- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Sierra Club position on carbon fee and dividend proposal to put a price on carbon?
by James Kotcon via EC 23 Aug '16

23 Aug '16

This is from a thread on the Sierra Club's FRED list that asks whether we support a carbon tax. Ned Ford is one of the most informed experts on energy that I know in the Club. Below he discusses why a carbon tax proposals are a disruption and will not happen fast enough. Enjoy. JBK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)fuse.net> Date: Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Sierra Club position on carbon fee and dividend proposal to put a price on carbon? To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org I have spent many years trying to explain why carbon taxes are not going to be a big part of the picture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM is about disruptive technology and it disrupts my own thinking even though I have been following most of the trends he speaks about for many years. In short we don't need carbon taxes because the technologies are producing the price differential more effectively than a tax could. That flies in the face of the often-repeated claim that carbon taxes are more efficient or better than other strategies. What those people usually mean is that carbon taxes are better than command and control. We haven't used command and control for the major pollutants for several decades, so it's a false premise. What carbon tax advocates neglect is the huge differential between the effect of a price on carbon on coal, and the same price's impact on petroleum or natural gas. We seriously could use a natural gas or petroleum tax. But it would have to be absurdly large as a tax on carbon, compared to the price needed to end coal. About ten times larger. It would be easy enough to separate the fuels and have different tax rates, but the discussion never gets that far. The fact of the matter is that carbon reductions are happening because efficiency and wind and solar are cheaper. The more we use those three technologies to address coal and natural gas generation, the lower the prices and the faster the process. We are at a point today where an EV costs a third or less than a gasoline car to drive any distance, and the price differential will get greater. So we need a lot more clean electricity than the nation is presently expecting to need, if just replacing the current fuel mix (including the nuclear plants that can't run forever) is the target. About 40% more total electricity by 2040. If you view the link above you will understand how narrowly I'm talking about the coming changes. Disruptive energy changes affect everything we do. But the most important thing we can do is to concentrate on direct state level activism to remove obstructionists from the path of efficiency, wind and solar. Utility scale solar must come before distributed solar, even though in ten years we may see the order of priorities change to solar, wind and efficiency. If that happens, as Mr. Seba says, it won't be purely economic. Or at least it won't be purely economic as we think about it because people will be factoring in their convenience as a "cost" where no dollars are involved. This means we probably won't ever become truly efficient. But at the same time, efficiency in some form is driving every single one of the technological disruptions he identifies and many more that he doesn't. I hope the Sierra Club ignores carbon taxes. Even if the Republicans are demolished in ten weeks we can use the opportunity far better to remove barriers to efficiency and to speed development of cost-effective wind and solar than to spend another decade trying to get a tax package into position that really works. - Ned On 8/22/2016 12:44 PM, Carolyn Amparan wrote: Hello, Does anyone know the Sierra Club's position on the Citizen Climate's Lobby carbon fee and dividend proposal? If so, what is the status on the specific proposal and a price on carbon in general? I found there was a resolution considered in 2013 but have not found anything more current on the national website. Thanks, Carolyn * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)lists.sierraclub.org <CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@lists.sierraclub.org?subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS&body=SIGNOFF%20CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS>, or visit Listserv online <http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?SUBED1=CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAI…>. For Listserv basics, technical tips, and commnity guidelines, check out our General FAQ <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq>. Listserv content is subject to the Sierra Club's Email List Policy <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/policy> and Terms and Conditions <http://www.sierraclub.org/terms>. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)lists.sierraclub.org <CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@lists.sierraclub.org?subject=Unsubscribe+from+CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS&body=SIGNOFF+CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS>, or visit Listserv online <http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?SUBED1=CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAI…>. For Listserv basics, technical tips, and commnity guidelines, check out our General FAQ <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq>. Listserv content is subject to the Sierra Club's Email List Policy <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/policy> and Terms and Conditions <http://www.sierraclub.org/terms>.

1 0

Re: [EC] Arcadia Power, 18 months in
by Yarnell, Karen 16 Aug '16

16 Aug '16

I’ve been getting offers from this company. Does anyone recommend switching to them? What percentage of your power usage? From: Jessica Dell [mailto:customercare@arcadiapower.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:51 AM To: Yarnell, Karen Subject: Arcadia Power, 18 months in [Arcadia Power] Our customers love us Hey Karen! I thought you may want to hear from some of our customers about their experience with Arcadia Power: “Arcadia Power has been one of the easiest, most effective, and affordable ways we’ve found to fight climate change. We have automated payments set up, so we don’t have to think about it." -Dave Berlin, customer since December 2014 “For people concerned about our children’s future - it has never been so easy to do so much good.” -Kristy Bibb, customer since August 2014 [https://s3.amazonaws.com/arcadiapowerprod/assets/jointhemtoday_button_helve…]<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> Also, in case you haven't seen our video, watch it here<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…>. If you have questions about signing up email or call us at (866)-526-0083. Thank you, Jessica “Inside the Outlet” Blog<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> | Twitter<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> | Facebook<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> | Unsubscribe<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…>

3 2

Court backs Obama’s climate change accounting
by James Kotcon 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

This is an obscure but incredibly important court victory, supporting DOE calculations of a "Social Cost of Carbon". JBK "...In a unanimous decision<http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/…> late Monday, the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected an industry-backed request to overturn a 2014 rule that set energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigerators. In doing so, the court specifically backed the so-called social cost of carbon, President Obama’s administration-wide estimate of the costs per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere — currently $36...." Full story at: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290859-court-backs-obamas-clim…

1 0

This is what I call a "Happy Problem"
by James Kotcon 08 Aug '16

08 Aug '16

Here is the rebuttal to those who claim renewable energy is too unreliable and too expensive and will never provide a significant share of our electricity. JBK >>>>> Texas is expecting 21,000 MW of wind-generated electricity, and their transmission grid is only built to handle 18,500. To put that in context, a typical coal plant handles 600 MW. That might mean that turbines will have to rest idle at times. This isn't the first time or place for this to happen. The UK has also struggled with the challenge of surplus power<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/uk-will-have-too-much-electricit…>, and energy surpluses in Chile-which have resulted in straight-up <http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21228/chile-solar-energy-surplu…> free power<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21228/chile-solar-energy-surplu…>-are starting to have negative effects on the energy industry. It's not the worst problem to have, but it's still a problem. Full story at: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-d… [http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/32/1024x512/landscape-1470674049-gettyimages-…]<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-d…> Texas Is Drowning in Wind Energy<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-d…> www.popularmechanics.com Yes, you can have too much of a good thing.

1 0

FirstEnergy loses $1.1B, may sell Pleasants plant to MonPower
by James Kotcon 07 Aug '16

07 Aug '16

This is a fairly lengthy article, but the last sentence of the excerpt below says it all. Translation: "Screw the rate payer!" Full story at: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-business/20160805/firstenergy-loses-11b-m… After announcing a quarterly loss of $1.1 billion<https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1031296/000103129616000101/ex991fe-…> because of the future closures of two uncompetitive coal-fired power plants in Ohio, FirstEnergy says it will seek to "de-risk" by pushing plants onto electricity customers in states like West Virginia. Charles Jones, CEO of FirstEnergy, the parent company of MonPower and Potomac Edison, announced in an earnings call <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3005292-First-Energy-Earnings-Call-…> on July 29 that the coal-heavy utility would seek to remove itself completely from the competitive energy business and, in the meantime, would try to offload plants to regulated markets, where the company is guaranteed a profit. "Longer-term, we do not believe competitive generation is a good fit for FirstEnergy and we are focused on regulated operations," Jones said. "We cannot put investors and our company at risk." Jim Kotcon

3 3

Hands up again, West Virginia ratepayers.
by frank young 06 Aug '16

06 Aug '16

Is this an admission that the "free market" does not work in the traditional electric power utility model? "Charles Jones, CEO of FirstEnergy, the parent company of MonPower and Potomac Edison, announced in an earnings call on July 29 that the coal-heavy utility would seek to remove itself completely from the competitive energy business and, in the meantime, would try to offload plants to regulated markets, where the company is guaranteed a profit." http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/?pageid=d33b9dcb-f8ef-4800-ab20-9 e327ee0ba1b FirstEnergy loses $1.1B 06 Aug 2016 - Charleston Gazette Mail By Andrew Brown Staff writer Firm eyes selling Pleasants plant to MonPower in 'de-risk' move After announcing a quarterlyhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1031296/000103129616000101/ ex991fe-06302016.htm <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">loss of $1.1 billion because of the future closures of two uncompetitive coal-fired power plants in Ohio, FirstEnergy says it will seek to "de-risk" by pushing plants onto electricity customers in states like West Virginia. Charles Jones, CEO of FirstEnergy, the parent company of MonPower and Potomac Edison,https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3005292-First-Energy-Earnings -Call-Q2-2016.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">announced in an earnings call on July 29 that the coal-heavy utility would seek to remove itself completely from the competitive energy business and, in the meantime, would try to offload plants to regulated markets, where the company is guaranteed a profit. "Longer-term, we do not believe competitive generation is a good fit for FirstEnergy and we are focused on regulated operations," Jones said. "We cannot put investors and our company at risk." West Virginia likely will play a big part in that corporate strategy. Jones made it clear inhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2841966-First-Energy-First-Quarter -2016-Earnings-Call.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">another earnings call earlier this year that the Akron-based business wantshttp://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20160312/GZ01/160319819 <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> "> to sell the Pleasants power plant, north of Parkersburg, to its subsidiary companies in West Virginia. The proposed transfer of that coal-fired plant, which would shift the risk of the 36-year-old generating station off of investors and onto electricity customers in the northern half of the state, has already prompted opposition from groups like the Sierra Club, West Virginia Citizen Action Group and the state government's Consumer Advocate Division. Those groups took issue with the company's http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityID =441858 <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> &NotType=%27WebDocket%27">integrated resource plan - a 15-year energy and demand forecast - that was presented to the West Virginia Public Service Commission earlier this year. The plan had reported that an existing coal-fired power plant (now known to be Pleasants) would be the cheapest generating option for customers and that electricity demand for MonPower and Potomac Edison was expected to increase by 2.2 percent, largely because of the natural gas industry in the state. Late this week, the Consumer Advocate Division and the https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3006112-PSC-Staff-and-CAD-Ask-for-Fi rstEnergy-RFP.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">PSC's staff called on FirstEnergy to file a formal request for proposal that would require the company to compare other energy sources, including new or existing wind, solar and natural-gas plants. "The staff and CAD believes that these companies, especially in light of the inexorable collapse of the coal industry driven primarily by the availability of cheaper and more plentiful natural gas, continue to rely on acquisition practices that are not in the best interests of the consuming public and the economy of the state," their lawyers said. Results from the PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization that manages the energy market for 13 states, including West Virginia, seem to contradict the company's findings in its resource plan, too. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842771-PJM-Market-Report-2015.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">Market results show that, between 2014 and 2015, regional electricity sales from coal-fired power plants dropped by 17.8 percent in the PJM. Gas-fired power plants sold 28.4 percent more in 2015 than they did the year before, and evenhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842688-PJM-Capacity-Auction-Res ults-2019-2020.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">more efficient gas-fired plants are set to come online in the coming years. The groups opposed to the transfer of Pleasants have argued that the sale of the plant would be a corporate bailout for the company's investors, at the expense of West Virginia electricity customers. The https://www.firstenergycorp.com/newsroom/news_releases/firstenergy-to-deacti vate-units-at-two-ohio-power-plants-.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">closure of the company's two plants in Ohio resulted inhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1031296/000103129616000095/ex991le ttertoinvestmentcom.htm <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">$1.5 billion in charges and contract termination fees, or $2.99 per investment share. As a result, three of FirstEnergy's subsidiaries have been put on a credit watch by the ratings agency Standard and Poor's. Those subsidiaries soonhttps://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Downgrades-FirstEnergy-Solutions- Corp-and-Allegheny-Energy-Supply-Co--PR_352838 <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">could be downgraded to a "non-investment grade" rating. Comments by FirstEnergy's executives also call into question whether MonPower and Potomac Edison's demand for electricity is actually going to increase by 2.2 percent in the coming years. The company has cited that forecast demand as the reason it needs to purchase a plant the size of Pleasants. In the conference call, FirstEnergy officials said electricity demand among all of its affiliates had actually dropped by 2.7 percent in the past four months. The company had a similar decline in the first four months of 2016, and Jones described the company's future outlook for electricity demand as "anemic." James Pearson, FirstEnergy's executive vice president and chief financial officer, said any increase in electricity demand from the natural-gas industry had been offset by industrial declines in the steel and coal industries. He said energy efficiency measures - which have lagged behind in West Virginia - also were reducing residential demand in FirstEnergy's service territories. During the conference call, one investment analyst led off a testy question by saying it was obvious from Jones' tone that "frustration has gone to peak level" at FirstEnergy. Jones responded by downplaying the difficulties the market-based portion of the company is facing, and went on to lament the dipping regional energy prices that are https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842790-Capacity-Changes-in-PJM.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">largely being driven by new natural-gas turbines. "Is it frustrating that we're shutting down tens of thousands of megawatts of generation in our country that's got life left in it because of the way this market is working?" Jones said. "That is very frustrating to me." Reach Andrew Brown at andrew.brown(a)wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-4814 or follow @Andy_Ed_Brown on Twitter.

1 0

Fw: [WV Sierra Club Energy Efficiency Leaders] a bit dated but wanted to share this to the...
by James Kotcon 05 Aug '16

05 Aug '16

1 0

Re: [EC] Van Nostrand & DSS report on WV CPP compliance
by James Kotcon 29 Jul '16

29 Jul '16

Something like half to two-thirds of the electricity generated in WV is exported. It is a major source of revenue for the state. Growing the renewables industry is a good way to retain that income stream, but the report suggests that renewables growth would be relatively slow. JBK On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Nachy Kanfer <nachy.kanfer(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: > Why does WV need to continue to be an electricity exporter? > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:17 AM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is the long-awaited update of their earlier report on how WV can >> comply with the Clean Power Plan. They used the Synapse Energy Clean Power >> Plan Planning Tool, an ExCel-based spreadsheet tool. Based on the newer >> targets in EPA's Final CPP Rule, it is difficult for WV to comply without >> new gas. Their scenarios include 5-15 % EE by 2030, 2.8 - 4.4 % non-hydor >> renewables by 2030, natural gas co-firing at two coal plants and 1235 MW of >> new natural gas by 2020 (a 750 MW gas plant in Brooke County and a 550 MW >> gas plant in Clarksburg are currently "under consideration" by Energy >> Solutions Consortium of New York). These are in addition to the 595 MW >> coming on line from the Moundsville plant in 2018. Under their scenarios, >> electricity exports would continue at 2012 levels through 2030. >> >> The full report (68 pages) is available at: >> >> >> http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/expanding… >> >> I think we need a detailed review of this report, as I would prefer we >> not make the mistake of major investments in fossil fuels. >> >> >> Whaddya Tink? >> >> JBK >> > > > > -- > Nachy Kanfer > Deputy Director, East > Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign > (614) 625-3894 >

1 0

ApCo files Wind Power Purchase Agreement case with WV PSC
by James Kotcon 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Case # 16-1026 ApCo & Wheeling Power request approval of a Power Purchase Agreement for 120 MW of wind from Indiana, filed Tuesday, July 26. This appears to be a follow up from their RFP as indicated in the IRP JBK [image: PlattsLogo] 7/26/2016 *Appalachian and Wheeling Power diversify energy portfolio with new wind contract; seek PSC approval in West Virginia* CHARLESTON, W. Va., July 26, 2016 – Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power today filed with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC) for approval of the long-term purchase of 120 megawatts (MW) of new wind generation. The 20-year purchased power agreement will increase the companies’ total wind generation to 495 MW and is consistent with its forward-looking Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for service areas in West Virginia and Virginia. The renewable energy will be purchased from a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC. The energy will come from its planned Bluff Point Wind Energy Center to be constructed in Jay and Randolph Counties, Indiana. NextEra will own and operate the wind farm. The extension by Congress in November 2015 of the Wind Production Tax Credit provides cost advantages to wind energy resources constructed over the next five years and makes this agreement cost-effective for Appalachian Power customers. The new generation is expected to be available to Appalachian Power by 2018. In the filing with the PSC, the companies seek approval of the purchased power agreement and future cost recovery. A similar request was made to the Virginia State Corporation Commission last month. Appalachian selected the Indiana wind project as part of a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued earlier this year. The company received proposals from more than a dozen qualified wind farms. Appalachian Power has 1 million customers in Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee (as AEP Appalachian Power). It is a unit of American Electric Power, one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity and custom energy solutions to nearly 5.4 million customers in 11 states. AEP owns the nation’s largest electricity transmission system, a more than 40,000-mile network that includes more 765-kilovolt extra-high voltage transmission lines than all other U.S. transmission systems combined. AEP also operates 223,000 miles of distribution lines. AEP ranks among the nation’s largest generators of electricity, owning approximately 31,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S.

1 0

Van Nostrand & DSS report on WV CPP compliance
by James Kotcon 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

This is the long-awaited update of their earlier report on how WV can comply with the Clean Power Plan. They used the Synapse Energy Clean Power Plan Planning Tool, an ExCel-based spreadsheet tool. Based on the newer targets in EPA's Final CPP Rule, it is difficult for WV to comply without new gas. Their scenarios include 5-15 % EE by 2030, 2.8 - 4.4 % non-hydor renewables by 2030, natural gas co-firing at two coal plants and 1235 MW of new natural gas by 2020 (a 750 MW gas plant in Brooke County and a 550 MW gas plant in Clarksburg are currently "under consideration" by Energy Solutions Consortium of New York). These are in addition to the 595 MW coming on line from the Moundsville plant in 2018. Under their scenarios, electricity exports would continue at 2012 levels through 2030. The full report (68 pages) is available at: http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/expanding… I think we need a detailed review of this report, as I would prefer we not make the mistake of major investments in fossil fuels. Whaddya Tink? JBK

1 0

Attack on EPA rules for methane emissions
by James Kotcon 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

Lots of misused statistics here. http://www.wvgazettemail.com/daily-mail-commentary/20160725/drew-johnson-ep… [http://www.wvgazettemail.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CH/20160725/DM0403/1…]<http://www.wvgazettemail.com/daily-mail-commentary/20160725/drew-johnson-ep…> Drew Johnson: EPA's bogus attempt to restrict oil and gas (Daily Mail)<http://www.wvgazettemail.com/daily-mail-commentary/20160725/drew-johnson-ep…> www.wvgazettemail.com The Environmental Protection Agency just rewrote history. Anyone want to write a rebuttal? JBK

1 0

Coal Isn't Over - Chris Hamilton
by James Kotcon 10 Jul '16

10 Jul '16

Here is today's Op/Ed from the WV Coal Association. He mentions Sierra Club by name. Anyone want to write a rebuttal? JBK (The WV Coal Association represents the owners. They profess great concern for mine workers, but then abandon them as soon as it is convenient). http://www.wvgazettemail.com/gazette-op-ed-commentaries/20160710/chris-hami… [http://www.wvgazettemail.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CH/20160710/GZ0405/1…]<http://www.wvgazettemail.com/gazette-op-ed-commentaries/20160710/chris-hami…> Chris Hamilton: Coal isn't over, despite hopeless commentary<http://www.wvgazettemail.com/gazette-op-ed-commentaries/20160710/chris-hami…> www.wvgazettemail.com I am forever amazed at the misinformation published about coal mining. Such was the case in a Sunday Gazette-Mail column by former Coalwood resident and retired Army Colonel Herman H. Jones (June 5), who offered only hopelessness as the future for West Virginia coal and the residents who mine it.

4 4

Report ranks utilities by renewable energy and energy efficiency
by James Kotcon 01 Jul '16

01 Jul '16

This new report ranks the 30 largest utility holding companies, responsible for about 60 % of America's electricity, based on their renewables and energy efficiency. Interestingly, FirstEnergy ranks 12th for renewables, and 19th for energy efficiency, both well ahead of AEP. FE covers utilities in MD, NJ, NY, OH, PA and WV. Guess which state is dragging down FE's rankings! http://www.ceres.org/industry-initiatives/electric-power/clean-energy-utili… Jim Kotcon

1 0

WV 303(d) list - Comments to EPA due July 5
by James Kotcon 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

Are we following this issue? Is anyone preparing comments? https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/supporting-documents-proposed-additions-west-virgi… Jim Kotcon P.S. As you may recall, WV-DEP submitted an abbreviated list of streams to EPA, arguing that the Legislature had directed them to "study" the issues of conductivity, TDS and various related narrative standards. EPA on May 11 partially disapproved the list: "...to the extent that it omits waters due to WVDEP's decision not to evaluate existing and readily available data regarding whether certain waters are achieving West Virginia's narrative water quality criteria (W. Va. CSR§ 47-2-3.2(e) & (i)) as applied to aquatic life. "

1 0

Does WSJ Fake a Green Shift Toward Nuclear Power?
by frank young 25 Jun '16

25 Jun '16

"Central to the story is the contention that prominent eco-advocacy groups, including Sierra, EDF and the Natural Resources Defense Council, are among those working with Exelon and state lawmakers on a legislative deal that would reverse a decision the company made in early June to close two money-losing nuclear reactors, Quad Cities and Clinton, and "ensure that the reactors remain in operation by providing financial recognition for the zero-carbon electricity they produce." http://fair.org/home/wsj-fakes-a-green-shift-toward-nuclear-power/ "But major assertions in the Journal article turn out to be either factually inaccurate, or to omit or spin important details. First, though Harder refers multiple times to nuclear power being "carbon-free" (echoing the websites of nuclear plant owners such as <http://www.exeloncorp.com/companies/exelon-generation/nuclear/Pages/default .aspx> Exelon and <http://www.pge.com/en/safety/systemworks/dcpp/index.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_di ablocanyon> Pacific Gas & Electric), that is not the case." Frank Young

1 0

BLM hearings in Pittsburgh, Tuesday, June 28
by James Kotcon 24 Jun '16

24 Jun '16

I plan to go to this hearing Tuesday. Is anyone else interested in riding along? The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is holding six public hearings to receive public comments about coal mining on public lands, including one in Pittsburgh. This is your opportunity to tell the federal government to Keep Dirty Fuels in the Ground on public land, insist on fair royalties for the public, and demand an end to "self-bonding" by mining companies. Tuesday, June 28, 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM Press Conference and Rally: Tuesday, June 28, Noon Where: Hearing: Pittsburgh Convention Center 1000 Fort Duquesne Blvd. Pittsburgh (MAP) Press Conference and Rally: Courtyard Pittsburgh Downtown, 945 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh (MAP) If you are not able to attend, consider sending comments via the attached link. https://sierra.secure.force.com/actions/National?actionId=AR0043719 Details: *An astonishing 40 percent of all coal produced in the United States comes from public, taxpayer-owned land. *The government recently put a hold on new federal coal leases to study the impact that coal mined on public lands has on our climate. This means we have an unprecedented opportunity to push this country towards a clean energy future and away from dirty fuels. For decades, the federal government has been leasing taxpayer-owned public lands to fossil fuel companies at bargain-basement rates. Taxpayer-owned land should be used to benefit the public, but the coal it generates puts billions of tons of carbon into our atmosphere, slows the growth of clean energy, and affects the health of communities near coal mines and power plants and everywhere in between. It’s clear the federal coal leasing program is out of date and out of step with our nation’s commitment to stop climate disruption -- and we have an opportunity to change that. *The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is taking public comments on the scope of its study looking at how our public lands are used for coal mining. Tell them it’s time that we keep the coal in the ground and use our public lands to reflect what’s best for our climate and communities*.

1 0

Sierra Club letter details potential Atlantic Coast Pipeline antitrust violations
by James Kotcon 24 Jun '16

24 Jun '16

Here is a great new front on the ACP! The Virginia Chapter charges that the utilities building ACP "use their captive ratepayers to ensure a continuous demand for natural gas, to be supplied by the ACP". This means utilities "...have an incentive to build more natural gas generating plants in order to create more demand for gas from the ACP. This locks customers into paying for these gas plants for decades to come, regardless of what happens to gas prices, and regardless of whether ratepayers would be better off with alternatives like wind and solar.” The Federal Trade Commissions is being asked to investigate anti-trust violations. See more at: http://augustafreepress.com/sierra-club-letter-details-potential-atlantic-c… JBK

1 0

Fw: WVU geologist examines impact of carbon dioxide released from mine drainage
by James Kotcon 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

Yet another problem with acid mine drainage, greenhouse gas emissions. JBK. http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2016/06/16/wvu-geologist-examines-impact-of-carbo… [http://wvutoday.wvu.edu//themes/wvutoday-new/images/facebook_share.png]<http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2016/06/16/wvu-geologist-examines-impact-of-carbo…> WVU geologist examines impact of carbon dioxide released from mine drainage<http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2016/06/16/wvu-geologist-examines-impact-of-carbo…> wvutoday.wvu.edu The collective estimated amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere from 140 coal mines across Pennsylvania is the equivalent to that of a small power plant, a new West Virginia University study finds. The collective estimated amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere from 140 coal mines across Pennsylvania is the equivalent to that of a small power plant, a new West Virginia University<http://www.wvu.edu/> study finds. Dorothy Vesper<http://geology.wvu.edu/people/faculty/dorothy-vesper>, associate professor in the Department of Geology and Geography<http://www.geo.wvu.edu/> at West Virginia University, and her research team, are using a meter designed for measuring carbon dioxide in beverages to more accurately measure carbon dioxide in mine drainage water. Using measurements from several sites and estimated values from United States Geological Survey data for 140 Pennsylvania mines, they calculated the amount of carbon dioxide released from abandoned coal mines. "Many people calculate carbon dioxide from alkalinity, or the capability of water to neutralize acid, so the pH has to be above five, but if you have a lot of carbon dioxide dissolved in the water, it forces the pH to fall below five and people just dismiss it and ignore it," Vesper said. "So, there is a bias in the way people typically estimate the carbon dioxide concentrations in water, and they've ignored this whole set of mine waters, but we're able to actually quantify them nicely. "A lot of those very low pH waters have plenty of carbon dioxide in them. " Mine drainage, a byproduct of areas active in ore or coal mining, has long been associated with contaminated drinking water, disrupted growth and reproduction of certain types of plants and animals, and infrastructure corrosion. Sulfate-rich mine water can dissolve the surrounding limestone, allowing carbon dioxide gas to be present in the water. When mine waters discharge at the land surface, some of the carbon dioxide releases into the atmosphere. "The gas is really high in mine waters and people who work with mine waters know that, but no one has quantified it in detail," said Vesper. "No one has really developed an accurate way to measure the carbon dioxide coming out, partially because it is very difficult." Vesper and her team measured carbon dioxide levels in the water at two mine portals and compared those data to estimated gas levels for a limited set of inactive mines across Pennsylvania. These findings - that the total amount of carbon dioxide released from those mines was found to be equivalent to that of a small power plant - have opened the door to larger studies determining the impact carbon dioxide evasion from mine drainage has on the environment. "I think right now, the next thing I want to do is get a better handle on this and get a much more quantitative assessment at more sites," Vesper said. "I think we're also going to work with some of the geographic information system researchers at the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design<http://davis.wvu.edu/> to see if we can do a larger scale estimate for Pennsylvania or West Virginia." This work was initiated with Harry Edenborn, Ph.D. as part of the National Energy Technology Laboratory's Regional University Alliance, a collaborative initiative of the NETL. Ongoing work is funded by the NSF-EPSCOR funded Appalachian Freshwater Initiative<http://afi.wvu.edu/> at WVU.

1 0

300 million Alpha NR/DEP agreement
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 10 Jun '16

10 Jun '16

*DEP Reaches Agreement in Principle** **With Alpha Natural Resources* CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has reached an agreement in principle with the state’s largest coal operator, Alpha Natural Resources, which filed for bankruptcy in August 2015. The $300 million-plus agreement, which remains subject to a number of contingencies, will pave the way for the bonding and reclaiming of all Alpha’s legacy liability sites in West Virginia, as well as Alpha’s continuing operations in West Virginia.

1 0

from UCS ask a scientist: Does UCS agree that natural gas is a good "bridge" to meet our energy demands while better more earth friendly options are developed?
by Paul Wilson 09 Jun '16

09 Jun '16

Ask a Scientist Matt S. of Kennesaw, GA, asks "Does UCS agree that natural gas is a good "bridge" to meet our energy demands while better more earth friendly options are developed?" Once accepted as conventional wisdom, the notion that we have to significantly increase our use of natural gas to transition the US power sector to low-carbon energy sources is now plainly wrong. Investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency have accelerated rapidly as costs decline and performance and reliability improve. This trend, combined with the growing awareness of the significant risks posed by an overreliance on natural gas, makes it clear that natural gas has at most a limited and complementary role to play in the move to a truly clean energy system. READ MORE <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=HAVtImyMO0jKnTiBlBHU_w> -- Paul Wilson Project Healing Waters Fly-fishing Sierra Club Military Outdoors 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 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 JUSTICE, ONLY JUSTICE, SHALT THOU PURSUE. Deuteronomy 16:20

2 1

Carl Pope on India-US Agreement on Clean Energy
by James Kotcon 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

This has some pretty amazing factoids, not the least of which is that the major barrier to renewables is not technological, it is simply whether the financing can be arranged as quickly as needed. Here is my favorite section: ...A draft report<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/is-canada-ready-for-a-world-awash-in…> prepared for Canadian government concluded demand for oil could fall so fast that producers simply dump their barrels on to a shrinking market, leaving high cost oil like Canada's, along with pipelines and other facilities, stranded. For a major oil producer to face a world where its reserves will fetch a price of "$0" would have been shocking a year ago. But in Calgary oil analyst Paul Sankey lectured the industry<http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/critics-call-on-oil-industry-to-pay-out-prof…>: "Demand forecasts are way too positive ... really, the essence of the opportunity for oil is to be dividend stocks to pay out. Not to attempt to grow, but actually to orderly liquidate." Shades of "The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble" by Blood and Gore from less than three years ago! (One WV coal company has already proposed giving away all its coal assets to anyone who would simply assume the environmental liabilities.) Full article is available at: http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/08/solar-power-obama-modi-agreement/ Jim Kotcon

1 0

Fw: Synapse Looks at EIA's Early Release of its Annual Energy Outlook 2016
by James Kotcon 18 May '16

18 May '16

This is news you can use. According to this new analysis by US-DOE's Energy Information Agency, the EPA's Clean Power Plan is likely to be economically devastating to those who own fossil fuel reserves, but for consumers, the effect is relatively small. If trading of emissions allowances occurs, and costs are rebated to consumers, the actual consumer impact is near zero. The EIA has historically been very conservative in its forecasts, so much so that they have dramatically underestimated actual growth in renewables and assume essentially flat production, instead of the exponential increases reported by FERC. http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/us-eia-responds-cleantechnica-lettercri… This may be useful when coal advocates tell you that the CPP will bankrupt America. JBK ________________________________ From: Synapse Energy Economics <bcopes=synapse-energy.com(a)mail80.suw13.rsgsv.net> on behalf of Synapse Energy Economics <bcopes(a)synapse-energy.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 4:31 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: Synapse Looks at EIA's Early Release of its Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser<http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672&id=f312ef3591…>. [http://gallery.mailchimp.com/bef0f8c2ef390a88c3e173e7c/images/Synapse_small…]<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> May 2016 All Publications<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> Contact Us<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672/images/35506952-12c…]<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b…> [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672/images/fec3f9c4-1be…] <http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> ________________________________ EIA Publishes Early Release of Annual Energy Outlook 2016 On May 17, 2016, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) published an early release of its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2016. This early release contains projections for two scenarios: a Reference case, which includes the effects of the Clean Power Plan, and a “No Clean Power Plan” case, which examines a future in which there is no Clean Power Plan. Final versions of each of these cases, along with projections for numerous other scenarios, will be available on July 7, 2016. Until then, here are some of the key highlights in the latest AEO: The AEO 2016 Reference case projects that the Clean Power Plan will raise electricity prices by just 3 percent compared to a future with no Clean Power Plan. As a result of the Clean Power Plan, EIA projects that average electricity prices in the years 2025 to 2030 will be 3 percent higher than a future with no Clean Power Plan. However, the AEO 2016 Reference case (inclusive of the Clean Power Plan) features electricity prices 3 percent below the electricity prices forecasted just last year in the AEO 2015 Reference case. Importantly, this 3 percent increase is limited just to electricity prices; EIA assumes that in the Clean Power Plan, electricity providers purchase CO2 allowances, the revenues of which are rebated to ratepayer bills (just as is currently done in Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…>). As a result, the full effect on out-of-pocket spending on electricity by ratepayers is lower than 3 percent, or even zero. The AEO 2016 Reference case models a 32 percent decrease in electric sector CO2 emissions in 2030 By following the mass-based approach to the Clean Power Plan, AEO 2016’s Reference case reduces electric sector CO2 emissions by over 30 percent by 2028 (compared to 2005 levels), and it sustains this reduction through 2040 (see Figure 1 below). This level of emissions is also nearly 30 percent lower than that projected in last year’s AEO 2015. Even in the No CPP case, CO2 emissions are significantly lower than both historical emissions (a reduction of 16 percent compared to 2005) and what was previously projected (a reduction of 11 percent compared to last year’s AEO 2015 Reference case). Figure 1. Electric power carbon dioxide emissions, historical and projected [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672/images/7fe9e42f-436…] Read more<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> highlights on the Synapse blog. ________________________________ Newsletter Subscription You are receiving this newsletter because we think you will find the information interesting and relevant to your work. If for any reason you don't wish to receive these emails, you may unsubscribe by emailing marketing(a)synapse-energy.com.<mailto:marketing@synapse-energy.com> Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 485 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 2 Cambridge, MA 02139 www.synapse-energy.com ©2015 Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. All rights reserved. This email was sent to jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu> why did I get this?<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/about?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672…> unsubscribe from this list<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> update subscription preferences<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e46…> Synapse Energy Economics · 485 Massachusetts Ave · Suite 2 · Cambridge, MA 02139 · USA

1 0

Renewables Are Leaving Natural Gas In The Dust This Year
by James Kotcon 17 May '16

17 May '16

In 2014 and 2015, Renewables were two-thirds of new generation. In the first quarter of 2016, it is in excess of 98 %. And that does not even count the residential solar, only facilities larger than 1 MW. JBK In the first three months of 2016, the U.S. grid added 18 megawatts of new natural gas generating capacity. It added a whopping 1,291 megawatts (MW) of new renewables. The renewables were primarily wind (707 MW) and solar (522 MW). We also added some biomass (33 MW) and hydropower (29 MW). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) latest monthly "Energy Infrastructure Update<http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2016/mar-infrastructure.pdf>" reports that no new capacity of coal, oil, or nuclear power were added in the first quarter of the year. Full story is at: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/16/3778542/grid-70-times-renewable… Jim Kotcon

1 0

Lobbying Continues Unabated on EPA's Clean Power Plan
by Duane 14 May '16

14 May '16

http://www.bna.com/lobbying-continues-unabated-n57982070620/ Lobbying Continues Unabated on EPA's Clean Power Plan By Anthony Adragna, Bloomberg BNA, May 3, 2016 Near-impossible odds of legislative success and upcoming oral arguments in federal appeals court haven't deterred entities from continuing aggressive lobbying of Congress on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan. More than 130 entities reported lobbying on the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's domestic efforts on climate change during the first quarter of 2016, according to disclosures reviewed by Bloomberg BNA. That number is virtually unchanged from a year ago when efforts to stop the regulation were at a near-fever pitch in Congress. Lawmakers have previously passed legislation and resolutions of disapproval to overturn or block the regulation, but support was always well below the levels needed to override the stroke of Obama's veto pen. Despite that reality, many of the entities reported lobbying Congress on those same efforts during the first quarter of 2016. The continued lobbying doesn't surprise academics and other outside experts. “This is hardly surprising,” Lee Drutman, a senior fellow with New America, told Bloomberg BNA May 3. “The passage of legislation is just the first battle in the endless fight on almost every issue. There's always another venue, and another opportunity for lobbying, another chance to make your case. Especially when you have lots of paying corporate clients.” Diversity in Groups Represented As in previous reporting periods, the entities lobbying on the Clean Power Plan ranged from major public health organizations to large publicly traded companies to coal companies (139 ECR, 7/21/15). Among the companies lobbying on the centerpiece of the Obama administration's domestic efforts on climate change were Westrock Co., Alcoa Inc., Tesla Motors Inc., Xcel Energy Inc., Occidental Petroleum Co. and Siemens AG. Public health and environmental advocates, including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States, all disclosed lobbying on the Clean Power Plan. Southern Co., Vectren Corp., Duke Energy Co., Calpine Corp., NorthWestern Energy Corp. and Entergy Corp. are among the energy interests that also said they pushed Congress on the regulation. Entities Lobbying on Issue Entities lobbying on the issue were identified through a search of lobbying records with the keywords “Clean Power Plan,”“111(d),” the number of the resolution of disapproval passed by Congress ( S.J. Res. 24) and two pieces of legislation (H.R. 2042; S. 1324) that would impede or outright kill the EPA's regulatory efforts under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. After Obama vetoed both resolutions of disapproval Dec. 18, 2015, congressional aides and lawmakers said they were unlikely to try to override them. Oral arguments in a federal appeals court case challenging the regulation are slated for June 2 and possibly June 3 (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, oral argument 6/2/16). Lobbying Interest Not Surprising Despite the shift away from Congress to the courts in the fight over the Clean Power Plan, observers said they were not surprised lobbying efforts continued. Congress remains influential in the debate surrounding the EPA rule, some said. “Whether or not litigation is the best strategy, Congress retains the ability to influence the process ... so it makes sense that industry lobbyists would continue to spend time talking to them,” Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, told Bloomberg BNA. “I am slightly surprised that the amount of money spent would be exactly the same, but I’d imagine they are also spending comparable resources on every potential avenue that might influence the outcome.” Jennifer Victor, a professor of legislative politics at George Mason University, told Bloomberg BNA many of the groups lobbying on the EPA rule have the primary purpose of advocacy before Congress. Others are membership-based and may feel pressure to show they are doing something, she said. “Some pretty big shift in the political landscape would be necessary for them to curtail this kind of activity,” Victor said, such as a change in administration or the end of litigation on the Clean Power Plan. See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

1 0

from Other Words: King Coal is Headed to Prison
by Paul Wilson 04 May '16

04 May '16

1. King Coal Is Headed to Prison <http://act.ips-dc.org/site/R?i=uq1uValgMJ1yav7bPyNPiw> / Jim Hightower *Don Blankenship is the first murderous coal executive to get put behind bars.* -- Paul Wilson Project Healing Waters Fly-fishing Sierra Club Military Outdoors 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 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 JUSTICE, ONLY JUSTICE, SHALT THOU PURSUE. Deuteronomy 16:20

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC