- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Fwd: Coal to liquid plant on schedule
by James Kotcon 10 Jan '13

10 Jan '13

I am not clear on how TransGas can say that this is "on schedule" when they don't have financing or a contractor. They claim to have "started construction" June 20, 2011, but admit it is only minor things like moving in an office trailer, so it does not seem that would meet the legal definition needed to retain their air permit. A later press release said they would "start major construction" in 2012, a later one said they would close on financing by the end of 2012, and now they say they will close in 2013, but are still negotiating with a contractor. I think we could argue that they have not met the legal requirement to start construction, and they certainly have not met the requirement to maintain construction. (Under 45-CSR-13, if they have not started, or halt construction, for 18 months, the air permit can be suspended.) Thanks to Viv for keeping up on the latest PR. JBK >>> "Vivian Stockman" <vivian(a)ohvec.org> 1/10/2013 8:09 AM >>> Coal to liquid plant on schedule By Jennifer Smith in News | January 09, 2013 at 11:43AM http://wvmetronews.com/coal-to-liquid-plant-on-schedule/ A multi-billion dollar coal to liquid plant in Mingo County is still on schedule despite some hurdles. TransGas Development Systems announced the project back in 2008, which will be the largest coal to liquid plant in the U.S. And while there’s no bricks and mortar to judge the progress, Randy Harris, with the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority, says they’re moving forward. “We’re still well under the window of time it takes to take a project from concept to this stage,” says Harris. The design for the $4-billion project, located near Gilbert, is already complete. Site preparations are underway. TransGas is negotiating with the main contractor. “In some regards like permitting, we’re well ahead of our original schedule,” says Harris. “In other aspects, like financing, the uncertainty of the election slowed down the whole process,” according to Harris. “People just weren’t prepared to make decisions.” The EPA has waged a war on coal over the past three years with the blessing of President Barack Obama. Harris says that makes a lot of people with the money to invest a little skittish. “It has slowed down the investment community. Bankers don’t understand the difference between a coal fired plant and a chemical plant like we are. They just look at it and say it’s all coal,” explains Harris. But he says there’s a big difference between burning coal for fuel and liquifying coal into gasoline, petroleum gas and propane. He says when they sit potential buyers down and explain the difference most of that concern goes away. Once the financing is in place, construction can get underway. “Right now all the contractors are telling us that it’s going to take about 3 and a half years to go from where we are now to commissioning, which is the point where it’s turned over from the construction company to the [plant] operators.” That means the TransGas plant should be up and running in late 2016, early 2017.

1 0

Solar is competitive without subsidies in 2013
by James Kotcon 10 Jan '13

10 Jan '13

Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be… JBK Sunny uplands Alternative energy will no longer be alternative Nov 21st 2012 | from The World In 2013 print edition Rebranding is always a tricky exercise, but for one field of technology 2013 will be the year when its proponents need to bite the bullet and do it. That field is alternative energy. The word “alternative”, with its connotations of hand-wringing greenery and a need for taxpayer subsidy, has to go. And in 2013 it will. “Renewable” power will start to be seen as normal. Wind farms already provide 2% of the world’s electricity, and their capacity is doubling every three years. If that growth rate is maintained, wind power will overtake nuclear’s contribution to the world’s energy accounts in about a decade. Though it still has its opponents, wind is thus already a grown-up technology. But it is in the field of solar energy, currently only a quarter of a percent of the planet’s electricity supply, but which grew 86% last year, that the biggest shift of attitude will be seen, for sunlight has the potential to disrupt the electricity market completely. The underlying cause of this disruption is a phenomenon that solar’s supporters call Swanson’s law, in imitation of Moore’s law of transistor cost. Moore’s law suggests that the size of transistors (and also their cost) halves every 18 months or so. Swanson’s law, named after Richard Swanson, the founder of SunPower, a big American solar-cell manufacturer, suggests that the cost of the photovoltaic cells needed to generate solar power falls by 20% with each doubling of global manufacturing capacity. The upshot (see chart) is that the modules used to make solar-power plants now cost less than a dollar per watt of capacity. Power-station construction costs can add $4 to that, but these, too, are falling as builders work out how to do the job better. And running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free. Related topics Solar energy United States Industries Electricity companies Utilities Coal-fired plants, for comparison, cost about $3 a watt to build in the United States, and natural-gas plants cost $1. But that is before the fuel to run them is bought. In sunny regions such as California, then, photovoltaic power could already compete without subsidy with the more expensive parts of the traditional power market, such as the natural-gas-fired “peaker” plants kept on stand-by to meet surges in demand. Moreover, technological developments that have been proved in the laboratory but have not yet moved into the factory mean Swanson’s law still has many years to run. Running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free Comparing the cost of wind and solar power with that of coal- and gas-fired electricity generation is more than just a matter of comparing the costs of the plant and the fuel, of course. Reliability of supply is a crucial factor, for the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. But the problem of reliability is the subject of intensive research. Many organisations, both academic and commercial, are working on ways to store electricity when it is in surplus, so that it can be used when it is scarce. Progress is particularly likely during 2013 in the field of flow batteries. These devices, hybrids between traditional batteries and fuel cells, use liquid electrolytes, often made from cheap materials such as iron, to squirrel away huge amounts of energy in chemical form. “Grid-scale” storage of this or some other sort is the second way, after Swanson’s law, that the economics of renewable energy will be transformed. One consequence of all this progress is that subsidies for wind and solar power have fallen over recent years. In 2013, they will fall further. Though subsidies will not disappear entirely, the so-called alternatives will be seen to stand on their own feet in a way that was not true in the past. That will give them political clout and lead to questions about the subventions which more traditional forms of power generation enjoy (coal production, for example, is heavily subsidised in parts of Europe). Enlarge Fossil-fuel-powered electricity will not be pushed aside quickly. Fracking, a technological breakthrough which enables natural gas to be extracted cheaply from shale, means that gas-fired power stations, which already produce a fifth of the world’s electricity, will keep the pressure on wind and solar to get better still. But even if natural gas were free, no Swanson’s law-like process applies to the plant required to turn it into electricity. Nuclear power is not a realistic alternative. It is too unpopular and the capital costs are huge. And coal’s days seem numbered. In America, the share of electricity generated from coal has fallen from almost 80% in the mid-1980s to less than a third in April 2012, and coal-fired power stations are closing in droves. It may take longer to make the change in China and India, where demand for power is growing almost insatiably, and where the grids to take that power from windy and sunny places to the cities are less developed than in rich countries. In the end, though, they too will change as the alternatives become normal, and what was once normal becomes quaintly old-fashioned. Geoffrey Carr: science editor, The Economist from The World In 2013 print edition

1 0

IOGA Intervenes in First Energy Harrison case
by James Kotcon 09 Jan '13

09 Jan '13

THE STATE JOURNAL IOGA wants gas represented fairly in Mon Power coal gen case Posted: Jan 07, 2013 6:38 PM EST Updated: Jan 08, 2013 11:57 AM EST By Pam Kasey West Virginia natural gas producers want a say in Mon Power's proposal to buy coal-fired generation — but not to argue against it. "What we're not interested in doing is kicking the coal industry when they're down," said Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia President Dennis Xander. Mon Power has a large deficit in generation capacity to serve its customers and those of Potomac Edison, IOGA reiterated in its Jan. 4 petition with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia to intervene in the case for Mon Power's proposed solution. The utility proposes to increase its installed capacity by almost 1,500 megawatts, primarily through the acquisition of the 80 percent of the coal-fired Harrison Power Station that it does not already own. "IOGA desires the opportunity to express its views to the commission about using natural gas as an inexpensive, clean and reliable fuel for power generation, and believes that its views will materially assist the commission in reaching a decision in this case," IOGA wrote in its petition. That doesn't mean IOGA is going to argue that natural gas would be better, Xander said. "We don't intend to take any kind of position in that," he said. "However, to the extent that the commission wants someone to step up and say, ‘Hey, look, the industry has an abundance of inexpensive, clean fuel that is an alternative,' we'll do that." IOGA also wants to be sure to keep the record straight on what natural gas can and cannot do in the electric power industry. "You're going to see a whole bunch of spreadsheets come out where people are going to calculate what the cost per kilowatt-hour would be under various scenarios," he predicted from long experience. "By intervening, we want to make sure whatever information the commission gets is right." If the suggestion came up that the Harrison plant should pursue gas co-firing — burning natural gas with coal, something FirstEnergy already is considering ( http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/energy/2012/10/firstenergy-consi… ) at Harrison — IOGA would be behind that idea, Xander said. "But we did not intervene for the purpose of trying to replace coal with natural gas," he said. "West Virginia needs coal jobs and coal severance taxes." Follow Mon Power's generation resource transaction case on the PSC's website ( http://www.psc.state.wv.us/ ): case number 12-1571.

