especially for about the past 3 weeks- I have likely lost your messages. So if it is still important you might want to re-send your message(s) to me. These past two days I have changed to a new e-mail handling system- Microsoft Outlook. So far it seems to be working well. (Yeah, Gary Z. - it's OK to say "I told you to do that a couple years ago", because you did. I just didn't listen then! :-( Frank Young fyoung(a)mountain.net aka: frankly(a)mtparty.org

1 0

How Long will We let Coal Plants Mercury-Poison Us?
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

How Long will We let Coal Plants Mercury-Poison Us?<http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/plants-mercury-poison.html> Posted on 01/13/2013 by Juan Mercury is a nerve poison, steady exposure to which causes all kinds of neurological and mental problems, as well as heart problems. I keep hearing public service announcements that you should not eat fish more than twice a week. Think about that. In a natural, normal world, didn’t people on the coast eat fish every day? Why avoid fish? It is because fish big enough for us to eat with profit are high on the food chain, and so concentrate toxins like mercury. But why is there so much mercury in the environment, that it is getting concentrated in our salmon? Coal-fired power plants are responsible<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html>for * half * of all human-caused mercury emissions annually in the US. The plants released 134,365 pounds of mercury in 2006 alone! Only 8% of plants have mercury-scrubbing capabilities in place. Concerned Scientists note that “Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.” A people with any self-respect would insist that all these coal-fired power plants be closed within 5 years: [image: coalmercury]<http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/plants-mercury-poison.html/coalmercury> Not only is burning coal the fastest route to catastrophic climate change, it emits mercury into our lakes and streams<http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/02/institute-index-coal-powers-mercury-…>, which then gets into our fish– as Sue Sturgis points out, citing Environment America<http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/dirty-energys-assault-our-hea…> Here are some statistics she has culled: There is * 10 times* more mercury concentration in fish now than in the 1930s * 15 % of US women of child-bearing age* have enough mercury in their bloodstream to put their offspring at risk from health effects. In 1999: percentage of women of childbearing age with inorganic mercury in their blood: 2 In 2006: that percentage * was 30 * I tear my hair out when I hear that people aren’t getting vaccinations for their children because they are afraid of autism. But emitting 134,000 pounds a year of mercury in our environment? That’s not a problem. The Union of Concerned Scientists<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html>adds: “Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO21. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year2.” Close them down! Close them down now! If your electric utility depends on coal, contact your city council and urge it to put in wind turbines and solar and generate its own electricity, getting off the dirty, poisonous grid! Boulder, Co. is now playing hardball<http://www.energybiz.com/article/12/12/xcel-boulder-square-over-franchise-r…>that way, Sacramento created large numbers of jobs with its green energy<http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/07/13/sacramento-region-nea…>commitments. We don’t want your dirty coal! -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Mercury from Coal Plants, Goldmining, a Global Health Crisis: UN Environmental Program
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

Mercury from Coal Plants, Goldmining, a Global Health Crisis: UN Environmental Program<http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/emissions-goldmining-environmental.html> Posted on 01/14/2013 by Juan A new study has found that 84% of all fish<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57563739/study-finds-unsafe-mercury-l…>have unhealthy levels of mercury! Richard Gelfond, CEO of IMAX, the film company, has had his health permanently damaged simply from eating a lot of fish. The message to take away is not never to eat fish. It is that there is too much mercury in our environment. Half of all mercury emissions in the United States come from coal-fired power plants, and a quarter of mercury released into the environment globally is from coal. Some 1200 * new * coal plants are now planned around the world, and this must not be allowed. By the way, about 10% of mercury in our environment comes from burning natural gas and petroleum and refining petroleum. So not only are hydrocarbons causing calamitous global warming, but they are responsible for over a third of our present mercury poisoning globally, and for well over half of that in the United States. The United Nations Environmental Program has just issued its [pdf] 2013 assessment of the mercury threat<http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Portals/9/Mercury/GMA%20Report/Glob…> . It finds that human-caused “emissions and releases have doubled the amount of mercury in the top 100 meters [yards] of the world’s oceans in the last 100 years. Concentrations in deeper waters have increased by only 10-25%, because of the slow transfer of mercury from surface waters into the deep oceans. In some species of Arctic marine animals, mercury content has increased by 12 times on average since the pre-industrial period. This increase implies that, on average, over 90% of the mercury in these marine animals today comes from anthropogenic [human] sources.” And, the United Nations has been meeting in Geneva on a possible new global treaty limiting mercury emissions. There are some 600 coal plants in the United States, and they should all be shut down on grounds of mercury pollution<http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/plants-mercury-poison.html>alone, but they also are the major contributor to global warming. They can now all quickly be replaced by solar and wind installations, with some natural gas if absolutely necessary. People who complain about the ‘extra cost’ of solar and wind seem not to mind, like, neurotoxins all around them, or billions of dollars of climate change damage. Besides, wind and solar are just about at grid parity with coal in many markets,and will be able to undersell it, even ignoring the externalities in the true cost of coal, in this decade. Aljazeera English <http://youtu.be/JCQokbi8Kiw> reports: Mining, distributing and burning coal should be illegal. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller to retire after term ends
by James Kotcon 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/west-virginia-sen-jay-rockefeller-retire… West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller will not seek a sixth term in the Senate, he told Politico in an interview ( http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/jay-rockefeller-to-retire-86054.html?… ). He will serve through 2014 after more than 25 years in the chamber, "I’m going to serve out my term,” the 75-year-old Rockefeller said. “It was a very hard decision for me. Once it’s made, like any hard decision, it eases up. But it was a very tough decision for me.”Rockefeller joined the Senate in 1985 after two terms as governor of West Virginia. He will make a formal announcement on Friday morning. The senator's retirement could lead to a fierce race in 2014. Democrats have had a lock on the seat since the Dwight Eisenhower administration, and an election without an incumbent could give Republicans a major opportunity in a deeply red state.

7 7

TransAlta (Canada) gives up on carbon capture
by Jim Sconyers 11 Jan '13

11 Jan '13

A lesson here for WV? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: DAVID E ORTMAN <deortman(a)msn.com> Date: Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:00 AM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] RE: TransAlta (Canada) gives up on carbon capture To: phred(a)sunlightdata.com, pjgrunt(a)gmail.com, coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org, cons-spst-globalwarm-forum(a)lists.sierraclub.org, cons-ficc-international(a)lists.sierraclub.org, Verena Owen < verena_owen(a)prodigy.net>, Robin Everett <robin.everett(a)sierraclub.org> FR: David E. Ortman, Seattle, WA TransAlta also owns the largest coal fired plant in Washington State. Former Governor Gregoire (who may be on a short list for EPA Administrator) cut a deal allowing TransAlta to run one of its coal-fired until until 2020 and the second until 2025 (12 years from now!!!). http://www.elp.com/news/2012/12/30/transalta-boss-says-economics-could-make… Electric Light and Power (Canada) December 30, 2012 TransAlta boss says economics could make carbon capture unfeasible for years; Power boss says carbon capture a no go for now Sponsored by CALGARY - With half of its electricity plants fuelled by coal, the head of TransAlta Corp. is a believer in how valuable carbon capture and storage could be for the company. But a decision in April to scrap Project Pioneer, a $1.4-billion project to capture carbon dioxide emissions from an Alberta coal plant and store them underground, has TransAlta (TSX:TA) president and CEO Dawn Farrell less optimistic about the technology's feasibility in the future. TransAlta was one of the companies backing the project. Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB) and Capital Power Corp. (TSX:CPX) were the others. The idea was to sell some of carbon dioxide to nearby energy producers, who would inject the gas into their fields as a means to get more oil out of the ground. The federal and Alberta governments have been banking on carbon capture and storage to reduce the carbon footprint of the power generation and the oil and gas industries. Project Pioneer, which would have been connected to the Keephills 3 coal plant west of Edmonton, received $779 million in backing from Ottawa and Edmonton. Although an initial study found the technology worked and the capital costs were in line with expectations, Farrell said things changed as planning moved forward and other methods of oil extraction improved. "What had changed was this horizontal drilling, which has changed the cost structure of finding gas and now oil," Farrell said, in an interview with The Canadian Press. "As a result of that the cost of taking oil out of the ground ... with CO2 is now being overtaken by the cost of horizontal drilling. "Effectively what happened is the ability of the oilfields to use CO2 moved out five or 10 years and we had federal funding we needed to put in place right away." Farrell said new federal legislation on carbon emissions means TransAlta's Sundance plant will reach the end of its first lifespan in 2019. Other plants will follow in the ensuing decade. Once a plant reaches the end of its life, the company can continue to operate it with a carbon-capture retrofit or shut it down. "So 2019 is the first big decision for TransAlta," Farrell said. "If they're coming to the end of their life at the end of this decade, in 2019, I don't think they have a very good chance for retrofit unless my team can discover some other way of dealing with it." Alberta has a 1,000-year supply of low-sulphur coal, but Farrell said it still gives off double the emissions of natural gas. The cost of coal at this point continues to make it an attractive alternative, but Farrell notes the high costs of carbon-capture and the lack of a market to sell the captured carbon could put coal "out of the money" as plants reach the end of their lives under federal rules. TransAlta has power plants in Canada, the United States and Australia. Farrell said the utility is looking at further expansion in the United States in 2013 and is hoping to make some acquisitions, possibly in California, related to wind energy. -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org. -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

2 1

Fwd: WVNS story: Solar Cheap Enough To Compete Without Subsidies In Some States
by Paul Wilson 10 Jan '13

10 Jan '13

The Economist piece on Solar Energy costs made it on to WV Public News Service. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM Subject: WVNS story: Solar Cheap Enough To Compete Without Subsidies In Some States To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Solar Cheap Enough To Compete Without Subsidies In Some States Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/30252-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (01/10/13) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - A sharp, long-term fall in the price of solar cells has led The Economist magazine and others to declare that in sunny areas with high electricity prices, solar power is now cheap enough to compete without government subsidies. Rory McIlmoil, program manager for the energy program at environmental consulting firm Downstream Strategies, says that applies to places such as California - but not West Virginia or the East Coast. "In those areas, solar is competing with other sources of energy that have higher electricity prices than we experience here, which makes it a lot more likely that solar can compete." The price of building a solar power plant is nearing where it would be competitive with a new coal plant of a similar size, he says. Both cost more than a natural-gas plant, but he says solar has the advantage of free fuel. "Natural gas peaker plants have other costs associated with their operation that solar power does not: High fuel and - depending on the size - high maintenance costs for your traditional power plants versus solar power plants." The solar industry still depends on significant federal subsidies, although overall, McIlmiol says, the much larger fossil-fuels industries actually receives more in tax breaks. Solar also is limited by the inconsistent nature of the sunshine, although he says power storage and flexible use of the grid are easing some of those issues. Thanks to cheap solar cells, he says, 2010 saw what was then a record level of solar power installed. "And just one year later, twice that was installed. Roughly 80 percent of the solar power that currently exists in the United States was installed just over the last three years." One central criticism of renewable-energy sources such as solar power is that they are too expensive. McIlmoil says that's rapidly changing, as solar's explosive growth shows. More from The Economist is online at economist.com<http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be…>. At current growth rates, the magazine says, wind will surpass nuclear in 10 years. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/30252-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/30252-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC