- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Fwd: Power Plant Pollution strategy meeting February 12
by James Kotcon 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

The WV Chapter of Sierra Club recently filed a Notice of Intent to sue Allegheny Energy over pollution discharges from their Albright power plant. The initial issue deals with water pollution violations from their coal ash impoundments, resulting in excessive discharges of arsenic into tributaries of the Cheat River. While a few of us have been discussing this quietly for a couple weeks, now that the NOI is public, we want to expand our interest group, and identify what issues and opportunities could be obtained to improve our air and water. Coal ash activists will recognize this as another ash impoundment in our back yards. We are also collecting data on mercury emissions. There are issues related to new fine particulate and toxics emissions rules. Oh, and did we mention global warming, and more. This region is home to one of the largest concentrations of Sierra Club members in West Virginia. The meeting Saturday is intended to set goals and start planning for what will almost certainly be major issues in the next year or two regarding Albright. The Albright Power plant is one of the oldest and dirtiest in the Allegheny Energy fleet. No scrubbers, limited emissions controls, etc. Yet Allegheny is proposing to use this plant to meet its requirements for "Renewable and Alternative Energy" under former Governor Manchin's Alternative and Renewable energy standard. But retrofitting this plant would be enormously expensive, and the most fiscally sound option for ratepayers may well be to shut it down and invest in energy efficiency instead. At a minimum, we want Allegheny to clean up their arsenic discharges to the Cheat. But that is not likely to be the last issue for this old plant. Please plan to join us if you are in the region Saturday. If so, bring a friend. If not, please suggest names of others who might want to get involved. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> Sally Wilts <sallywilts(a)yahoo.com> 2/6/2011 10:55 AM >>> WV Chapter of Sierra Club will hold a strategy meeting about our campaign on pollution from Albright Power Station on Saturday February 12 at 1 pm. We have reserved a room in the basement of the Morgantown Public Library (no food or drinks allowed). The library is located on Spruce Street with parking across the street. We apologize for the short notice. Jim Sconyers and Jim Kotcon will be coming loaded with information.

1 0

Fw: Fwd: A PATH/ FERC Comments offer - to save a stamp and some time
by Jim Sconyers 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Tina Rappaport <tinazipp(a)gmail.com> Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 4:26:53 PM Subject: Fwd: A PATH/ FERC Comments offer - to save a stamp and some time Dear PATH opposers, If you haven't been following Ali Haverty and Keryn Newman's challenge to PATH's accounting procedures, see the link below, as it makes great reading and your help to support this challenge is needed. FERC (Federal Energy Regulation Commission) has received Ali & Keryn's formal complaint and we have until noon Feb. 10 to submit our support for FERC to look into the charges raised. Please read Ali's email below and follow her instructions. Please also follow all the PATH news on Bill Howley's blog: http://calhounpowerline.com/ >and Keryn Newman's blog: http://www.stoppathwv.com/ If you have any questions, please direct them to Ali at almahaverty(a)gmail.com Thanks for your "energy"! My best always, Tina Rappaport 304-655-0003 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alison Haverty <almahaverty(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:46 PM Subject: A PATH/ FERC Comments offer - to save a stamp and some time To: Hello again, There have been many people who have already taken the time to send in their comments to FERC about the PATH Challenge. http://www.stoppathwv.com/documents/formalchallenge.pdf Keryn and I thank every one of you! Just yesterday I found out I could file other folks' comments electronically, saving a long trip to the post office. So for those of you who would still like to speak your mind regarding the millions of dollars PATH has collected from us rate payers to fund their advertising and astroturf campaigns, but have not put their comments in the mail yet here is the offer: Email me your comments making sure to use the FERC address, docket nos, title used in the attached "comment template". Comments need to be as a "word doc" or a "PDF". The way you can sign your doc is - for example /S/ Alison Haverty Alison Haverty address...etc. This will make scanning unnecessary also. One other quick step that you need to take for me to eFile your comments is - you have to eRegister your email address w/FERC. It takes a minute just go to this link! https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eRegistration.aspx That's it - easy as pie, especially with this beautiful weather we have been having! And we might still yet get some one's attention over there at FERC!! DEADLINE for me to receive your comments is before noon on Thurs. FEB.10th Please do forward this offer to anyone it might help! Thank you all, Ali

1 0

fracking shale gas- From hydro-fracking to petro-fracking?
by Frank Young 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

----- Original Message ----- From: Beth Little To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 2:27 PM Subject: RE: [WVHCBOARD] Wall Street Journal on "The Shale Revolution" E-gads! About the worst part of fracking is that they use diesel fuel or some other form of petroleum distillates in the water, which contain benzene, among other nasties, and benzene is carcinogenic at 5 parts per billion. Now they are going to use just oil? The irony of all this is: we used to be pumping oil out of the ground. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:WVHCBOARD@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Shoenfeld Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 7:02 PM To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [WVHCBOARD] Wall Street Journal on "The Shale Revolution" I get email every day from stock market touts focused on energy companies. With Marcellus Shale, the environmental problems are generally mentioned as the economic downside. At least one of these guys is now talking about a new process called "petro-fracking" that would replace hydro-fracking and supposedly avoid some of the problems. This process uses oil instead of water as the basic element of the fracking fluid. On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Hugh Rogers <hugh.rogers(a)gmail.com> wrote: FYI: This opinion piece was forwarded to me by a high school classmate (as an investment opportunity?). Typically for the WSJ, it completely ignores environmental effects, concentrating instead on shale gas development as an example of entrepreneurial bravado. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405274870470930457612413348780… -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3426 - Release Date: 02/06/11 __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Oil and Gas Group Urges Oscar Judges to Steer Clear of 'Gasland'
by Frank Young 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

BlankOil and Gas Group Urges Oscar Judges to Steer Clear of 'Gasland' By MIKE SORAGHAN of Greenwire Greenwire Published: February 1, 2011 The oil and gas industry doesn't want a golden Oscar statuette to grace the mantel of "Gasland" filmmaker Josh Fox. "The filmmaker alternates between misstating and outright ignoring basic and verifiable facts related to the impact of these activities on the health and welfare of humans, wildlife and the environment," said Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy in Depth (EID), in a letter (pdf) today to the academy. Complete article: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/01/01greenwire-ioil-and-gas-group-urge…

1 0

Fwd: Re: polling: Americans Oppose Upton and Gingrich-style Attacks on Pollution Safeguards
by James Kotcon 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

You all need to take a close look at this new report, because many in Congress are moving in a direction opposed by most Americans. Last night's conference call with Executive Director Michael Brune was refreshing in that the Club leadership is finally recognizing the threat of the new Congress and is gearing up to oppose Congressional limits on EPA. But West Virginia's delegation is almost uniformly on the anti-EPA side of this issue, and we need to put some pressure on them, or risk losing to the Friends of Coal. JBK >>> Anne Woiwode <anne.woiwode(a)sierraclub.org> 2/2/2011 4:52 PM >>> --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >From Michigan, the state the brought you John Dingell during the auto regulatory era, my profound apologies for now bringing you Mr. Fred "Never Seen a Fossil Fuel I Didn't Like" Upton. Sorry. Anne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anne Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter 109 E. Grand River Ave, Lansing, MI 48906 517-484-2372 anne.woiwode(a)sierraclub.org Support Sierra Club Michigan Chapter! Go to <http://tiny.cc/MISierraClubSupport> http://tiny.cc/MISierraClubSupport to make your donation! "Is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual? Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable." Paul Krugman, NYT, 6.29.09 _____ From: FRED [mailto:CONS-FRED@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Paula Carrell Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:19 PM To: CONS-FRED(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Fw: polling: Americans Oppose Upton and Gingrich-style Attacks on Pollution Safeguards --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apologies for duplication, but I thought this was useful info for ALL the state lobby corps, not just chapter directors paula -----Forwarded by Paula Carrell/Sierraclub on 02/02/2011 01:18PM ----- FROM Peter Altman, NRDC Climate Campaign Director <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/americans_oppose_upton_and_gin.ht ml> http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/americans_oppose_upton_and_gin.htm l Americans Oppose Upton and Gingrich-style Attacks on Pollution Safeguards There has been a lot of talk - and bills - from politicians who think that the EPA shouldn't be allowed to do its job of protecting our health from air pollution. Last week, <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/who_loses_if_gingrich_gets_his.ht ml> Newt Gingrich proposed eliminating the EPA and putting in its place a bureaucracy that would cater to polluters. Some in Congress want to eliminate the EPA's ability to update Clean Air Act standards in order to reduce life-threatening pollution like carbon dioxide, soot, smog and toxic pollution. And today, one of the more anticipated bills is supposed to make its appearance: The Hill reports <http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/141635-upton-inhofe-to-float-p lan-wednesday-that-blocks-epa-climate-rules> today that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton will unveil a bill to block the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting life-threatenting carbon pollution. Thing is, Americans just don't support the Gingrich - Upton agenda. Public opinion polling released today by the Opinion Research Corporation finds that Americans don't want to eliminate the EPA as Gingrich suggests, nor do they want Congress to stop it from doing its job of protecting public health, as Chairman Upton and others want to do. Health professionals take such proposals seriously. As Health Care Without Harm's Climate Policy Coordinator Brenda Afzal, MS, RN, says: "Chairman Upton's bill, which is expected to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating the Clean Air Act to limit carbon pollution, puts our nation's health at risk. Leading health organizations and experts consider carbon dioxide pollution to be a wide-ranging threat to public health, which contributes to the same air pollution problems that worsen asthma and other chronic respiratory illnesses that affect millions of Americans and children. Our health should not suffer so that members of Congress can put corporate profits ahead of the public's health." Here's the bottom line: More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) - including a clear majority of Republicans (61 percent) - oppose efforts in Congress to block Clean Air Act updates for carbon, smog and other pollution, according to a national opinion survey by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) International for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). You can find the full report <http://bit.ly/fXmFyX.> here. And here are some more details: * Americans want the EPA to do more, not less. Almost two thirds of Americans (63 percent) say "the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water," versus under a third (29 percent) who think the EPA already "does too much and places too many costly restrictions on businesses and individuals." Well under half of Republicans (44 percent), less than a third of Independents (29 percent) and under a fifth of Democrats (16 percent) think the EPA is going too far today. * Americans do not want Congress to kill the EPA's anti-pollution updates. Only 18 percent of Americans - including fewer than a third of Republicans (32 percent) -- believe that "Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards," after being told: "Some members of Congress are proposing to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating safeguards to protect our health from dangerous air pollution, saying they will cost businesses too much money." By contrast, more than three out of four Americans (77 percent) -- including 61 percent of Republicans - say "Congress (should) let the EPA do its job." * The vast majority of Republicans - and all Americans - oppose the Newt Gingrich plan to dismantle the EPA. Overall, only 25 percent of Americans agree with Newt Gingrich's call to eliminate the EPA. More than two out of three Americans (67 percent) oppose abolishing the EPA, including half (49 percent) who strongly oppose it. Among those opposing the Gingrich plan: 61 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats. You can get the full news release and other materials here. ======================= Peter Altman Climate Campaign Director Natural Resources Defense Council Phone: 202-289-2435 Email: <mailto:paltman@nrdc.org> paltman(a)nrdc.org Blog: <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/> http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/ Twitter: <http://twitter.com/PeteatNRDC> http://twitter.com/PeteatNRDC Web: <http://www.nrdc.org/> http://www.nrdc.org_________________________________________________________ ___ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: stationary-clean(a)lists.usclimatenetwork.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: stationary-clean-unsubscribe(a)lists.usclimatenetwork.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.usclimatenetwork.org/lists/info/stationary-clean - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to: LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CONS-FRED

2 1

Fw: Southern Calif Edison Buys 20 Years of Solar Power for Less than Natural Gas
by Jim Sconyers 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: F.J. Morris <frankmorris(a)ECOLOGICINVESTOR.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 3:35:03 PM Subject: Southern Calif Edison Buys 20 Years of Solar Power for Less than Natural Gas Ed M, Good stuff…Like Ned Ford keeps saying, efficiency with distributed renewables, are competitive now. Good stuff. Get efficient, build distributed renewables, and bankrupt fossil. Money’s like calories, and so are Killowatts. Control the money, control the kws, and control the polluting industries. Frank Morris ________________________________ From:Chp & Grp Global Warming Energy Chairs [mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Edward Mainland Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:05 PM To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] SCE Buys 20 Years of Solar Power for Less than Natural Gas Solar panel prices have decreased by about 40% in just the past couple years, a trend that is continuing. Doesn't this call into question outdated assumptions about natural gas being the Club's go-to "transition" or "bridge" fuel? Can NG be a "bridge" to anywhere once it becomes ever more costly (levelized) than renewables? And note how small renewable projects in many cases can now come on stream faster than large central-station, environmentally impactful desert projects. That these small solar projects in California have now broken through the discriminatory (in favor of natural gas) "market price referent" barrier under a "renewable standard contract" is highly significant. -- Ed M. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SCE Buys 20 Years of Solar Power for Less than Natural Gas 1 comment February 1, 2011 in Solar Energy Southern California Edison has selected 250 MW worth of solar bids from companies able to produce solar electricity for 20 years for less money annually than the 20 year levelized cost of energy of a combined-cycle natural gas turbine power plant. SCE’s bidding process for smaller renewable projects is smart. These small projects do not face the multi-year bureaucratic delays for extensive reviews, like most utility-scale solar, so each small unit can be built as quickly as normal commercial rooftop solar projects. They are made up of multiple distributed solar installations of under 20 MW, which in combination total a power plant-sized 250 MW. The utility already gets more than 19% of its electricity from renewable sources, placing it in the lead between California’s three big utilities to reach the Renewable Energy Standard requirement to get 20% of its electricity from renewables (which excludes large hydro and nuclear) by 2013. This year SCE had put out a request for bids to get 250 MW of just solar power, made up of multiple smaller rooftop arrays. Fremont-based Solyndra was one of the early bidders to be accepted. Solyndra will supply 20 years of power , with its unique cylindrical solar panels, to be installed by its subsidiary, Photon Solar. With a bidding process, SCE can save money by making renewable energy companies compete to offer the lowest price for supplying the utility some of its electricity through its Renewable Standard Contract The requirement is that the renewable energy has to be priced to cost no more than the Market Price Referent (MPR) – which is an annual calculation of the 20 year levelized cost of energy of a combined cycle gas turbine. This year, the solar bids are below the MPR, meaning that they cost less than the annual cost of getting the same amount of electricity from natural gas over the same time period. Even more interesting, SCE says that they received over 2.5 GW – 2,500 MW – of offers from solar companies eager and apparently able to supply solar power for less than the cost of gas. I was not able to locate that price in their detailed filing with the California Public Utilites Comission (PDF), a hefty tome. but the MPR for 2010 appears to be in the 11 cent range. According to Adam Browning at Vote Solar, “prices are kept confidential for something like 3 years. All we know is whether it is above or below MPR—and the advice letter says it is below”. Susan Kraemer @Twitter- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: CoalSwam resources on coal plants
by Paul Wilson 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Lots of information compiled here. Most of it due to the work of the Club's National Coal Campaign. See the credits below. regards, paul w. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ted Nace <ted(a)tednace.com> Date: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:05 AM Subject: CoalSwam resources on coal plants To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com Having trouble viewing this email? Click here <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4zpfzucab&v=001UGlpv9WiH…> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* *Some useful CoalSwarm coal plant wiki pages and compilation pages -- now with sortable tables and Google search * *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Attention coal nerds! Below are some compilations for those doing research on existing and proposed coal plants. I'm happy to report that MediaWiki now allows us to have a sort button for CoalSwarm's wiki tables. This makes all of the tables more useful: for example, now you can sort coal plant retirements by plant name, state, or company. There are also individual profiles, including coordinates and Google maps, for 675 existing U.S. coal plants<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…>. Hopefully we'll soon have profiles for all Australian and Canadian plants as well. (For information on other topics such as mines, coal waste, and protests, see the CoalSwarm portal page.)<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> Another development with the site is that we now have a real Google search bar for CoalSwarm content <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…>-- the most requested feature that was previously lacking. Yay! *Compilations on coal plants:* - Existing U.S. Coal Plants<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Coal plant retirements<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Campus coal plants<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Coal plant conversion projects<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Coal plants near residential areas<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - EPA coal plant settlements<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Scrubber retrofits at existing coal plants<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Proposed coal plants in the United States<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Proposed coal plants (international)<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Coal plant cancellations<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Proposed synfuels plants in the U.S.<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Existing coal plants in Canada<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> - Existing coal plants in Australia<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> *Many thanks** to Adrian Wilson, Bob Burton, Christine Shearer, Joshua Frank, and the experts at the Sierra Club for building this body of information.* *Contact Information* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ phone: 415-206-0906 *Research discussions and questions always welcome!* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Links...* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CoalSwarm website<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> CoalSwarm wiki portal page<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> Climate Hope website<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&et=1104392636319&s=250&e=0018qGY3yp…> Forward email<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=4zpfzucab&m=1102356594495&ea=…> <http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=001vbp07uPGAQtP-ATgZtjcDg%3D%3…> <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=news01> This email was sent to pjgrunt(a)gmail.com by ted(a)tednace.com | Update Profile/Email Address<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=001vbp07uPGAQtP-ATgZtjcDg%3D%3…> | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=001vbp07uPGAQtP-ATgZtjcDg%3D%3…>™ | Privacy Policy <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>. CoalSwarm | 1254 Utah Street | San Francisco | CA | 94110 -- 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

FW: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Fwd: Call with Michael Brune on Protecting Public Health and Building a Clean Energy Economy Tuesday Feb 1
by Grubb, Karen 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

-----Original Message----- From: National Hydrofracking Team [mailto:ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Oliver Bernstein Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:30 AM To: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Fwd: Call with Michael Brune on Protecting Public Health and Building a Clean Energy Economy Tuesday Feb 1 FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Call with Michael Brune on Protecting Public Health and Building a Clean Energy Economy Friends, Please join us for an activist call with Executive Director Michael Brune on Protecting Public Health and Building a Clean Energy Economy. This call is open to all Sierra Club volunteers. WHAT: Call to Action: Protecting Public Health and Building a Clean Energy Economy WHEN: Tuesday, February 1st at 8:30pm ET/5:30pm PT HOW: Dial (866) 501-6174; when prompted enter access code 223 9223 # AGENDA: 1.) Vision: Protecting Public Health and Building a Clean Energy Economy - Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director 2.) Health Campaign Overview - Mary Anne Hitt, National Beyond Coal Campaign Director 3.) Defending the Clean Air Act - Melinda Pierce, Deputy Director of National Campaigns 4.) Questions and Answers 5.) Your Charge: Translating this Work to the Local Level 6.) Questions and Answers Please submit questions that you have for Michael Brune to energy.intern(a)sierraclub.org by 5:00pm ET on Tuesday with the subject line: "Question for Michael Brune." Hope you can make it. -- Oliver Bernstein Senior Communications Strategist Sierra Club Phone: 512.477.2152 Cell: 512.289.8618 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, send any message to: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To subscribe to the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, or one of the Sierra Club's other lists, visit us at http://lists.sierraclub.org

1 0

Fwd: SNL Energy News interview with Deb Nardone
by Paul Wilson 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

in case you missed this.... paul w ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Oliver Bernstein <oliver.bernstein(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:36 PM Subject: SNL Energy News interview with Deb Nardone To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org FYI http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?CDID=A-12249018-12850&KPLT=2 Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:06 PM ET Sierra Club's natural gas reform campaign to focus on industry accountability By Bryan Schutt The newly appointed director of the Sierra Club's natural gas reform campaign said that the group will be focused on safeguarding communities from the potential hazards associated with shale gas development and that the campaign will strive to hold industry accountable for its actions. The campaign supports natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil but advocates strong federal and state oversight of hydraulic fracturing to ensure that extraction of the fossil fuel does not come at the expense of land, water and community health. Deborah Nardone, whose appointment as director was announced on Jan. 25, said her role will be to advance that mission. "The overall goal is to protect our communities, our land, our air and our water," she said. "The strength of the Sierra Club is our members. They are well-informed, incredibly organized, and they are pushing to hold the industry accountable to higher standards." To increase accountability, the campaign will push a myriad of measures. First and foremost, Nardone said, the industry should be held to the same environmental laws all other industries are required to adhere to. "It's pretty unacceptable that they're exempt from [multiple] federal regulations," she said. Nardone said it will also be vital for adequate resources to be appropriated at all levels of government to provide for more thorough oversight and enforcement. Speaking of oversight, she noted that drilling should never be considered appropriate in certain areas, a point many in New York City have been adamant about. "Our more sensitive wild lands, our drinking water source watersheds ... and other significant natural resources should be left off limits to drilling," she said. The Sierra Club's overall mission of increasing energy efficiency and reliance on renewable energy will play a large part of the campaign, too. "As natural gas is being pushed to play a larger role on the scene, we're seeing that reliance on renewables and efficiency is starting to decline," Nardone said. "We should also be looking at pushing renewable energy sources." Nardone's comments about clean energy were echoed by President Barack Obama during his State of the Union address Jan. 25. Some in the fossil fuels industry pounced on the president's remarks, saying a focus on clean energy should not compromise the economic engine of the exploration and production industry. While the oil and gas industry is able to tout the economic benefits and jobs created by drilling, Nardone said, that boom cannot be used as an excuse to ignore environmental stewardship. "If we can't protect our communities and we can't protect our natural resources, than we shouldn't drill for gas," she said. "The argument of jobs versus the environment, they're not opposite each other. If you don't have a healthy community ... then you can't have jobs." Nardone joins the Sierra Club after working with the Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited. With Trout Unlimited, Nardone served as a coldwater resource specialist developing conservation plans to protect the headwaters of streams. She has also worked on watershed protection for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Allegheny Ridge Heritage Area. Sierra Club Director of Conservation Sarah Hodgdon hailed the announcement. "Deb has been a leader in protecting watersheds throughout Pennsylvania from unsound development," she said in a statement. "We look forward to her bringing her wealth of experience and successful campaigns to this huge challenge on the national stage." -- Oliver Bernstein Senior Communications Strategist Sierra Club Phone: 512.477.2152 Cell: 512.289.8618 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- 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

Fw: [WVFirstCongressionalOFA] Fwd: HB2025 Energy Efficiency
by Jim Sconyers 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Denise Binion <dbinion(a)gmail.com> To: WVFirstCongressionalOFA <WVFirstCongressionalOFA(a)groups.barackobama.com> Sent: Tue, February 1, 2011 9:53:03 AM Subject: [WVFirstCongressionalOFA] Fwd: HB2025 Energy Efficiency >From our friend Mike Harman. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Harman <mph1946(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:42 AM Subject: Fwd: HB2025 Energy Efficiency To: Dear friends, Now is the time to take action in support of HB 2025, the Energy Efficiency bill introduced in the House of Delegates and referred to the Government Organization Committee. Sponsors are Mike Manypenny and Barbara Fleischauer. This bill establishes specific energy savings targets to be met by utilities over the next 15 years, with incentives as well as penalties, and an option for large industrial customers to achieve comparable savings under their own plans (a "self-direct" provision). Attached is everything you need to help get started. Feel free to spread the word by sharing this email! The attached "Fact Sheet" describes HB2025 and how it will help. Be sure your legislator gets a copy of it, along with a request to support the bill. The "Talking Points" is an outline of points for advocates to use in conversation with legislators. On the reverse is a roster of the Gov Org committee. We did not include email addresses in the roster, but you can easily obtain them by going to http://www.legis.state.wv.us/ The Government Organization Committee must take up the bill and vote to send it out to the floor for a vote. This is our top concern for now. We need for at least half the members to support the bill. If you have a representative on this committee, it is urgent that you connect with them ASAP. Note that home telephone numbers are included for most members. We have found that calls to their homes on the weekend are usually more productive than trying to reach them at the Capitol. Keep in mind that legislators are paid for 60 consecutive days! Most will welcome hearing from concerned citizens. Democracy only works when we all participate. Try to get specific feedback from your representative! Ask if they will support this bill. Will they vote to report it out? If not, then what specifically are their concerns? What information do they need about the bill? We need to have your feedback from your contacts. Please send any feedback, questions or concerns to John Christensen, WV Environmental Council, at 410-499-4873, email jbc329(a)earthlink.net. Many thanks to John for his help at the Capitol, and to Cathy Kunkel who has written our materials. Mike Harman ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to 17 members of WVFirstCongressionalOFA This email was sent from Denise Binion dbinion(a)gmail.com Listserv email address: WVFirstCongressionalOFA(a)groups.barackobama.com Your reply will be sent to: WVFirstCongressionalOFA(a)groups.barackobama.com Unsubscribe or change your email settings: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/WVFirstCongressionalOFA/listserv-unsub -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