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] New Report: Next Generation Energy Efficiency Programs Can Yield High Energy Savings
by Paul Wilson 09 Jan '13

09 Jan '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jennifer Miller <jen.miller(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:03 AM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] New Report: Next Generation Energy Efficiency Programs Can Yield High Energy Savings To: #Coal <coal-list(a)sierraclub.org>, #Coal-Volunteers < coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org>, #Chapter-Groups < chapter-groups-list(a)sierraclub.org>, #Staff-Chapter < Staff-chapter-list(a)sierraclub.org> Efficiency Warriors - ACEEE has a new report out in which they review the best practices for utility efficiency programs. See below. Also, stay tuned, because I will be hosting ACEEE to discuss this report for Sierra Club staff and volunteers on Feb 7 (time still TBA). Thanks jen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ACEEE News <aceeenews(a)aceee.org> Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:19 AM Subject: New Report: Next Generation Energy Efficiency Programs Can Yield High Energy Savings To: jen.miller(a)sierraclub.org [image: logo] NEWS RELEASE Media Contact: Patrick Kiker 202.507.4043 pkiker(a)aceee.org New Report Reveals How Next Generation Energy Efficiency Programs Can Help Utilities Achieve High Energy Savings Washington, D.C. (January 9, 2013): New technologies and innovative program designs are combining to create the next generation of energy efficiency programs that can meet the aggressive saving targets being set by many states, finds a new report. Frontiers of Energy Efficiency: Next Generation Programs Reach for High Energy Savings<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001B0-bBJgFk3sV5vSMr-ROdifJU5S5hZ0HTTC4Z5BGNNce…>, released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),finds that these technologies and programs can offer the potential to achieve and sustain high savings-27% of forecasted electricity use and 19% of forecasted natural gas use by 2030. "Natural gas isn't the only abundant energy resource in this country---we've also discovered deep reservoirs of energy efficiency. As our report shows, energy efficiency opportunities are abundant. Even as tried and true energy efficiency measures become commonplace, we continue to dig deeper and find new technologies and practices plus new program approaches to unlock further opportunities to achieve large energy savings," said Dan York, ACEEE utilities program director, and lead-author of the report. Energy efficiency programs for utility customers have been in place for over three decades in many areas in the United States. These programs have experienced unprecedented growth over the past decade, in significant part because of policies that establish high, specific energy savings targets to be achieved through energy efficiency programs. Over the next two decades, achieving and sustaining high savings levels present challenges for energy efficiency programs. Increasingly stringent building codes and energy efficiency standards for appliances and other technologies are moving baseline energy efficiency performance higher. Achieving high participation rates has been difficult for certain types of programs. The technologies and programs profiled in this report offer an answer to these concerns. "This report will be a valuable resource for those looking to help utility customers save money by using less energy. With a wealth of information on the leading edge of program designs and energy efficiency technologies, this report shows that program designers have an increasing number of options to achieve greater energy efficiency," said Maggie Molina, ACEEE state policy senior manager and report co-author. While savings opportunities exist for all types of customers, the report finds some of the greatest potential exists for renovations and retrofits of homes and commercial buildings. Lighting also remains a large source of energy savings along with building mechanical systems and a variety of electronics. Reaching more customers is another direction for next generation programs. Improved understanding of more narrowly defined customer segments through better data analytics can enable program administrators to structure and focus incentives and marketing to increase participation. Programs are successfully serving customers in markets that historically have been difficult to reach, such as multifamily housing and manufactured homes. Another clear trend across program portfolios is an emphasis on better understanding customer behavior and motivations in order to design programs that engage greater numbers of customers to take actions that save energy. The report examines a total of 22 different program types and concepts, from residential lighting to commercial buildings to industrial processes, and examines a wide range of energy efficiency technologies, including light-emitting diode (LED) lighting; high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment; and combined heat and power (CHP) systems. The research draws upon extensive interviews completed with a large number of experts on customer energy efficiency programs and technologies and includes numerous examples of where these leading principles and practices are being used or tested. To read the report, visit: http://aceee.org/research-report/u131<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001B0-bBJgFk3sV5vSMr-ROdifJU5S5hZ0HTTC4Z5BGNNce…> . About ACEEE: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, and behaviors. For information about ACEEE and its programs, publications, and conferences, visit aceee.org<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001B0-bBJgFk3tsYR4Dng-SQtpD695k_4CRraE72qiMAKTV…> . ### Forward email<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=4rt7cun6&m=1011065179711&ea=j…> <http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001QKZ15G27mHOwq-0UltPLdE0e-…> This email was sent to jen.miller(a)sierraclub.org by aceeenews(a)aceee.org | Update Profile/Email Address<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001QKZ15G27mHOwq-0UltPLdE0e-…> | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001QKZ15G27mHOwq-0UltPLdE0e-…>™ | Privacy Policy <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>. ACEEE | 529 14th Street., N.W. | Suite 600 | Washington | DC | 20045 -- 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

WVU Extension meetings on Utica gas Jan 29-30.
by James Kotcon 08 Jan '13

08 Jan '13

FYI. JBK http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2013/01/07/utica-shale-development-topic-of-wvu-e… Utica Shale development topic of WVU Extension Service educational program series ( http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2013/01/07/utica-shale-development-topic-of-wvu-e… )January 7th, 2013 Through a series of educational programs, West Virginia University ( http://www.wvu.edu/ ) Extension Service ( http://ext.wvu.edu/ ) hopes to help educate community members on development and leasing issues related to Utica shale and its impact on the state. The Utica shale is a large natural gas field that lies below Marcellus shale rock, underneath much of the northeastern U.S. and adjacent parts of Canada. The educational programs will take place in Parkersburg at the Parkersburg City Building on Jan. 29, and in New Martinsville at the Wetzel County 4-H Camp’s Mollohan Center on Jan. 30. Both programs begin at 6 p.m. This is the third year for the educational programs. Organizers say there’s a continued need and demand for updated information regarding the natural gas industry and its drilling. Presenters include experts from the Marietta College’s Dept. of Petroleum Engineering and Geology; The Ohio State University’s Agricultural and Resource Law unit; and WVU Extension Service agents and specialists. The program is open to the public, regardless of a person’s level of knowledge and interest concerning the oil and natural gas industry. A second series on Natural Gas Pipelines is scheduled for February in Kingwood and Beverly. For more information, contact WVU Extension Service Program Coordinator Georgette Plaugher ( http://anr.ext.wvu.edu/home/contact_us/georgette_plaugher ) at 304-329-1391. Connecting the people of West Virginia to the University’s resources and programs is the primary goal of WVU Extension Service and its 55 offices throughout the state. Local experts, like WVU Extension’s agents and specialists, work to help improve the lifestyles and well-being of youths, workforces, communities, farms and businesses through trusted research in the counties in which they serve. To learn more about WVU Extension programs, visit www.ext.wvu.edu, or contact your local office of the WVU Extension Service. -WVU-

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] Fw: Federal Court Rules in Favor of Clean Air -- Requires EPA to implement strong soot controls
by Jim Sconyers 04 Jan '13

04 Jan '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <verena_owen(a)prodigy.net> Date: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:17 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] Fw: Federal Court Rules in Favor of Clean Air -- Requires EPA to implement strong soot controls To: coal volunteer list <coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org> Good news for clean air: Verena FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 4, 2013 Contact: Paul Cort, Earthjustice, (415) 217-2077; pcort(a)earthjustice.org Eitan Bencuya, Sierra Club, (202) 495-3047, eitan.bencuya(a)sierraclub.org John Walke , Natural Resources Defense Council, 202-289-2406 Mary Havell McGinty, American Lung Association (202)715-3459, mary.havell(a)lung.org *Federal Court Rules in Favor of Clean Air*** *Requires EPA to implement strong soot controls* *WASHINGTON, D.C.* – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today released a ruling requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement stronger requirements to clean up particulate matter, also known as “soot, “one of the deadliest forms of air pollution. Rejecting EPA’s adoption of a weaker approach, the Court ruled that the public health protections in the Clean Air Act require EPA to use the strictest more stringent cleanup requirements in communities with unhealthful particulate matter levels. The suit was brought by Earthjustice on behalf of American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air. “Soot pollution is dangerous to kids, seniors, and people with heart and lung problems, and kills tens of thousands of people each year” said Paul Cort, the Earthjustice attorney who argued the case. “This ruling will mean much stronger protections against this deadly pollutant.” Major sources of soot pollution include coal-fired power plants, factories, oil refineries, and diesel engines. The ruling means that more plants will be subject to more protective particulate matter limits in areas that violate health standards. It also will require limits not only on direct emissions of soot, but also on pollutants that transform into particulate matter in the air. Under the ruling, the most stringent controls will apply to communities that fail to timely attain health standards (within four to six years). Among other things, these areas will have to implement the best available control measures (instead of just reasonably available measures) and achieve pollution cuts of at least five percent per year if they fail to meet standards on time. “Soot particles are a dangerous mix of toxic metals and chemicals and are released into the air by burning dirty fuels like coal,” said Bruce Nilles, Senior Campaign Director for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “Today's court decision is a strong step toward ensuring our families have clean, breathable air.” “Few court rulings strike so close to home. This one’s as close as your next breath of air,” said John Walke, senior attorney and Director of NRDC’s Clean Air Program. “Soot kills. Now there will be less of it - in our air, our hearts and our lungs. That means less bronchitis, fewer asthma attacks, fewer heart attacks and fewer strokes. We can thank the court, with every breath we take.” “Cleaning up particle pollution saves lives,” said Janice Nolen, Assistant Vice President for the American Lung Association. “A few weeks ago, EPA adopted the strongest, most protective standard for fine particles. Today’s decision means that communities around the nation will have better tools to make sure that they can meet that standard and save lives.” ### -- Eitan Bencuya National Communications Strategist Sierra Club 202-495-3047 o 415-255-5521 m eitan.bencuya(a)sierraclub.org -- 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.

1 0

Bridge To Nowhere? NOAA Confirms High Methane Leakage Rate Up To 9% From Gas Fields, Gutting Climate Benefit
by James Kotcon 03 Jan '13

03 Jan '13

This article reports very "preliminary" data on methane leakage rates from natural gas fields in Colorado and Utah which document that between 4 and 9 % of the methane produced was leaking into the atmosphere. The Utah data with the 9 % emissions was apparently unpublished, and simply was reported at a recent American Geophysical union meeting, so there may not even be a published abstract to cite. If these rates hold, true, they eliminate any climate benefit from using natural gas as a replacement for coal. Of course, without a significant price for carbon, basic economics means that most natural gas will be used "in addition" to, not as a replacement for, coal, and any purported climate benefit is meaningless. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/02/1388021/bridge-to-nowhere-noaa-… The actual Nature article is at: http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural… These data contradict recent reports from EPA and US-EIA that American greenhouse gas emissions have declined, largely due to gas substituting for coal in electricity generation. The electric generation data do not account for these fugitive emissions from leaking gas wells and pipelines. http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/greenhouse-gases-cut/index.htm The take-home message is that we need to become much more focused on enforcement of air pollution from gas wells, or else ban shale gas altogether, as the emissions from shale gas well completions swamp most other losses, and this could mean "game-over" for the climate. JBK >>> "Ann Payne" <notification+zlrdzo1f(a)facebookmail.com> 1/3/2013 12:23 PM >>> Ann Payne posted in Stop the Fracking in Morgantown Industrial Park Ann Payne12:23pm Jan 3 Thanks for posting this, Mark. Bridge To Nowhere? NOAA Confirms High Methane Leakage Rate Up To 9% From Gas Fields, Gutting Climatethinkprogress.org Researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have reconfirmed earlier... View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

1 0

Fw: 'Fiscal cliff' deal includes extension to tax credit for wind industry
by Frank Young 02 Jan '13

02 Jan '13

"A one-year extension of a key tax credit for the wind industry made it into the fiscal cliff deal the U.S. Senate and House passed on Tuesday. "The tax credit, which has been a major driver for wind development across the U.S. over the past two decades, is worth 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of energy produced by new wind installations for their first 10 years of operation. "A White House news release confirmed that the production tax credit extension is included in the Senate package that the House also passed. According to industry insiders, it would allow any project that begins construction in 2013 to claim the credit, even if it goes online in 2014. The tax credit that expired on Monday could only be claimed for projects that went online in 2012." ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Shoenfeld To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:53 AM Subject: [WVHCBOARD] 'Fiscal cliff' deal includes extension to tax credit for wind industry http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130101/BUSINESS01/301010039/-Fiscal-cliff…

1 0

(no subject)
by Sally Wilts 27 Dec '12

27 Dec '12

http://pizino.com/wp-content/themes/zbench/images/perfectway.php

1 0

Chesapeake announces personnel reduction
by James Kotcon 21 Dec '12

21 Dec '12

I just saw this from Friday and found it ironic. Chesapeake cuts 275 jobs and sells Marcellus assets. But this week, the WV Chamber of Commerce predicts 58,000 new jobs in WV gas industry. Do you suppose the Chamber was paying attention to what Chesapeake actually does, or just their PR? JBK >>> "Donald C. Strimbeck" dcsoinks(a)comcast.net> 12/15/2012 4:19 AM >> ( mailto:dcsoinks@comcast.net ) THE STATE JOURNALChesapeake announces personnel reduction Posted: Dec 14, 2012 2:51 PM EST Updated: Dec 14, 2012 2:51 PM EST Chesapeake Energy Corp. is looking to cut its work force by 275 employees. Buyouts are being offered to employees who meet criteria based on a combination of age and years of Chesapeake service, the company said in a news release. The company did not give specific reasons for offering the buyouts other than to further its efforts "to maximize corporate performance and maintain our leadership role in this competitive and constantly evolving industry." On Dec. 11, Chesapeake announced that it had agreed to sell most of its remaining midstream assets in the Marcellus, Utica, Eagle Ford, Haynesville and Niobrara shale plays to Access Midstream Partners for about $2.16 billion. The sale includes "new market-based gathering and processing agreements covering various acreage dedication areas," according to the announcement. The sale is expected to close by the end of this month. Chesapeake also said it had completed the sale of other midstream assets in Oklahoma and Texas during the 2012 fourth quarter for about $175 million. Also, Chesapeake said it anticipates completing the sale of its remaining midstream assets by the end of the 2013 first quarter for approximately $425 million, bringing the total of current and anticipated midstream asset sales to $2.75 billion. Don Strimbeck, Sec/Treas Upper Mon River Assoc UpperMon.org MonRiverSummit.org WVU t-shirts & prints - FindHarri.com 109 Broad Street, P. O. Box 519 Granville WV 26534-0519 304-599-7585 (fax 4131) dcsoinks(a)comcast.net

2 1

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Tremendous new report on a carbon-free electric sector in 2030
by James Kotcon 21 Dec '12

21 Dec '12

New report argues that we should "overbuild" renewable capacity. Instead of sizing wind and solar for our electric generation needs, it is cheaper to build lots of excess capacity for when the wind don't blow, and when it is blowing, use the excess to decarbonize other energy sectors. This may be a "game-changer", just as the gas industry claims Marcellus is. JBK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)fuse.net> Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:10 PM Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Tremendous new report on a carbon-free electric sector in 2030 To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org This article just came from the Club's frack list. I found a link to the actual report, to save folks a couple of clicks. This is the first article I have seen (except for ones I've written) which gets it right. For those of us in the Midwest, they modeled PJM. It overstates the cost of ending fossil fuels in the electric sector because they do not examine the two most attractive forms of energy storage, building thermal storage and compressed air energy storage. But since they reach the right conclusion by using electric batteries and one tenth of the load from fossil fuels, it does not matter. Here is a link to the actual article they report, which fortunately is open access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759 What is particularly important about this is that they find that building excess generating capacity (up to three times peak load) is cheaper than trying to build to load and manage the variability with a larger amount of storage. This is an essential part of an overall climate strategy because it allows us to use the excess capacity for water and space heating to displace natural gas, and for vehicles to displace petroleum. (Both of those uses are generally going to enhance energy storage). We could use 50% more electricity in 2030 than EIA projects, and starting toward that goal today will prevent us from being whipsawed by the aging nuclear plants as they fail. Note that the headline below says 99.9% fossil-free, but the actual article says 90 to 99.9%. By the time we get there it won't matter. Some of you may find the graphic of renewable generation versus storage requirements to be the most interesting part of the article. It certainly takes a big bite out of the argument that all renewables need massive storage capability. I would like to work with people in the Club who want to articulate the message that the Sierra Club wants MORE electricity in the next two decades than EIA assumes we will need. Planning now, and starting now to build towards 50% more electricity than we use today is the only way we will get through the next decade with all the coal plant closures and the likely nuclear failures without economic catastrophe. We have to be a little circumspect about how we state that, but there is a growing body of argument that Business As Usual is going to end any chance of an economic recovery because of the high cost of new fossil plants. I have another reference I also found today, but it is a 5.4 MB powerpoint, and I will circulate a link if and when I can find one. In the mean time, if you are a glutton for this stuff, ask me offlist for the Risk powerpoint. There is a full report available from RAP, but the powerpoint is much more lucid than the written report. - Ned On 12/19/2012 11:49 AM, david Meiser wrote: http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/dec/renewable-energy-121012.html Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030 at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses, according to new research ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759 ) by the University of Delaware and Delaware Technical Community College. A well-designed combination of wind power, solar power and storage in batteries and fuel cells would nearly always exceed electricity demands while keeping costs low, the scientists found. “These results break the conventional wisdom that renewable energy is too unreliable and expensive,” said co-author Willett Kempton ( http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?willett ), professor in the School of Marine Science and Policy in UD’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment ( http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/default.aspx ). “The key is to get the right combination of electricity sources and storage — which we did by an exhaustive search — and to calculate costs correctly.” The authors developed a computer model to consider 28 billion combinations of renewable energy sources and storage mechanisms, each tested over four years of historical hourly weather data and electricity demands. The model incorporated data from within a large regional grid called PJM Interconnection, which includes 13 states from New Jersey to Illinois and represents one-fifth of the United States’ total electric grid. Unlike other studies, the model focused on minimizing costs instead of the traditional approach of matching generation to electricity use. The researchers found that generating more electricity than needed during average hours — in order to meet needs on high-demand but low-wind power hours — would be cheaper than storing excess power for later high demand. Storage is relatively costly because the storage medium, batteries or hydrogen tanks, must be larger for each additional hour stored. One of several new findings is that a very large electric system can be run almost entirely on renewable energy. “For example, using hydrogen for storage, we can run an electric system that today would meeting a need of 72 GW, 99.9 percent of the time, using 17 GW of solar, 68 GW of offshore wind, and 115 GW of inland wind,” said co-author Cory Budischak, instructor in the Energy Management Department at Delaware Technical Community College and former UD student. A GW (“gigawatt”) is a measure of electricity generation capability. One GW is the capacity of 200 large wind turbines or of 250,000 rooftop solar systems. Renewable electricity generators must have higher GW capacity than traditional generators, since wind and solar do not generate at maximum all the time. The study sheds light on what an electric system might look like with heavy reliance on renewable energy sources. Wind speeds and sun exposure vary with weather and seasons, requiring ways to improve reliability. In this study, reliability was achieved by: expanding the geographic area of renewable generation, using diverse sources, employing storage systems, and for the last few percent of the time, burning fossil fuels as a backup. During the hours when there was not enough renewable electricity to meet power needs, the model drew from storage and, on the rare hours with neither renewable electricity or stored power, then fossil fuel. When there was more renewable energy generated than needed, the model would first fill storage, use the remaining to replace natural gas for heating homes and businesses and only after those, let the excess go to waste. The study used estimates of technology costs in 2030 without government subsidies, comparing them to costs of fossil fuel generation in wide use today. The cost of fossil fuels includes both the fuel cost itself and the documented external costs such as human health effects caused by power plant air pollution. The projected capital costs for wind and solar in 2030 are about half of today’s wind and solar costs, whereas maintenance costs are projected to be approximately the same. “Aiming for 90 percent or more renewable energy in 2030, in order to achieve climate change targets of 80 to 90 percent reduction of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the power sector, leads to economic savings,” the authors observe. The research was published online last month in the Journal of Power Sources. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] the "12 Days of Coal" carol
by James Kotcon 21 Dec '12

21 Dec '12

Did you all see thios? Happy Holidays! JBK >>> James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)gmail.com> 12/21/2012 7:55 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: barbara conover <bconifer022(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:41 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] the "12 Days of Coal" carol To: coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org I found this through a link from a link... so I don't know where it started or to whom to credit it... beyond Care2... but I thought you might enjoy adding this carol to your repertoire. (http://www.care2.com/causes/go-climate-carolsing-rudolph-the-dying-polar-be…) 12 Days of Coal On the 1st day of Christmas my true love said to me: There’s no such thing as clean coal On the 2nd day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 3rd day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 4th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 5th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 6th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 6 paid off politicians 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 7th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 7 poisoned elementary schools 6 paid off politicians 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 8th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 8 sludge-filled rivers 7 poisoned elementary schools 6 paid off politicians 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 9th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 9 flattened mountains 8 sludge-filled rivers 7 poisoned elementary schools 6 paid off politicians 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 10th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 10 asthmatic children 9 flattened mountains 8 sludge-filled rivers 7 poisoned elementary schools 6 paid off politicians 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 11th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 11 unemployed workers 10 asthmatic children 9 flattened mountains 8 sludge-filled rivers 7 poisoned elementary schools 6 paid off politicians 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal On the 12th day of Christmas Bank of America gave to me: 12 destroyed communities 11 unemployed workers 10 asthmatic children 9 flattened mountains 8 sludge-filled rivers 7 poisoned elementary schools 6 paid off politicians 5 coal silos 4 melting glaciers 3 coal trucks 2 blackened lungs And there’s no such thing as clean coal -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/

1 0

from ScienceDaily e-newsletter: New approach could help resolve mountaintop mining issues
by Paul Wilson 11 Dec '12

11 Dec '12

New approach could help resolve mountaintop mining issues<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/Wvk…> Posted: 10 Dec 2012 07:13 AM PST A progressive approach to resolve the complex issues surrounding mountaintop mining needs to incorporate good civic science and meaningful routes for public involvement, researchers say. -- 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: NPR.org - Conflicts, Errors Revealed In Positive Fracking Study
by James Kotcon 08 Dec '12

08 Dec '12

You may recall this story earlier this year. The study has now been withdrawn, and the authors have been retired/resigned. http://www.npr.org/2012/12/07/166755886/positive-fracking-study-was-funded-… Conflicts, Errors Revealed In Positive Fracking Study by Wade Goodwyn ( http://www.npr.org/people/1939802/wade-goodwyn ) December 7, 2012 A report that shed favorable light on fracking is at the center of a controversy at the University of Texas. The head of the school's Energy Institute has stepped down and another professor has retired after an investigation found numerous errors and flaws in the report — and undisclosed conflicts of interest. Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: A University of Texas study that says hydraulic natural gas fracturing is safe has been withdrawn, and its author has retired and left the university. From Dallas, NPR's Wade Goodwyn has the story. WADE GOODWYN, BYLINE: The fracking study is now a black eye to the University of Texas after an independent review of national experts found it scientifically unsound and tainted by conflicts of interest. The author of the study, Dr. Charles Groat, retired in the wake of the scathing review, and the university announced that Dr. Raymond Orbach, head of the university's Energy Institute that released the study, has resigned his position. The original fracking study concluded that hydraulic fracturing was safe, the danger of water contamination low and suggestions to the contrary mostly media bias. But then it was reported this summer that Professor Groat sat on the board of a natural gas drilling company and received more than a million and a half dollars in compensation. That information was not disclosed in Groat's report. In a statement, the University of Texas said it accepted the findings of the independent review. This is the third time in three months that fracking research by energy-friendly university industry consortiums has been discredited. The Shale Resources Institute at the State University of New York at Buffalo was closed after questions were raised about the quality and independence of its work. And an industry canceled their fracking study after professors at Penn State University refused to participate. Wade Goodwyn, NPR News, Dallas. Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio A more detailed story, with additional links, from Texas Public radio is at: http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/12/06/review-of-ut-fracking-study-fin… This is gonna be HUGE. Thanks to Dave Mcmahon for the original link. Jim Kotcon

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] Volunteer Webinar - Your Input Requested on Sierra Club Climate Agenda
by Paul Wilson 08 Dec '12

08 Dec '12

*fyi, paul * ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <verena_owen(a)prodigy.net> Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:21 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] Volunteer Webinar - Your Input Requested on Sierra Club Climate Agenda To: coal volunteer list <coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org> Please join us! Verena *You are invited to a webinar to share your thoughts on the Sierra Club's 2013 climate and clean energy agenda for the White House. * Now that President Obama has won reelection, many of you have asked what the Sierra Club's major climate and clean energy asks will be in his second term. A stellar group of volunteers and staff members from across the Sierra Club have been working on this Agenda, which will drive our compelling and powerful work out of the gates in 2013. As part of that process, we want to get your input and ideas. We will be holding two webinars for volunteers next week to give an overview of the Agenda, along with our plans to roll it out publicly in January with “100 Days of Action” between the Inauguration and Earth Day. There will be time in the agenda to get your feedback on the agenda. Please join us for one of the following webinars! *Volunteer webinars: Wednesday & Thursday, Dec. 12 & 13 - 8:00pm ET / 7:00 CT / 6:00 MT / 5:00 PT * Please note that you have to register in advance to participate in the webinar, which you can do at the link below. Be sure you register for the appropriate webinar - staff or volunteer - as they will be structured a bit differently. Also, you only need to attend one webinar - we will be repeating the same content both times, and are offering multiple time slots to allow the maximum number of people to participate *Register for a session now by clicking a date below:* Wed, Dec 12, 2012 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM EST <https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/160378839> Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM EST <https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/665136319> Once registered you will receive an email confirming your registration with information you need to join the Webinar. *System Requirements* PC-based attendees Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 ServerMac®-based attendees Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newerMobile attendees Required: iPhone®, iPad®, Android™ phone or Android tablet -- 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: WVNS story: NY Times Knows More About WV Tax Breaks than Legislators
by Paul Wilson 06 Dec '12

06 Dec '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:51 AM Subject: WVNS story: NY Times Knows More About WV Tax Breaks than Legislators To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> NY Times Knows More About WV Tax Breaks than Legislators Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29659-1 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> (12/06/12) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - A major New York Times investigation is pushing West Virginia lawmakers to examine the tax breaks they give to businesses. According to the Times, each year state and local governments give companies the equivalent of about $850 per West Virginian. That's one of the highest ratios in the country - equal to about one-third of the state budget. Senate Finance Committee Chair Roman Prezioso (D-Dist. 13)) says for years he has been frustrated trying to find out how much the state gives out in tax breaks, let alone how many jobs are created in the process. "How could the New York Times come in and do an oversight, when we as legislators can't get those answers? We want to know why a third of our total budget does not have the oversight folks say it should." Many in the business community say the tax breaks spark economic growth and new jobs. Prezioso agrees it is probably true for some, but lawmakers have no way of knowing which ones. During the last session, Prezioso says he refused to pass any new tax breaks. As he puts it, he "boxed them up" in his committee because the state doesn't measure how many jobs are created or how the tax programs could be made more efficient. "I took a lot of heat: 'He must be against business.' Well, I'm not against business. We just can't continue to go down this path without having specific benchmarks." Nine years ago, officials negotiated what is known as a "tax increment financing" deal with outdoor retailer Cabela's. The company won subsidies worth about a $150 million dollars. Prezioso says it was probably worth it, but he wonders if the state risks undermining funding for schools when it makes such deals. "Is there a tipping point? Can you overextend the state in tax increment financing, then all of a sudden your revenues dry up, but you have all this infrastructure?" The legislature will hold a public hearing on the issue on Dec. 12. It will start at 11 a.m. in the House of Delegates chamber at the state capitol. The New York Times findings on West Virginia can be found at www.nytimes.com<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html…> . 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/29659-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29659-1> --- 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

from the Center for Media and Democracy: ALEC and Heartland Aim to Crush Renewable Energy Standards in the States
by Paul Wilson 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

ALEC and Heartland Aim to Crush Renewable Energy Standards in the States [image: Image of ALEC and Heartland Institute logos]An effort to stomp out state renewable energy mandates across the country has roots in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). As reported by *The Washington Post*, the Heartland Institute wrote the bill, had it passed through ALEC, and is now targeting the 29 states and the District of Columbia, which have passed renewable energy requirements in some form. Read more<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=X3rVLQDRsoaeYG%2Byoi…> -- 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

3 2

energy organizer?
by James Kotcon 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

We have been working recently on the First Energy/Harrison power plant transfer with some national staff, as well as allies such as EEWV. As you may recall, First Energy wants to raise rates to transfer the Harrison power plant to Mon Power, so that ratepayers, not stockholders, are responsible for any costs associated with carbon rules, etc. The PSC is hearing these rate cases this month, and Mon Power is asking for a decision on the transfer case by the end of March. I made a strong pitch that we will need heavy public pressure to counter the "Friends of Coal" that will want to keep coal-fired plants running and mine more coal. We will argue that energy efficiency is a much better way to meet consumer demand than another dinosaur coal plant. There may be funds for a short-term organizer to help turn out public comment. I think that if the issue is framed to be about electric rates, we will win. If the issue is framed about how to help the coal industry, we will have a much more difficult time. Anyone have any thoughts on a scope of work, or possible candidates for an outreach person? I this happens, it would move pretty quickly. Jim Kotcon

1 0

Re: [EC] [wvec-board] Ohio vs injection gas wells
by James Kotcon 01 Dec '12

01 Dec '12

Thanks for the post Cindy. But I would argue that this is more than "a bit of peaceful fun/protest". The "informational meeting" concept has been used extensively for the last 10-15 years by agencies as a means of reducing public input and squelching information sharing. neither the citizen nor the agency are "on the record" at these events, and since no one hears what others are saying, community concerns are not shared and information about risks gets buried in a file cabinet, instead of getting broadcast to all interested citizens. A formal public hearing also has limitations, but it does provide a mechanism to disseminate information to the community, as well as enter formal statements into the record. One drawback with both formats is that the agency is not "on the record". Although they claim they want to share information and answer questions, none of the experts brought in by the agency can be held to anything they say. Hence, there is a tendency for the agency people to spout nonsense with aggressive certainty, in an effort to assure the crowd that they have it all under control. The information meeting format might be useful if it is done early in the process, but once the agency has a draft permit out, they have pretty much made up their mind, and do not want to be inconvenienced by public comment, so I get really frustrated and upset by that kind of process. I commend the people of Athens for their response. We may want to do something similar some day. Jim Kotcon >>> cindy rank <clrank2(a)gmail.com> 11/30/2012 12:52 PM >>> a bit of peaceful fun/protest..... http://www.frackfreeamerica.org/1/post/2012/11/public-ejected-from-injectio… Public Ejected From Injection Well Non-Hearing At Athens, Ohio, ODNR Open House 11/29/2012 1 Comment photo credit: Appalachia Resist! and Athens County Fracking Action Network Contacts: ACFAN, AR!: 740 591 2693 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 28, 2012. To: News Media From: Appalachia Resist! and Athens County Fracking Action Network Contacts: ACFAN, AR!: 740 591 2693 Re: ODNR INVITES PUBLIC IN, THEN KICKS THEM OUT ORIGINAL POSTED HERE: http://www.acfan.org/2012/odnr-invites-the-public-in-kicks-them-out/ Includes more images. Tonight, soon after the ODNR invited the public into an "open house" about injection wells , they thought better of it and ordered the public to leave. Though over 100 community members requested a public hearing about a newly permitted well, the ODNR had instead opted for an “open house” format, designed to diffuse agency accountability and community solidarity. The event was held 6 PM Wednesday night at the ODNR headquarters on East State Street. More than fifty residents were crowded inside the ODNR headquarters on East State Street, when they took matters into their own hands and transformed the ODNR'S planned "open house" into the public hearing they had requested. The crowd was made up of concerned landowners, farmers, business owners, and mothers with young children. Ex-county commissioner Roxanne Groff hosted the impromptu event. She began by acknowledging Rick Simmers, Chief of the Division of Oil and Gas Resource Management, and moved on to take prepared public comments from the assembled crowd. ODNR personnel were visibly at a loss. Law enforcement quickly interrupted Groff, asking her to leave, at which point Groff asked the public if they would like her to continue. The room broke into enthusiastic applause. After law enforcement again ordered residents to leave, the crowd broke into a “mic check", chanting as they left the building "The ODNR has been bought by the oil and gas industry!" "No new permits!" "When is the public hearing?" When the public left, the room was nearly empty, except for ODNR personnel and the large law enforcement presence they had invited. After the public was ordered out, they were met outside by over 100 Athens County residents who had marched down east State Street to ODNR headquarters to voice their objection to the ODNR’s continuing disregard of the widespread community concern about Class II injection wells. The marchers carried placards emblazoned with skulls and held a banner that read "Shut it Down! No New Wells!" and signs with slogans such as “Our Safety is Not for Sale”, "Defend Our Water", "We Demand a Public a Hearing", and "I Want my Concerns on Record" ". Marchers wore hazmat style suits and respirators to draw attention to the fact that Class II injection wells accept massive amounts of radioactive fracking waste from out-of-state. Community objection to injection wells has been increasing lately, as landowners have realized that they do not have any say if an injection well goes into operation on or near their property. Ms. Malvena Frost, who owns the property on which the Atha injection well is proposed in Rome Township, Athens County, does not want an injection well on her land. She “fears her only source of drinking water, a private well...will be contaminated," according to public comments submitted on her behalf to ODNR by her attorney, Mike Hollingsworth. SB315, cited by some as a law that will increase regulations on injection wells, actually makes it easier for ODNR to bypass public notice period for new wells, and makes it more difficult for landowners to appeal permits. A public hearing, the ODNR’s standard system for public redress, allows citizen comments to be entered into the legal record, so that citizens can challenge an agency decision through the court system. An “open house” offers no such substantial participation in public process. Underscoring how opposed they were to receiving public input, ODNR designated an outdoor, “free speech zone” for the ralliers, and forbade the public from bringing in signs, banners, backpacks, or audio or videocameras. One citizen was ordered to leave after recording officials' comments. Ralliers brought their own solar-powered sound system, stage, and roster of speakers. "We will challenge these intolerable restrictions on our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly," said Smiles Welch, the emcee of the event. Speakers at the event raised many objections to injection wells, including a history of failed wells and water contamination. The ODNR claims that there have been no cases of water contamination by Class II injection wells in Ohio for decades, yet they do no testing of groundwater or surface water near the wells. "The reason they have not found contamination is that they have never looked for it," stated Grace Hall, one of the 100 who sent in objections. Although the fracking waste that is dumped into injection wells is hazardous, it is not legally classified as such due to exemptions given to the oil and gas industry. Nov 28, 2012, 2 minute video by Don E Wirtshafter. " The Ohio Department of Natural Resources tried to abridge citizen rights to a hearing before granting a permit for a new toxic waste injection well in their community. Instead, they hosted a "public meeting", a dog a pony show that had no legal impact. This is the community's reaction." LINK to original if player does not load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZEnMzjK69-k photo from: Appalachia Resist! and Athens County Fracking Action Network Contacts: ACFAN, AR!: 740 591 2693 Other media coverage: The Columbus Dispatch, November 29, 2012. Columbus, Ohio. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/11/29/fracking-dispute-g… The Athens News, November 28, 2012. Athens, Ohio. http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-38515-odnr-shuts-down-attempt-at-imp… 2 Previous Protests, June 26, August 15, October 3, 2012: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=506640166022449&set=pb.2055752994622… WATCH PROMISED LAND TRAILER (CLICK) About Current issues covered by Frackfree America National Coalition based in Youngstown, Ohio - F.A.N.C.Y. Archives November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 May 2012 Categories All City Council Illinois Ingraffea Injection Well New York Odnr Ohio Rally Toxic Wastewater Youngstown RSS Feed Create a free website with __._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___

2 2

Re: [EC] from ScienceDaily n-newsletter: Installed price of solar photovoltaic systems in US continues to decline at rapid pace
by James Kotcon 30 Nov '12

30 Nov '12

Here is a pretty important development. According to the article: "Utility-scale systems installed in 2011 registered even lower prices, with most systems larger than 10,000 kW ranging from $2.80/W to $3.50/W." By way of comparison, the 695 MW Longview plant (which also began operation in 2011) cost just over $2 billion to construct, for an installed cost of $2.88/W. This does not include the cost of fuel or operation and maintenance costs, which are considerably higher for coal than for solar. Those radicals at Science Daily, what outlandish things will they say next! JBK From: Paul Wilson ( mailto:pjgrunt@gmail.com ) Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 AM To: Coal Alerts ( mailto:coal-volunteers-list@sierraclub.org ) ; WV Chapter Energy Committee ( mailto:EC@osenergy.org ) Cc: John Christensen ( mailto:jbc329@earthlink.net ) ; Hogue, Robert ( mailto:Robert.Hogue@va.gov ) Subject: from ScienceDaily n-newsletter: Installed price of solar photovoltaic systems in US continues to decline at rapid pace Most of you probably know this, but... Installed price of solar photovoltaic systems in US continues to decline at rapid pace ( http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/AbB… ) Posted: 27 Nov 2012 10:02 AM PSTThe installed price of solar photovoltaic power systems in the United States fell substantially in 2011 and through the first half of 2012, according to new research. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 ( tel:304-725-4360 ) Cell: 304-279-1361 ( tel: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 -- 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

4 4

Fwd: WVNS story: Veterans Salute the Wind Energy Tax Credit
by Paul Wilson 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:48 AM Subject: WVNS story: Veterans Salute the Wind Energy Tax Credit To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Veterans Salute the Wind Energy Tax Credit Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29489-1 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> (11/28/12) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - One segment of the American workforce is speaking out on behalf of wind-energy development, even in the coal states. Military veterans say their experiences in the oil-rich Middle East have convinced them that the U.S. should be doing more to encourage domestic alternative-energy sources. Some have chosen new careers in the field, including Duane Enger, who works for Gamesa in Pennsylvania. He's an Iraq War veteran who develops wind projects, and he's not shy about his interest in the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is waiting on congressional action for renewal. "There's 37-thousand-some-odd jobs that are on the line and, to be honest, mine's one of them. And so I'm concerned and I'm interested in seeing the Production Tax Credit be extended." The Production Tax Credit gives a little more than two cents back to wind-power producers for every kilowatt-hour of power they generate. Enger says the uncertainty about its renewal has already prompted companies to slow or cancel wind-energy projects and lay off workers, including at his company. Critics of the tax credit say it gives wind power an unfair and unsustainable advantage. Supporters argue that other energy industries, including coal, get much larger subsidies and have for years. Veterans' interest in wind technology doesn't surprise Michael Breen, a former Army officer who now heads the Truman National Security Project. Breen says many of the skills learned in the military translate well to clean-energy industries, including the willingness to take on a new challenge. "And the clean-energy sector is like that. It's a dynamic, emerging place: new solutions are being put forward that are going to make all of our lives better and make us stronger as a country. Veterans are naturally attracted to that sort of thing." The Senate Finance Committee has approved an extension of the expiring tax credit, but the real question is whether Congress will take it up before the lame-duck session ends. 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/29489-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29489-1> --- 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

from ScienceDaily n-newsletter: Installed price of solar photovoltaic systems in US continues to decline at rapid pace
by Paul Wilson 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

Most of you probably know this, but... Installed price of solar photovoltaic systems in US continues to decline at rapid pace<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/AbB…> Posted: 27 Nov 2012 10:02 AM PST The installed price of solar photovoltaic power systems in the United States fell substantially in 2011 and through the first half of 2012, according to new research. -- 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

EEWV on the Harrison power plant sale to Mon Power
by James Kotcon 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Let's see, Mon Power could lower my electric rates by 5 5, or raise them by 2 %. Which one do I want? JBK http://www.register-herald.com/local/x983010197/Coalition-opposes-companies… Coalition opposes companies' proposal to buy coal plants By Wendy Holdren, The Register-Herald, Beckley, W.Va. Nov. 27-- Energy Efficient West Virginia (EEWV) is opposing Mon Power and Potomac Edison’s recent proposal to the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) to purchase coal plants from another subsidiary of their parent company, FirstEnergy. EEWV argues that the utility's plan is unnecessary and will expose ratepayers to additional risk. The utility has proposed to purchase 80 percent of the Harrison Power Plant, an additional 1477 MW of coal-fired capacity, and Mon Power already owns 20 percent of the plant, according to a release from EEWV. Harrison was constructed in the early 1970s and the 80 percent interest in the plant to be transferred is currently owned by Allegheny Energy Supply Co., which is also owned by FirstEnergy. The FirstEnergy companies' plan would raise residential rates by about 2 percent, in addition to eliminating what would otherwise have been a nearly 5 percent residential rate decrease for 2013, according to EEWV. The company is requesting fast-tracked regulatory approval by mid-April, but the West Virginia Citizen Action Group (WVCAG), a member of the EEWV coalition, will urge the PSC to oppose the proposal. "FirstEnergy has requested a ridiculously short timeline for the PSC to scrutinize this proposal," executive director of WVCAG Gary Zuckett said. "FirstEnergy is proposing a long-term deal that will lock its West Virginia customers into owning and operating this coal plant for at least another decade." He said according to its own filings at the PSC, there are no cost savings for state customers. "The plant is actually a long-term liability that they want to unload onto West Virginia where it will be guaranteed to recover its cost regardless of whether or not it's competitive." The proposal would reduce financial risk for FirstEnergy because it will allow the plant to recover its operating costs plus profit in the state's regulated electricity market, according to EEWV, and if the proposal is not approved, the plant will continue to sell into a deregulated electricity market where it has to compete with other generators. Due to low natural gas prices, coal-fired electricity production is currently more expensive and coal generation has been driven to record lows. EEWV says on the regional electricity grid, PJM, coal generation in the first half of 2012 was 10 percent lower than the same period last year; FirstEnergy's profits fell 20 percent in the third quarter in 2012, in part due to the reduced profits in the competitive electricity market. Both Mon Power and Potomac Edison were required to file a long-term "Resource Plan" with the PSC earlier this year. According to the company's estimates, the cost of purchasing the Harrison plant offers no long-term financial advantage to customers compared with continuing to purchase power from the regional electricity market. West Virginia's other major electric utility, Appalachian Power, is similarly planning to purchase 1647 MW of existing coal plants from a deregulated subsidiary of its parent company, American Electric Power. Their proposal is expected to be filed with the PSC next month. FirstEnergy's Resource Plan failed to evaluate an expansion of the company's energy efficiency programs to help meet future energy needs, even though reducing demand through energy efficiency is a low-cost and low-risk option for meeting electricity needs, according to EEWV. Mon Power and Potomac Edison currently have one of the least ambitious energy efficiency programs in the country. FirstEnergy's proposal highlights the need for a robust integrated resource planning process, according to EEWV. With an integrated resource planning process, utilities would be required to regularly file with the PSC long-term plans analyzing a range of scenarios to show how they can meet future electricity demand at the lowest cost, considering both energy efficiency and traditional power plants. In states with strong IRP requirements, this creates a more proactive process for the PSC and other stakeholders to scrutinize all options available to the company to make sure that the company's long-term investment decisions are in the best interest of electricity customers. EEWV will be urging the PSC to reject FirstEnergy's proposal. For more information, visit www.eewv.org. -- E-mail: wholdren(a)register-herald.com ___ (c)2012 The Register-Herald (Beckley, W.Va.)

1 0

Shale Gas Litigation strategies
by James Kotcon 23 Nov '12

23 Nov '12

Informative article by an industry lawyer on new litigation strategies. Author is Margaret Anne Hill, Partner, Blank Rome LLP. Full bio at: http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=10&bioID=2141 Full story is at: http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&itemID=2943 The Emerging Litigation Strategy of Environmental Organizations Seeking to Curtail Shale Oil and Gas Development November 2012 (No. 5) Shale Oil & Gas Development Opponents of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities initially pursued litigation as one might have anticipated. The suits filed first involved allegations of groundwater contamination and toxic tort injury. Typically, common law claims, such as those for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability, were asserted in those early suits. Occasionally, environmental statutory claims, such as under the federal Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (the “Clean Air Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 to 7671q, surfaced as well. See, e.g., Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc., No. 11-cv-1360, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136494 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2012). Some of these cases were resolved through private party settlements, see, e.g., Mitchell v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-02555 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2010); others were dismissed (with and without prejudice) because of plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged injuries on the one hand and hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities on the other, see, e.g., Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., et al., No. 11-cv-2218 (Dist. Ct., Denver, CO, May 9, 2012). In short, by pursuing this strategy, those opposed to shale oil and gas development were finding success in their litigation objectives elusive, as they were gaining almost none of the traction for which they had hoped. As a result, environmental organizations, opting not to limit their attack strictly to suits of the type noted above, have adopted a more expansive litigation strategy. A parallel track is emerging, and by embarking on this additional path, these activist groups hope to pose a significant threat to continued development and production of unconventional oil and gas reserves in the United States. For opponents of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities, the second prong of attack involves the assertion of claims against federal or state agencies under Acts such as the following: the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.; and California’s Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. This strategy also extends to the filing of administrative petitions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Industry opponents are fashioning petitions designed to require industry to provide more detailed data with respect to operations, no doubt hoping that if their petitions are successful, the compelled disclosures will facilitate additional litigation. In California, there has been a fair amount of activity evidencing this new line of attack. The Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) recently launched an ESA challenge against the federal agency responsible for managing federal lands and subsurface mineral estates underlying federal, state, and private lands, the U.S. Department of Interior’s (“DOI”) Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). In pertinent part, ESA requires each federal agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In its August 29, 2012, letter advising of its intent to commence a citizen suit under ESA at the expiration of sixty days (“Notice”), the Center noted that the California’s Monterey Shale formation is estimated to contain 40 percent of the nation’s total shale oil reserves, or over 13 billion barrels of shale oil. Techniques utilized there now include a “new combination of multi-stage slickwater hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling (hereinafter ‘fracking’),” and use of this extraction method is expected to increase significantly, the Center further advised in its Notice. Although acknowledging that the BLM has issued oil and gas leases and drilling permits in the public lands that overlie the Monterey Shale formation “for decades,” the Center nonetheless now contends ESA has been violated. With the advent of new drilling techniques and of increased drilling activity on public land in California, BLM failed to conduct proper evaluation of the threat to ESA-listed species, and instead relied on “outdated biological opinions,” the Center argues. In its Notice, the Center demands BLM reinitiate endangered species act consultation regarding oil and gas leasing and drilling activities in California, and that all such activities cease. Additionally, the Center and the Sierra Club have an existing suit pending against the BLM and the Secretary of the DOI in the Northern District of California. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., No. 11-06174 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2011). At issue in this particular federal litigation is an alleged September 2011 oil and gas lease sale of approximately 2,700 acres located in Monterey and Fresno counties, California. Plaintiffs contend that designated watershed areas and habitat for threatened and endangered species are at issue. Further, they argue that BLM’s decision to lease allegedly sensitive lands for oil and gas development must be overturned because it allegedly occurred without a full, thorough and sufficient examination of the effects drilling there would have on California’s landscapes, wildlife, watersheds and air quality. In this action, the plaintiffs claim the defendants violated NEPA and other Acts. NEPA is a procedural statute that, in pertinent part, requires a federal agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) as part of any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency must prepare an EIS for any action that has “individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). In January 2013, the court is scheduled to hear the parties’ pending summary judgment motions. Recently, the Center, and others, obtained success in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in challenges to various determinations of the BLM, the FWS and the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the Ruby Pipeline Project. On October 22, 2012, that federal appellate court issued its decisions in the petitioners’ favor. See Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22016 & 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22088 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2012). The Ruby Pipeline Project concerned a natural gas pipeline traversing more than 678 miles, extending from Wyoming to Oregon. The right-of-way for the pipeline encompassed approximately 2,291 acres of federal lands and crossed numerous rivers and streams supporting threatened and endangered species. In the FWS’s biological opinion, that federal agency advised that the project “would adversely affect” nine of those species and five designated critical habitats. FWS nonetheless determined that the project “would not jeopardize these species or adversely modify their critical habitat.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that, under ESA, the FWS’s biological opinion had to be set aside as arbitrary and capricious for two reasons: first, its “no jeopardy” and “no adverse modification” determinations relied on protective measures set forth in a conservation plan unenforceable under the ESA; and second, it did not take into account the potential impacts of withdrawing approximately 338 million gallons of groundwater from numerous wells along the pipeline. Because the BLM had relied on the FWS’s biological opinion in its Record of Decision (“ROD”), the court set aside the BLM’s ROD as well. Another of the petitioners’ challenges succeeded, too. By the time of the circuit court’s review, the pipeline was completed. The federal appellate court nonetheless determined a violation of NEPA had occurred and that “[a]n appropriate FEIS [Final Environmental Impact Statement] could still yield effective postconstruction relief in the form of mitigation.” With regard to the cumulative impact analysis that must comport with NEPA, the court found that little quantitative, specific information was provided in the FEIS, other than that the project was projected to destroy more than 9000 acres of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat. Because “the FEIS does not provide sufficient ‘quantified or detailed data,’...about the cumulative loss of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat,” the court remanded the matter to the BLM to undertake a revised cumulative effects analysis. On October 16, 2012, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Center, the Sierra Club, and two other environmental advocacy groups, initiated state court litigation against the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”), the state agency regulating oil and gas activities in California. Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. California Dep’t of Conservation, Case No. RG12652054 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Co, filed Oct.16, 2012). Although admitting in their complaint that “[h]ydraulic fracturing (or ‘fracking’) was first developed in the early 20th century and has been used in California as far back as the 1950s,” the plaintiffs contend that DOGGR never formally evaluated the practice and has been derelict with respect to its various statutory responsibilities under CEQA, California’s state analog to NEPA. Their lawsuit seeks, among other things, a declaration from the court that DOGGR is in violation of CEQA for failing to consider, evaluate, and mitigate the environmental and public health impacts of fracking when approving oil and gas well permits. The other aspect of industry opponents’ emerging strategy is the filing of petitions in order to prompt greater regulation, to delay or curtail oil and gas development, and/or to facilitate additional litigation. For example, on August 4, 2011, Earthjustice and other advocates filed a citizens’ petition with the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. Agreeing that “there is value in initiating a proposed rulemaking process using TSCA authorities to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing,” the EPA partially granted the petition on November 23, 2011. Having invoked TSCA authorities, EPA will draft regulations requiring industry to disclose details about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and to submit existing health and safety studies related to those chemicals. These disclosure regulations, if enacted, will be burdensome; but it is the use of the information disclosed to the EPA in conformity with any such regulations that is potentially more problematic. Industry members’ compelled disclosures will be used by environmental organizations, citizens groups and activists to advance litigation objectives. Additionally, the Sierra Club and more than a dozen other advocacy groups joined the Environmental Integrity Project in the filing of a petition with the EPA on October 24, 2012. Certain industrial sectors are required to report, on an annual basis, their releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11001, et seq. The petitioners seek to compel the addition of the “oil and gas extraction industry” to the list of facilities required to report to the TRI. The petitioners acknowledge that fifteen years ago, the EPA elected not to do so. Notwithstanding the EPA’s prior determination not to subject this industry to EPCRA’s reporting requirement, the petitioners demand the imposition of this obligation on those businesses involved in “exploration and well development, production and processing, and site abandonment.” Again, any such obligation is more than merely burdensome; it presents a threat to industry. Because the information reported to the TRI is publicly accessible, those disclosures will fuel additional litigation - by environmental activists and others - against industry participants. As concerns hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities, the environmental activists are casting a wider net. To delay and impede further development of unconventional oil and gas reserves, these advocacy groups are coordinating their efforts; additionally, the attacks they are launching on the shale oil and gas industry are no longer limited to those which are customary or expected. Unconventional litigation and avenues are now pursued as well. Evidence of the emergence of this new strategy is found in environmental organizations’ recent filings in court - particularly in California - and with the EPA. Their latest efforts, in litigation and in administrative petitions, render this developing story one industry participants must follow. Notice: The purpose of this Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, the accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: Families Want Criminal Charges for Graveyard Destruction
by Paul Wilson 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

I think our state legislature passed a bill to protect graveyards, but the issue is still alive and not-so-well. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:06 AM Subject: WVNS story: Families Want Criminal Charges for Graveyard Destruction To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Families Want Criminal Charges for Graveyard Destruction Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29365-1 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> (11/21/12) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - The people with loved ones in a desecrated Logan County cemetery are waiting to see if the gas company responsible for the damage appeals a ruling against it. In the meantime, many of them say the destruction of the graves is a crime that should be prosecuted. James Olbert of Holden, who grew up in the mostly-segregated Crystal Block coal camp, says he was heartbroken when he discovered a contractor for the gas company Equitable had bulldozed a road through the African-American graveyard there. "What was done was a felony. They give you a few dollars and think that's going to take care of everything. But I want the world to know what has happened here, instead of just pushing it under the rug." Olbert says his father's gravestone had been knocked aside, and it's now impossible to tell where the actual grave is. In fact, he says, the whole site has been completely changed. "Part of the cemetery is missing; it's been hauled away. My father's headstone was still there, but it wasn't where it was supposed to have been." The company argued in court that it was not directly responsible for what happened, and that no one knew the cemetery was there. Olbert says evidence that came out during the case says otherwise. "The bulldozer was told before he did his work there was a black cemetery there. He was told this, and he made a racial comment and just continued to do what he was doing, so it didn't make him any difference." Last month, after an eight-year legal battle, a Logan County court ruled Equitable's parent company would have to pay $900,000. The company called the destruction a "regrettable situation for everyone," but has not ended its legal challenge of the ruling. 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/29365-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29365-1> --- 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