USE OF DIESEL AS PART OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PROCESS SAID TO VIOLATE SAFE WATER DRINKING ACT
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Gas Drilling Technique Is Labeled Violation By TOM ZELLER Jr.<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/tom_jr_zell…> Published: January 31, 2011 Oil and gas service companies injected tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells in more than a dozen states from 2005 to 2009, Congressional investigators have charged. Those injections appear to have violated the Safe Water Drinking Act, the investigators said in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environ…>on Monday. The diesel fuel was used by drillers as part of a contentious process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives — including diesel fuel — into rock formations deep underground. The process, which has opened up vast new deposits of natural gas<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/natural-gas/…>to drilling, creates and props open fissures in the rock to ease the release of oil<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleu…>and gas. But concerns have been growing over the potential for fracking chemicals — particularly those found in diesel fuel — to contaminate underground sources of drinking water. “We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought — and no state and federal regulators have issued — permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/henry_a_waxman…>of California and two other Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in the letter<http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-markey-an…>. “This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.” Oil and gas companies acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids, but they rejected the House Democrats’ assertion that it was illegal. They said that the E.P.A. had never properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue. “Everyone understands that E.P.A. is at least interested in regulating fracking,” said Matt Armstrong, a lawyer with the Washington firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents several oil and gas companies. “Whether the E.P.A. has the chutzpah to try to impose retroactive liability for use of diesel in fracking, well, everyone is in a wait-and-see mode. I suspect it will have a significant fight on its hands if it tried it do that.” Regardless of the legal outcome, the Waxman findings are certain to intensify an already contentious debate among legislators, natural gas companies and environmentalists over the safety of oil and gas development in general, and fracking in particular. Oil services companies had traditionally used diesel fuel as part of their fracturing cocktails because it helped to dissolve and disperse other chemicals suspended in the fluid. But some of the chemical components of diesel fuel, including toluene, xylene and benzene, a carcinogen, have alarmed both regulators and environmental groups. They argue that some of those chemicals could find their way out of a well bore — either because of migration through layers of rock or spills and sloppy handling — and into nearby sources of drinking water. An E.P.A. investigation in 2004 failed to find any threat to drinking water from fracking — a conclusion that was widely dismissed by critics as politically motivated. The agency has taken up the issue again in a new investigation started last year, although the results are not expected until 2012 at the earliest. The House committee began its own investigation in February last year, when Democrats were in the majority. In Monday’s letter, Mr. Waxman, along with Representatives Edward J. Markey<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/edward_j_marke…>of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado, said that they were so far “unable to draw definitive conclusions about the potential impact of these injections on public health or the environment.” Still, the investigators said that three of the largest oil and gas services companies — Halliburton<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/halliburton_company/i…>, Schlumberger<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/inde…>and BJ Services — signed an agreement with the E.P.A. in 2003 intended to curtail the use of diesel in fracking in certain shallow formations. Two years later, when Congress amended the Safe Water Drinking Act to exclude regulation of hydraulic fracturing, it made an express exception that allowed regulation of diesel fuel used in fracking. The Congressional investigators sent letters to 14 companies requesting details on the type and volume of fracking chemicals they used. Although many companies said they had eliminated or were cutting back on use of diesel, 12 companies reported having used 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel, or fluids containing diesel fuel, in their fracking processes from 2005 to 2009. The diesel-laced fluids were used in a total of 19 states. Approximately half the total volume was deployed in Texas, but at least a million gallons of diesel-containing fluids were also used in Oklahoma (3.3 million gallons); North Dakota (3.1 million); Louisiana (2.9 million); Wyoming (2.9 million); and Colorado (1.3 million). Where this leaves the companies in relation to federal law is unclear. Mr. Waxman and his colleagues say that the Safe Drinking Water Act left diesel-based hydraulic fracturing under the auspices of E.P.A.’s “underground injection control program,” which requires companies to obtain permits, either from state or federal regulators, for a variety of activities that involve putting fluids underground. No permits for diesel-based fracking have been sought or granted since the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended in 2005. Lee Fuller, a vice president for government relations with the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said that was because the E.P.A. had never followed up by creating rules and procedures for obtaining such permits and submitting them for public comment. The agency did quietly update its Web site last summer with language suggesting that fracking with diesel was, indeed, covered as part of the underground injection program, which would suggest that permits should have been obtained. But Mr. Fuller’s organization, along with the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, has gone to court to challenge the Web posting, arguing that it amounted to new rule-making that circumvented administrative requirements for notice and public commentary. The E.P.A. said Monday that it was reviewing the accusations from the three House Democrats that the companies named were in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. “Our goal is to put in place a clear framework for permitting so that fracturing operations using diesel receive the review required by law,” Betsaida Alcantara, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message. “We will provide further information about our plans as they develop.” -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

2 1

Fw: Fw: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE!
by Allan Tweddle 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

Why not WV? From: fmoose39(a)hotmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 5:54 PM To: Jim Sconyers ; ec(a)osenergy.org Subject: Re: [EC]Fw: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE! Solar is basic free in many states now. Take the instance Ohio has carbon credits when one takes these in conjunction with tax credits by its self and not including cost savings from the electric bill the payback is less then one year in many cases. sent from my AT&T Smartphone by HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jim Sconyers" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 11:03 am Subject: [EC] Fw: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE! To: <ec(a)osenergy.org> Awesome!! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Peter Gollon <PGollon(a)AOL.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 8:53:22 AM Subject: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE! HomeSun offers free solar panels to UK homes UK company HomeSun is offering free solar panels to homes with south-facing roofs in return for receiving the Government’s feed-in-tariff. The company says it will provide and install 2..5 kWh- 4 kWh systems, which typically cost £11,000-15,000 for free on homes with optimally sited and sized roofs. Households will be able to benefit from the free electricity generated to lower their household energy bills, while HomeSun will receive the feed-in tariff over its 25 year guaranteed lifetime. At any time, households will be able to buy the system from HomeSun on a straightline depreciation basis and start receiving the feed-in tariff themselves. Homes with less optimal positions can also benefit from the scheme, but for a one-off fee of £500 and a £5 per month maintenance and repair charge. HomeSun says it plans to install 100,000 systems over the next three years. “Our SolarShare offer is all about making renewable energy more affordable to more people,” says Daniel Green, from HomeSun. “We believe it is precisely the kind of enterprise-inspired solution that the Government is looking for to drive the green agenda.” (taken from http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/policy/i/3291/) For further information: www.homesun.com/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

Re: [EC] Fw: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE!
by fmoose39＠hotmail.com 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

Solar is basic free in many states now. Take the instance Ohio has carbon credits when one takes these in conjunction with tax credits by its self and not including cost savings from the electric bill the payback is less then one year in many cases. sent from my AT&T Smartphone by HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jim Sconyers" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 11:03 am Subject: [EC] Fw: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE! To: <ec(a)osenergy.org> Awesome!! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Peter Gollon <PGollon(a)AOL.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 8:53:22 AM Subject: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE! HomeSun offers free solar panels to UK homes UK company HomeSun is offering free solar panels to homes with south-facing roofs in return for receiving the Government’s feed-in-tariff. The company says it will provide and install 2..5 kWh- 4 kWh systems, which typically cost £11,000-15,000 for free on homes with optimally sited and sized roofs. Households will be able to benefit from the free electricity generated to lower their household energy bills, while HomeSun will receive the feed-in tariff over its 25 year guaranteed lifetime. At any time, households will be able to buy the system from HomeSun on a straightline depreciation basis and start receiving the feed-in tariff themselves. Homes with less optimal positions can also benefit from the scheme, but for a one-off fee of £500 and a £5 per month maintenance and repair charge. HomeSun says it plans to install 100,000 systems over the next three years. “Our SolarShare offer is all about making renewable energy more affordable to more people,” says Daniel Green, from HomeSun. “We believe it is precisely the kind of enterprise-inspired solution that the Government is looking for to drive the green agenda.” (taken from http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/policy/i/3291/) For further information: www.homesun.com/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fw: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE!
by Jim Sconyers 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

Awesome!! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Peter Gollon <PGollon(a)AOL.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 8:53:22 AM Subject: Free Solar Panels in UK - THIS is What We Need HERE! HomeSun offers free solar panels to UK homes UK company HomeSun is offering free solar panels to homes with south-facing roofs in return for receiving the Government’s feed-in-tariff. The company says it will provide and install 2.5 kWh- 4 kWh systems, which typically cost £11,000-15,000 for free on homes with optimally sited and sized roofs. Households will be able to benefit from the free electricity generated to lower their household energy bills, while HomeSun will receive the feed-in tariff over its 25 year guaranteed lifetime. At any time, households will be able to buy the system from HomeSun on a straightline depreciation basis and start receiving the feed-in tariff themselves. Homes with less optimal positions can also benefit from the scheme, but for a one-off fee of £500 and a £5 per month maintenance and repair charge. HomeSun says it plans to install 100,000 systems over the next three years. “Our SolarShare offer is all about making renewable energy more affordable to more people,” says Daniel Green, from HomeSun. “We believe it is precisely the kind of enterprise-inspired solution that the Government is looking for to drive the green agenda.” (taken from http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/policy/i/3291/) For further information: www.homesun.com/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

WSJ ARTICLE: ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES TO ACQUIRE MASSEY ENERGY CO FOR 7 BILLION DOLLARS
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 29 Jan '11

29 Jan '11

Alpha CEO: Premium for Massey Well Worth It By KRIS MAHER<http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=KRIS+MAHER&bylinesearch=true> Alpha Natural Resources<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=ANR>Inc. CEO Kevin Crutchfield said Massey Energy <http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=MEE>Co. has been at the top of Alpha's list of companies to acquire for a while because the combination would create a global leader in metallurgical coal reserves, production and sales. He said the 21% premium Alpha had agreed to pay for Richmond, Va., based Massey is well worth it. With the announcement Saturday that Alpha reached an agreement to acquire Massey in a cash and stock deal valued at $7.1 billion, Alpha is now poised to become the world's third-biggest producer of coal used by steelmakers just when global demand for the resource is growing and supplies are increasingly scarce. The combined company will have more than 110 miles and 5 billion tons of coal reserves, including reserves of high quality metallurgical coal used in steelmaking. More - * Alpha Reaches Deal to Buy Massey<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576110702830808140.h…> * "We've always thought the combination between Massey and Alpha could be very compelling," Mr. Crutchfield said in an interview Saturday evening. "We were fundamentally convinced that the world was going to remain fundamentally under-supplied for metallurgical coal for the foreseeable future." Alpha, based in Abingdon, Va., announced that it expects to gain $150 million in synergies within the second year of operations of the combined company. Mr. Crutchfield said that is likely a conservative estimate, as he ran through a list of potential synergies: the combined company will produce a broader range of coal qualities that can be blended into new products to market to steel makers. He also expects savings on production and transportation. In the past, Alpha often trucked its coal past Massey coal preparation plants in Central Appalachia to get to its own facilities. Mr. Crutchfield said Alpha will also be better able to take advantage of long-term export opportunities for U.S. coal producers as demand in China and India and short-term supply disruptions like recent massive flooding in Australia and other countries. He said the combined company will have 25 million tons of port capacity. He said port capacity wasn't a big deal for coal producers until recently. "Now, it's a hot commodity." Mike Quillen, Alpha's chairman, and Kurt Kost, Alpha's president, will fill those posts at the combined company, said Mr. Crutchfield, who will be CEO. He said he expects that Massey's current CEO, Baxter Phillips, who has extensive knowledge of the industry and Massey, will have some kind of advisory role. "I can't imagine going at this without Baxter," he said. Mr. Phillips said in a statement Saturday, "This transaction represents a tremendous opportunity for Massey to partner with our Central Appalachian neighbor, Alpha, to create a new industry leader." Mr. Crutchfield said that Massey's longtime CEO Don Blankenship, who opposed a sale and retired at the end of the year, will not be part of the new company. "We certainly wish him the best of luck in his ongoing endeavors," Mr. Crutchfield said. Some coal industry watchers have wondered whether a Massey-Alpha linkup could run into anti-trust issues. But Mr. Crutchfield said he does not expect any headwinds. "Our sense is … that the customers are going to be pretty receptive to this," he said. "We're very confident that we'll clear the (Federal Trade Commission)." Rather than shut mines or sell off assets, Alpha is more likely to ramp up production to take advantage of the current hot international market for metallurgical coal. It will be looking to optimize equipment and personnel to increase margins, but Mr. Crutchfield said, "There's the possibility that we actually stoke production, which is our thinking now based on what we're seeing in the marketplace." It's not clear how Alpha will approach some of the problems that plagued Massey since the accident last April at its Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, W.Va., that killed 29 miners -- from litigation to contentious relations with federal mine regulators. The families of two miners have sued Massey for wrongful death under state law, and federal and state investigations, including a criminal probe into the accident, are ongoing. Mr. Crutchfield said he believes the combined company will eventually enjoy the same good relationship Alpha has with regulators currently, and he hopes that some issues related to the disaster are resolved prior to when the acquisition closes. "The industry and family, everybody, needs closure on it," he said. Mr. Crutchfield noted that during Alpha's past effort to acquire Massey several years ago "the stars just didn't align." But he added, "Sometimes things that make sense take some time to happen and we're thrilled that this one finally got to the finish line." *Write to * Kris Maher at kris.maher(a)wsj.com

1 0

Alpha to Buy Massey Energy in $7.1 Billion Deal
by Frank Young 29 Jan '11

29 Jan '11

Blank January 28, 2011, 9:44 pm Mergers & Acquisitions Alpha to Buy Massey in $7.1 Billion Deal By MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED Jon Bolt/The Daily Telegraph, via Associated Press Massey Energy’s chief executive, Don L. Blankenship. 3:57 p.m. | Updated Alpha Natural Resources announced on Saturday that it has agreed to buy Massey Energy, the embattled coal mine operator, for about $7.1 billion in cash and stock in a deal that creates a new giant in coal production. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/alpha-nears-deal-to-buy-massey-for-a…

1 0

EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater than previously reported.
by James Kotcon 29 Jan '11

29 Jan '11

The initial press story I saw was Tuesday, but it appears the story may be a couple months old by now. It suggests that methane emissions from Marcellus wells may be 9000 times greater than previously estimated. Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated by Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m. The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding of the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change. More available at: http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-dou… The actual EPA report (Technical Support Document: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) was apparently released in November and is available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf In particular, Tables 1 and 2 (pages 8-10) describe the updates to the emissions factors. Those referencing "unconventional wells" represent some changes that are truly astronomical. If each Marcellus well is, in fact, leaking 177 tons of methane per well each time they hydro-frack, then that makes them significant sources of emissions. Finally, the story is explained in more lay terms in the blog at the site below: http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48209/epa-confirms-high-natural-… I recommend reading all three of these, as I think this is a game changer for the natural gas industry. It certainly changes the game on the Wetzel air permit appeal. Jim Kotcon

5 12

Re: [EC] from Center for Media and Democracy; "Clean Natural Gas?" Not So Fast.
by Paul Wilson 28 Jan '11

28 Jan '11

Jonathan: think you can get this on the facebook page? cheers,paul Spins Of The Week "Clean Natural Gas?" Not So Fast.<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OXjJdW6wxvr39E%2BsHq…> Source: ProPublica, January 25, 2011 Acquiring "clean natural gas"<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=PmPGjUWzZ6IXUApLCknt…>and "getting off of foreign oil"<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kqwgjNCRumQKF7bb80Ch…>are pitched as reasons to continue natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RopcAjP5O0wEqUEqCtGh…>. And yet, beyond all the problems associated with fracking<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=w2dPNkX0mz78FqAtYM%2…>, Pro Publica<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=0XVtUXNfGWwrWfV%2Fj9…>'s Abrahm Lustgarten revealed in a January 25, 2011 article<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zDuQhD%2FPocQX8ioWVp…>that "clean natural gas" isn't all that clean after all. Lustgarten<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=xWXW3gE5oXPLg%2FHxUg…> writes<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KNgAdDQVFVz%2FITi2rj…> , The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency ... is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change ... Advocates for natural gas routinely assert that it produces 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal and is a significant step toward a greener energy future ... The EPA now reports that emissions from conventional hydraulic fracturing are 35 times higher than the agency had previously estimated. It also reports that emissions from the type of hydraulic fracturing being used in the nation's bountiful new shale gas reserves, like the Marcellus, are almost 9,000 times higher than it had previously calculated ... Environmental groups say we should be certain of the factual data about emissions and environmental effects of shale gas drilling before making major policy decisions that push the nation into dependence on methane gas obtained through drilling. Read the rest of this item<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KQzgYrZNSdspR3pUT0Kj…> -- 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

Exxon projections on use of shale gas worldwide increase significantly, passing coal use. Exxon bought XTO -- innovator of fracking -- to become largest gas producer in world.
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 27 Jan '11

27 Jan '11

- JANUARY 27, 2011 Exxon Predicts Gas Use Will Surpass Coal's By ANGEL GONZALEZ<http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ANGEL+GONZALEZ&bylinesearch…> In Exxon Mobil<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=XOM>Corp.'s crystal ball, the future of natural gas is looking increasingly rosy. Global demand for natural gas, commonly used for heating homes and businesses and for generating electricity, will increase 2% a year through 2030, the Texas oil giant says, raising the 1.8% estimate it made last year. This is no small change. It means that Exxon expects the world in 2030 to burn seven quadrillion British thermal units of gas more than the company predicted a year ago. That's about the same amount of energy consumed by California in a year. While oil will remain the dominant fuel, even in 2030, gas will have surpassed coal to become the world's second-largest source of energy, supplying 26% of world needs to oil's 32%, according to Exxon's annual Outlook for Energy, scheduled to be released Thursday. Gas usage is expected to grow three times as fast as that of oil and coal as developing countries scramble to bring electricity to billions of people and rich nations replace aging coal-fired power plants with gas-fired facilities, the report says. Clean-burning natural gas represents less of a global warming threat than coal or oil. Other low-emitting forms of energy, such as nuclear and renewable power, also are expected to expand their share of the world's energy pie. Exxon's Outlook for Energy is closely watched, as it underpins the strategy of the world's largest publicly-traded oil company. "It provides the foundation for the different [Exxon] businesses to present their investment plans," says Bill Colton, Exxon's vice president for corporate strategic planning. It's no surprise that Exxon is enthusiastic about natural gas. The company last year became the largest gas producer in the U.S. when it bought XTO Energy Inc. for $25 billion. XTO was one of several North American companies that perfected a method to extract gas economically by fracturing tight rock formations called shales. Exxon also bought small shale producer Ellora Inc. for $695 million and natural-gas shale assets from Petrohawk Energy<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=hk>Corp. for $575 million. Experience WSJ professional<https://buy.wsj.com/shopandbuy/order/subscribe.jsp?trackCode=aaad7qvo&extHe…> Editors' Deep Dive: Natural Gas Grows in Importance<http://professional.wsj.com/professional-search/search.html?ar=1&dt=4&mf=0&…> - ENERGY WASHINGTON WEEK<http://professional.wsj.com/professional-search/search.html?ar=1&dt=4&mf=0&…>Impact of Cheap Natural Gas <http://professional.wsj.com/article/TPIEPA000020110125e71q00005.html?mod=ws…> - Economist Intelligence Unit - Business Middle EastIsrael Banks on Natural Gas - Natural Gas IntelligenceGlobal Sales of NGVs Set to Jump Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More<https://buy.wsj.com/shopandbuy/order/subscribe.jsp?trackCode=aaad7qvo&extHe…> But Exxon's optimism comes amid some Wall Street criticism of its recent bets on natural gas, which has traded cheaply since the financial crisis started, while oil has surged of late and thus has been more profitable. Other energy forecasts aren't as bullish about natural gas as Exxon's. The International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Administration put natural gas's global market share at slightly above 22% in 2030, behind oil and coal in supplying the world's needs. Natural-gas prices have fallen to about $4.49 a million BTUs this month from above $13 a million BTUs in mid-2008. Oil prices, on the other hand, were trading as low as $40 a barrel in early 2009 as a result of the recession, but have recovered steadily. On Wednesday, crude futures in New York settled at $87.33 a barrel, up $1.14. Nonetheless, Exxon, which has its roots in John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, believes the world is tilting toward a natural-gas dominated future and is preparing to embrace it. Some other large Western energy companies are heading that direction. Earlier this month, Royal Dutch Shell<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=RDSB>PLC Chief Executive Peter Voser <http://topics.wsj.com/person/v/peter-voser/495> said in an internal publication the Anglo-Dutch oil giant in 2012 would for the first time produce more natural gas than oil. Mary Barcella, a consultant with IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, says that new technology making shale-gas discoveries economic "is a game changer" that revolutionized the once waning U.S. natural-gas business; Exxon and others intend to take that expertise to other regions of the globe. Exxon's Mr. Colton says shale and other unconventional types of gas began playing a prominent role in the company's predictions about three years ago, when it realized that a major technological shift had occurred. Exxon forecasters say that the world will consume about 35% more energy in 2030 than in 2005, driven by population growth and the rapid enrichment of developing nations, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Mr. Colton's team analyzed statistics for 100 countries and Exxon scientists gauged potentially disruptive technologies, such as electric-car batteries. Natural gas will quench 26% of the world's demand, up from about 21% in 2005, the report says. That means that gas usage will double from 2000 levels, but a supply crunch is unlikely, due to the newfound abundance of the fuel, says Mr. Colton. "The world is looking at a very robust supply of natural gas," he said. —Russell Gold contributed to this article. *Write to * Angel Gonzalez at angel.gonzalez(a)dowjones.com -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Fwd: FW: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] FW: Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated
by James Kotcon 25 Jan '11

25 Jan '11

Check out the story form this link, it is a real game-changer! Methane levels from hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9000 times the previous estimates. Gas drilling emissions alone account for at least one-fifth of human-caused methane in the world’s atmosphere, studies show that maintaining and installing equipment to capture the leaking emissions pays for itself within 24 months. JBK >>> "Grubb, Karen" <Karen.Grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu> 1/25/2011 12:19 PM >>> From: National Hydrofracking Team [mailto:ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Deb Nardone Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:47 AM To: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] FW: Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated by Abrahm Lustgarten<http://www.propublica.org/site/author/Abrahm_Lustgarten/> ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m. The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency-and a growing understanding of the pollution associated with the full "life cycle" of gas production-is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change. MORE<http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-dou…> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, send any message to: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Alternative and Renewable Energy Plans
by James Kotcon 23 Jan '11

23 Jan '11

Allegheny Energy on Dec. 30 filed with the WVC PSC their "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Compliance Plan" as specified in Governor Manchin's bill mandating an "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard". As we suspected, this provided relatively little actual incentive to promote renewable energy. Their report states: "Mon Power and Potomac Edison anticipate they will generate enough credits based upon currently available resources for the 15-year term that no additional development, purchase or procurement will be necessary." All I can add is to say: "See We Told You So!" The plan is available at: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'WebDocket' Jim Kotcon

2 1

Albright and Allegheny's Alternative and Renewable Energy Plan
by James Kotcon 23 Jan '11

23 Jan '11

Mike, Josh, et al. In 2009, then Governor Manchin pushed through what he called an "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard". This allowed utilities to claim various coal and gas facilities as "alternative fuels. At the time, we criticized the bill because it was so weak that we did not think it required utilities to do anything. Allegheny Energy on Dec. 30 filed their "Plan" with the WV PSC which states: "Mon Power and Potomac Edison anticipate they will generate enough credits based upon currently available resources for the 15- year term that no additional development, purchase or procurement will be necessary." (See We Told You So!) The report lists the following as producing alternative energy credits: "The generating units identified for the production of credits include units owned by Mon Power including Bath County Pumped Hydro, Albright #3 and Willow Island #2 all of which have been, or will be, submitted for certification in accordance with Section 5 of the Order. Additionally, Mon Power takes service from three (3) Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”) facilities including the Grant Town project (“Grant Town”), the West Virginia University project (‘WVU”) and the Hannibal Lock & Dam project (“Hannibal”)." As you can see, all of Allegheny's credits will be coming from coal-fired plants. No actual renewables are involved. Later in the Plan, Allegheny does describe some minimal energy efficiency efforts and they indicate they plan to get these certified for credits under WV's requirements. I am curious why Albright Unit 3 qualifies as an "Alternative" source. The bill does allow some generation from "Supercritical" as well as "Advanced supercritical" and "Ultrasupercritical" boilers to qualify as "Alternative" fuels. Is it worth intervening before the PSC to argue that Albright is likely to be shut down, and that Allegheny needs to make "real" investments in renewables and energy efficiency? Deadline to Intervene is Feb. 7. Intervenor testimony is due May 3. Jim Kotcon Allegheny's Plan is available at: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'WebDocket' The PSC Order giving Public Notice is at: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'WebDocket'

1 0

Fwd: [Charleston Newspapers] Article - Bonds approved for John Amos plant upgrades
by James Kotcon 23 Jan '11

23 Jan '11

These new bonds for "landfill improvements" appear to be for the coal ash landfill. As I understand it, the bonds approved for the John Amos (AKA Big Scary) power plant do not directly incur a cost for state taxpayers, but do provide tax exemptions for those who provide the financing. Thus the state does not assume any direct costs, but loses some income tax revenue to help subsidize these. We need to start paying more attention to the welfare that taxpayers are providing for coal. JBK >>> <articles(a)cnpapers.com> 1/22/2011 8:18 AM >>> jkotcon(a)wvu.edu sent you this article ----- January 20, 2011 Bonds approved for John Amos plant upgrades ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201101201265 ) By Staff reports The Charleston Gazette P>CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The West Virginia Economic Development Authority authorized Appalachian Power Thursday to issue up to $95 million in bonds to finance landfill improvements at the John Amos Power Plant near Winfield. Authority memb ... Read more ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201101201265 ) -----

1 0

Fw: EPA Administrator Jackson to Speak at 2011 Green Jobs Conference
by Jim Sconyers 21 Jan '11

21 Jan '11

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: 2011 Green Jobs Conference <event-information(a)certain.com> To: Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Fri, January 21, 2011 4:34:52 PM Subject: EPA Administrator Jackson to Speak at 2011 Green Jobs Conference Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference and Expo 2010 EPA Administrator Jackson to Speak at 2011 Green Jobs Conference The 2011 Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference — February 8-10 at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, D.C. — will bring together thousands of union members, environmentalists, community and business leaders from all over the country to share ideas and strategies to build a sustainable economy that creates good jobs and protects our environment for future generations. And now, an exciting speaker has been added to the agenda. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will speak at the morning plenary on Tuesday, February 8. In addition, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood will speak Wednesday morning, February 9, followed by a discussion on sustainable communities, moderated by WAMU's Kojo Nnamdi and featuring U.S. Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Also, don’t forget about the extensive and informative workshops available during the Conference. Today, we’re highlighting two more exciting workshops. In The Global Clean Energy Race: Policy Matters, listen and participate as leaders in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries talk about the Pew Environmental Group’s latest report projecting global clean energy investments. Find out how federal policies can create good jobs in energy efficiency in Capturing Building Energy Efficiency Potential: Creating New Jobs and Markets through Federal Policies. Register todayfor the 2011 Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference— the leading forum for sharing ideas and strategies on how to create good, green jobs across the United States. Don’t forget to visit www.greenjobsconference.org for updates, and follow the Conference on Twitter or Facebook for the latest news about this great event. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation Registration Powered by Certain Meetings Event Management Software :: Online Event Management :: Online Registration Meeting Management Software :: Conference Registration :: Event Planner Software © 2009 Certain Software ®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

1 0

EPA right says WVU student paper
by Frank Young 21 Jan '11

21 Jan '11

Michael Levy writes: "Of course the industry is going to resent and resist any new regulation. It is the most predictable response in the world. Corporations exist for a single purpose : to maximize profits. Not just to make money, but to maximize how much they make. It turns out Arch Coal had an alternate plan from the engineering firm Morgan Worldwide that would have reduced the amount of stream buried by Spruce No. 1 by more than half. But it would have increased costs by 1 percent of the final sale price of the coal, so they buried it. The EPA, rightly in revoking the permit, cited Arch Coal's "failure to adequately evaluate less environmentally damaging alternatives." But that should surprise no one. Arch Coal is from St. Louis. The destruction of Appalachian watersheds and communities means nothing to them. Only their bottom line matters and that's exactly why strong regulation is necessary. Regulation, brought about via the democratic process, is one of the primary tools the public has at its disposal to protect itself against the interests of the powerful - those who seek to exploit us and our land base to enrich themselves. They have the power in the market. We can take power through policy. But to do that we have to see clearly who's on whose side. The coal industry gave $4 million to political candidates in the 2010 election cycle, and they've spent over $63 million on lobbying in the last five years. Manchin is in their pocket and so is Tomblin. It's time we find out who's really there for us, who will stand up for our mountains, our health, our communities and support them and give everyone else the boot. " Complete editorial article at: http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/epa-was-right-to-revoke-mountaintop-remo…

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC