- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Renewables 2010 Global Status Report
by James Kotcon 06 Aug '10

06 Aug '10

Those who say "It can't be done" need to get out of the way of those who are doing it. JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 8/4/2010 1:03 PM >>> These latest numbers can serve to answer those who contend that renewable power can't be scaled up fast enough as fossil fuel sources are supplanted by cleaner energy options and the transition proceeds toward a low-carbon energy economy.. Note in particular the explosive growth in the solar PV market -- 60% yearly for the past decade. Correct policies, supported by Sierra Club and other advocates of renewable power, can help keep these trends bending upward. -- Ed M. Renewables 2010 Global Status Report · $150 billion was invested in new renewable energy capacity in 2009; up from $20 billion in 2004. · Worldwide, about 500,000 people are employed in the wind industry, and 600,000 in solar energy · Nearly half (47%) of all new power generation capacity built in 2008 and 2009 worldwide was renewable · 305 gigawatts of existing renewable electric power generation capacity worldwide (by comparison: the entire US power generation capacity is 1000 gigawatts) · At current rates of construction, another 500 gigawatts of renewable electric power generation will be online by 2020 · Solar water and space heating provided another 180 gigawatts of thermal capacity · Solar hot water is used in 70 million households, mostly in China · 38 gigawatts of wind power were added in 2009, bringing the world total to 159 gigawatts · Global photovoltaics market has grown 60% per year every year for the past decade, increasing 100-fold since 2000. · More than 100 countries have renewable policies Download the report here: http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/REN21_GSR_2010_full.pdf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

Re: [EC] Hydro-Fracking Team on the Club's online Activist Network
by Paul Wilson 04 Aug '10

04 Aug '10

I don't see anybody from WV on this Team. So I hope some of you will explore the SC Activist Network and join Team that you are interested in. cheers, paul w. http://connect.sierraclub.org/Team/Hydrofracking_Team -- 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: Renewables 2010 Global Status Report
by Jim Sconyers 04 Aug '10

04 Aug '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 1:03:54 PM Subject: Renewables 2010 Global Status Report These latest numbers can serve to answer those who contend that renewable power can't be scaled up fast enough as fossil fuel sources are supplanted by cleaner energy options and the transition proceeds toward a low-carbon energy economy.. Note in particular the explosive growth in the solar PV market -- 60% yearly for the past decade. Correct policies, supported by Sierra Club and other advocates of renewable power, can help keep these trends bending upward. -- Ed M. Renewables 2010 Global Status Report · $150 billion was invested in new renewable energy capacity in 2009; up from $20 billion in 2004. · Worldwide, about 500,000 people are employed in the wind industry, and 600,000 in solar energy · Nearly half (47%) of all new power generation capacity built in 2008 and 2009 worldwide was renewable · 305 gigawatts of existing renewable electric power generation capacity worldwide (by comparison: the entire US power generation capacity is 1000 gigawatts) · At current rates of construction, another 500 gigawatts of renewable electric power generation will be online by 2020 · Solar water and space heating provided another 180 gigawatts of thermal capacity · Solar hot water is used in 70 million households, mostly in China · 38 gigawatts of wind power were added in 2009, bringing the world total to 159 gigawatts · Global photovoltaics market has grown 60% per year every year for the past decade, increasing 100-fold since 2000. · More than 100 countries have renewable policies Download the report here: http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/REN21_GSR_2010_full.pdf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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: Great NYT piece on relative costs of nukes, solar, ee
by James Kotcon 03 Aug '10

03 Aug '10

Great piece. I was not aware of it until this article pointed it out, one of the reasons current nuclear energy costs are so "cheap" is that the utilities just wrote off the capital costs of all those nukes that went belly-up in the 80s, to the tune of over $140 billion. JBK >>> Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt(a)sierraclub.org> 7/27/2010 11:44 AM >>> News - Great NYT piece on relative costs of nukes, solar, ee July 26, 2010 Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage By DIANA S. POWERS The New York Times PARIS — Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month. “Solar photovoltaics have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants,” John O. Blackburn, a professor of economics at Duke University, in North Carolina, and Sam Cunningham, a graduate student, wrote in the paper, “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover.” This crossover occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, they said. While solar power costs have been declining, the costs of nuclear power have been rising inexorably over the past eight years, said Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the University of Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and Environment. Estimates of construction costs — about $3 billion per reactor in 2002 — have been regularly revised upward to an average of about $10 billion per reactor, and the estimates are likely to keep rising, said Mr. Cooper, an analyst specializing in tracking nuclear power costs. Identifying the real costs of competing energy technologies is complicated by the wide range of subsidies and tax breaks involved. As a result, U.S. taxpayers and utility users could end up spending hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars more than necessary to achieve an ample low-carbon energy supply, if legislative proposals before the U.S. Congress lead to adoption of an ambitious nuclear development program, Mr. Cooper said in a report last November. The report, “All Risk, No Reward for Taxpayers and Ratepayers,” was a response to a legislative wish list developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group. The institute has called for a mix of U.S. subsidies, tax credits, loan guarantees, procedural simplifications and institutional support on a large scale. At the state level, the industry has also pressed the case for “construction work in progress,” a financing system that requires electricity users to pay for the cost of new reactors during their construction and sometimes before construction starts. With long construction periods and frequent delays, this can mean that electricity users start to pay higher prices as much as 12 years before the plants produce electricity. The institute’s Web site says the financing system “reduces the cost ratepayers will pay for power from the plant when it goes into commercial operation,” by lowering interest payments on capital costs and spreading the costs over time. “The utilities insist that the construction work in progress charged to ratepayers also include the return on equity that the utilities normally earn by taking the risk of building the plant — even though they have shifted the risk to the ratepayers,” Mr. Cooper said. “If the plant is not built or suffers cost overruns, the ratepayers will bear the burden.” History suggests that the risk of this is not negligible. In 1985, Forbes magazine dubbed the construction of the first generation of U.S. nuclear plants “the largest managerial disaster in business history.” The first round of plants resulted in write-offs through bankruptcies and “stranded costs” — investments in existing power plants made uncompetitive by deregulation — which essentially transferred nearly $100 billion in liabilities to electricity users, said Doug Koplow, an economist and founder of Earth Track, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which campaigns against subsidies it considers environmentally harmful. “Although the industry frequently points to its low operating costs as evidence of its market competitiveness, this economic structure is an artifact of large subsidies to capital, historical write-offs of capital, and ongoing subsidies to operating costs,” Mr. Koplow said. From 1943 to 1999 the U.S. government paid nearly $151 billion, in 1999 dollars, in subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power, Marshall Goldberg of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a research organization in Washington, wrote in a July 2000 report. Of this total, 96.3 percent went to nuclear power, the report said. Still, these costs pale in comparison with the financial risks and subsidies that are likely to accompany the next wave of nuclear plant construction, Mr. Cooper said. A November 2009 research report by Citigroup Global Markets termed the construction risks, power price risks, and operational risks “so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility to its knees.” Those risks were mentioned in a 2009 report by the credit rating agency Moody’s. “Moody’s is considering taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants,” the report said. “Historically, most nuclear-building utilities suffered ratings downgrades — and sometimes several — while building these facilities. Political and policy conditions are spurring applications for new nuclear power generation for the first time in years. Nevertheless, most utilities now seeking to build nuclear generation do not appear to be adjusting their financial policies, a credit negative.” Adding to the risks facing any reactor construction program, only one of five proposed designs under consideration by U.S. utilities has ever been built, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. “No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost,” said Stephen Maloney, a utilities management consultant. “We see cost escalations as companies come up the learning curve.” Market risk has been heightened by the recent recession. “The current crisis has decreased energy demand even more than the 1970s oil price shocks,” Mr. Cooper said. The recession “appears to have caused a fundamental shift in consumption patterns that will lower the long-term growth rate of electricity demand.” Meanwhile, most of the projects that have created the increase of license applications to the regulatory commission have already experienced difficulties. “About half of the projects that have been put forward at the start of the next generation of reactors have been delayed or canceled,” Mr. Cooper said. “Those that have moved forward have suffered substantial cost escalation and several have received negative financial reviews. “Of the 19 applications at the N.R.C., 90 percent have had some type of delay or cancellation, run into a design problem, suffered cost increases and/or had the utility bond rating downgraded by Wall Street.” Despite the economic challenges, the nuclear power industry remains unfazed. “This is not a hospitable environment in which to commission any large base-load power plant,” said Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a briefing to the financial community. Still, he said: “Fortunately new nuclear plants won’t be in service until 2016 or later, so today’s market conditions are not entirely relevant.” Mr. Cooper said the industry’s equanimity was based, at least partially, on the supportive cushion provided by loan guarantees and work-in-progress financing. “With such financing the utility is making a one-way bet, allowing it to make a profit even when the project fails,” he said. “The people bear the risks and costs; the nuclear utilities take the profits. Without loan guarantees and guaranteed construction work in progress, these reactors will simply not be built, because the capital markets will not finance them.” Without public guarantees, nuclear projects often cannot get financing. AmerenUE, the Missouri utility, suspended in April 2009 plans to build a $6 billion, 1,600-megawatt reactor at its Callaway County nuclear site, after trying unsuccessfully to get the State Legislature to repeal a longstanding ban on work-in-progress financing. The continued existence of the ban “makes financing a new plant in the current economic environment impossible,” the utility said. Similarly, Florida Power and Light said in January that it would not proceed beyond licensing with plans to build two new reactors at its Turkey Point site, after the Florida Public Service Commission rejected its request to pass on a $1.27 billion cost increase to its users. Yet, despite episodic resistance at the local level, financial support for the industry at the U.S. government level has been increasingly evident in successive versions of climate and energy bills before the U.S. Congress, including the most recent, the American Power Act, which is delayed in the Senate until after the summer recess. Nuclear subsidies in the Senate proposal include five-year accelerated depreciation; tax credits for investments and production and eligibility for the advanced energy tax credit; an increase in government insurance against regulatory delays; access to private activity bonds; and a $36 billion increase in loan guarantees, bringing the total to $56 billion. That remains less than the Nuclear Energy Institute’s goal of $100 billion, an amount it describes as “a minimal acceptable loan volume.” Still, Mr. Fertel said in his financial briefing that “‘strong political support’ understates our position.” Federal loan guarantees cut nuclear construction financing costs by allowing the utilities to sell bonds at a lower interest rate. But at the same time the guarantee means that “the U.S. Treasury, and therefore the taxpayers, are on the hook for the value of the loans should they go bad,” Mr. Cooper said. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the average risk of default for such Department of Energy loan guarantees is about 50 percent, which is the historic rate for the nuclear industry. Mr. Koplow of Earth Track said two of the other subsidies in the Senate bill, the investment tax credit and five-year accelerated depreciation, would together “be worth between $1.3 billion and nearly $3 billion on a net present value basis per new reactor. “This is equivalent to between 15 and 20 percent of the total all-in cost of the reactors, as projected by industry.” Over all, Mr. Koplow said, the proposed subsidy package would undermine the equity requirements of the nuclear loan guarantee program, designed to ensure that investors have a strong interest in the long-term success of the venture. “Although investors will get all the profit if the reactor project is successful, they will bear virtually none of the financial risk if the project fails,” he said. “This is a disastrous incentive structure.” By distorting energy markets, these subsidies would “effectively make the government the chooser of which energy technologies will be winners and which will lose,” he said. The American Power Act “does not build a neutral policy platform on which all energy technologies must compete.” The tax breaks for nuclear would “greatly impede market access for competing energy sources,” Mr. Koplow said. He said handing out huge subsidies would also cloud the transparency of decision-making. “This approach,” he said, “which replaces price signals with decisions by a handful of often unnamed individuals within the U.S. Department of Energy, plays to none of the inherent strengths of the U.S. market system to spur innovation and effectively allocate risks and rewards. Further, the basis, and sometimes scale, of these subsidy decisions is largely hidden from the public view.” For Mr. Cooper, the core issue at stake is one of opportunity cost. “While the cost estimates of nuclear power continue to rise, the potential for energy efficiency measures to reduce the need for energy are far cheaper,” he said. Lower-cost, low-carbon technologies are already available, and cost trends for several others indicate that a combination of efficiency and renewable technologies could meet projected power needs while also achieving aggressive carbon-reduction targets, Mr. Cooper said. In a June 2009 report drawing on several earlier studies, Mr. Cooper said that energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable sources could meet power needs at an average cost of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with a cost of 12 cents to 20 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear power. Choosing the nuclear route, and constructing 100 new reactors, would translate into an extra cost to taxpayers and electricity users of $1.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion over the 40-year life of the reactors, compared with the costs of developing energy efficiency and renewable sources, the report said. Mr. Cooper said it would make sense for policy makers, standing in the place of the market, to choose the least costly alternatives first. “In an attempt to circumvent the sound judgment of the capital markets, nuclear advocates erroneously claim that subsidies lower the financing costs for nuclear reactors and so are good for consumers,” he said. “But shifting risk does not eliminate it. Furthermore, subsidies induce utilities and regulators to take greater risks that will cost the taxpayers and the ratepayers dearly. “The risks that have dismayed Wall Street should be taken seriously by policy makers because they would cost not just hundreds of billions of dollars in losses on reactors that are canceled, but also trillions in excess costs for ratepayers when reactors are brought to completion by utilities that fail to pursue the lower-cost, less risky options that are available. “The frantic effort of the nuclear industry to increase federal loan guarantees and secure ratepayer funding of construction work in progress from state legislatures is an admission that the technology is so totally uneconomic that the industry will forever be a ward of state, resulting in a uniquely American form of nuclear socialism.” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Where next for the wrecked US climate bill?
by James Kotcon 03 Aug '10

03 Aug '10

A call for trench warfare, i. e., a return to the courts instead of Congress. JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 8/2/2010 1:38 PM >>> Where next for the wrecked US climate bill? There is a chance to build on the rubble of the Senate's failure to cap carbon emissions, says Eric Pooley Eric Pooley for Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network, Thursday 29 July 2010 14.57 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/29/wrecked-us-climate- bill Senate Democrats hope to pass a narrower energy bill this week that would increase the liability of companies for oil spills, for instance in the Gulf of Mexico. Photograph: Sipa Press / Rex Features Following the rocky path of climate legislation in the U.S. Congress these past years brought me back to the 1980s, and my time as a crime reporter in New York City. After a shooting in those days, a homicide detective named Marty Davin would go to the hospital and intercept the gunshot victim on a gurney outside the emergency room. If the victim was conscious, Davin would lean over and ask, "Who killed you?" That usually got the victim's attention, along with an I'm-not-dead-yet protest. Davin would reply, "You are going to die. You might as well tell me who did it." As I interviewed the sponsor of whichever emissions-reduction bill had just been gunned down, I often thought of Davin. The politicians and climate campaigners would assure me that they were still alive — passage of a carbon cap was inevitable, they'd say — and I'd remind myself that they had survived countless near-death experiences. But what happened last week, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not even try to bring a compromise climate bill to the Senate floor, was not just another setback. Sometimes dead really is dead — and for this Congress, barring a miracle, climate action is finished. With an ugly election looming in November, it may be years before we get another chance to debate a bill that prices carbon. And the consensus approach to federal climate action — the idea that cap- and-trade was the most politically viable policy — may well be dead, too. This is a time to take stock. The first question is whether this was a failure of policy; a failure of politics, message, and messenger; or both? Second, is there a Plan B around which the climate campaign should now unify? And third, what needs to be done to allow a better outcome when the next opportunity finally does appear? No one who follows climate politics could have been very surprised by Reid's move. The bigger shock was his decision to remove from the bill a mandate that utilities must generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. (Proponents hope to offer it as a floor amendment.) It was if the Senate was saying: Anything remotely effective, we're not going to do. When Reid pulled the plug, I thought back to a snowy afternoon in Copenhagen last December. Sitting with Al Gore in an empty hotel café, I asked him to contemplate this very moment. "If the United States doesn't act," he replied, "if the Senate defeats the legislation or waters it down to a point where it is not even worth having a bill, that is an event horizon beyond which it is difficult to see." He parsed the same issues then that climate campaigners are parsing now: "It may mean there is a fundamental flaw in the international political approach, but I'm not sure there is a good alternative. The reality is so dire that a new plan would have to emerge — but just now I can't imagine what it would be." Gore had a point. When the goal is emissions reduction, there aren't many alternatives: You've got to reduce emissions. The Plan B options now being offered by various advocates should be vigorously debated, but all of them seem vulnerable to the same polluted politics that killed the cap. Advocates of the carbon tax are ready to take a run at their goal, and Godspeed — but it is hard to see how politicians who were terrified to support a cap (because opponents labeled it a tax) will suddenly become bold enough to support a carbon tax. Policy groups such as the Breakthrough Institute argue that instead of making dirty fuels more expensive, it's time for intensive energy research and development to make clean fuels cheaper. That sounds reasonable, but without the revenue stream that a cap or tax would provide — and in an era of budget cutbacks — it is hard to see government supplying the massive, long-term funding their plan requires. Is the cap so fundamentally flawed that it should be abandoned forever? I don't think so. I believe it needs to be liberated from legislative bloat and rehabilitated as a modest first step: a tool for regulating power sector emissions, the job it performed so successfully in the 1990s, when America tamed acid rain. It's worth remembering that while climate politics were bogging down, climate policy mechanisms were being improved. Clever wonks found ways to cushion consumers and high- carbon industries from the price impact of the cap, while preserving a price signal for generators. Trading restrictions were added to keep speculators out of the carbon game. Though the term cap-and-trade has been demonized, the cap itself isn't broken. Some will argue that this latest setback is proof that the U.S. will never cap carbon. I reject that view. All we can say for sure is that the U.S. will never cap or price carbon until the politics of the issue change — so the first order of business must be to begin improving the political atmosphere. During the three years I worked on The Climate War, a narrative of the campaign to pass a carbon cap, I came to realize I was writing a political thriller, a whodunit with multiple culprits. Let's look for lessons by considering some of the culprits, starting with the most obvious. 1. The Professional Deniers. Gore and environmental leaders made a tactical error several years ago when they declared the science "settled" and refused to engage the forces of denial and delay. The basic science was indeed settled, but the resulting message vacuum was the perfect medium for those who sow doubt and confusion about global climate change. It shouldn't be surprising that so many Americans remain skeptical about global warming. For 20 years, this loose network of PR pros, working for industry associations and anti-tax think tanks, has spread doubt about climate science and fear about climate economics, claiming that any attempt to cap CO2 would wreck the American economy. Their disinformation, amplified via the Internet, helped poison the debate. To counter the deniers' campaign, President Obama needs to speak out forcefully, and champions of the clean energy economy must point to the new jobs that are already being created by the renewable energy economy and show Americans precisely where they fit into it. 2. Senate Republicans. Most climate campaigners understand the folly of trying to remake the American energy system without bipartisan support. But it's hard to forge centrist solutions when an entire party is denying there's a problem and vilifying the solutions. A scaled-back approach, one that can be sold as a modest, incremental step and not a new industrial revolution, might fare better. There was a time — 2007 and 2008, to be precise — when some Republicans were moving away from deny-and-delay tactics. (In 2007, briefly, Newt Gingrich supported the carbon cap.) More recently, opposition to climate action has become a litmus test in the GOP. Arizona Republican John McCain, who sponsored the Senate's first serious climate bills but now faces a primary challenge from the right, recently called a successor bill "a farce." His mantle of Republican climate courage passed to Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who took so much heat from his own party that he withdrew from the climate bill he helped write. Graham's position has been incoherent since then, but he has signaled support for a cap on the power sector. That could be something to build on. 3. Senate Democrats. After Reid pulled the plug, Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for obstruction. But what about the obstructionists within the Democratic ranks? Harry Reid didn't have the clout to force action on this issue because a dozen or more centrist Democrats — from states that either mine coal or produce much of their electricity from it — were dug in against it. It is impossible to tell if the senators were truly concerned about what the cap would do to their state economies — nonpartisan studies suggest its impact would be minimal — or just worried about what attack ads would do to them. Again, a more modest first step could change the dynamic. The crucial thing is to get started. 4. The Green Group. At a meeting in February 2007, the Green Group, an unofficial association of the leaders of the big U.S. environmental non-profits, told Harry Reid they supported a single legislative goal: An economy-wide cap. Their strategy was to assemble the broadest possible coalition to push the broadest possible bill. Given the magnitude of the crisis and the need to reduce emissions quickly, this made sense. Politically, though, it proved disastrous, because it led to bills of such cost, scope, and complexity that they scared the pants off timid legislators. The Green Group held out for an economy-wide bill even after it became clear, in late 2009, that it was unachievable in the Senate. Only recently did 5. The Power Barons. When the eleventh-hour search for a compromise began, the utilities got too greedy. If they had to go it alone, they argued, they deserved virtually all of the carbon allowances in the program for free. This left too few for other crucial purposes, such as cushioning manufacturers from higher electricity prices. Worse, in exchange for supporting a carbon cap, some utilities demanded relief from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing conventional pollutants such as mercury. Like the greens, they asked for too much and got nothing. (The greens, however, were overreaching on behalf of the planet, not their own coffers.) Some utility bosses were relieved to see the bill die. Those feelings may prove short-lived as the battle to reduce emissions moves to the EPA and the courts. Some advocates, such as Lee Wasserman of the Rockefeller Family Fund, regard the decision to negotiate with the power barons as the height of folly. Washington, they argue, should simply dictate the terms of surrender to the polluters. Such a stance ignores an important fact: It isn't possible to remake the U.S. energy system without negotiating with the power barons. Punishing generators means punishing households that pay electricity bills. That doesn't mean, however, that the politicians should give the barons everything they want. But there was only one player with the clout to cut a fair deal with them, and he was missing in action. 6. The President. Barack Obama chose not to lead on this issue. His decision to address health care reform before energy and climate change doomed the latter. With advisors Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod whispering that climate was a losing proposition (a self-fulfilling prophesy, to be sure), Obama never threw himself behind a particular climate bill. He left it to the Senate, the Green Group, and the power bosses — all of whom were sorely in need of adult supervision. The real grownups in this tale were Rep. Henry Waxman and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last year surprised the Obama Administration by taking a comprehensive climate bill to the House floor. The White House had no choice but to help whip the vote, and it passed. Then Obama stopped trying, and the Senate refused to take up the legislation. It was a colossal failure of nerve, and a decision that likely destroyed any chance of achieving climate action in Obama's first term. Since the president and his political advisers thought an economy-wide cap was too heavy a lift, Obama should have led a tactical retreat to what, in the past several months, became the last-ditch compromise position: the cap on the electric power sector. Had negotiations focused on this months ago instead of weeks ago, and had the president thrown his weight behind it then, we might today be celebrating a step forward instead of mourning another failure. Only Obama had the authority to call this audible early. The environmental NGOs and their allies were too invested in the economy-wide approach; they needed Obama to lead them. He refused. To the bitter end, the White House pursued what his aides called a "stealth strategy" that deployed the president only sparingly. As a result, he failed to take advantage of the BP oil spill. When its terrible scope became apparent, in June, Obama began talking about the need to cap carbon and accelerate the transition to clean energy. But it was a fleeting moment. Many climate campaigners knew the climate bill was dead on June 15, when Obama gave his long-awaited Oval Office address on the oil spill. Instead of making an explicit connection to the climate bill — and explaining that by capping carbon the U.S. could speed its transition to clean energy and help break its addiction to fossil fuels — Obama whiffed. He had a road map but didn't try to share it with the people. "We don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there," he said. Today, with that map in shreds, we surely don't. As climate campaigners wait however long it takes to get another shot at legislation, there is important work to be done. Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. have been dropping — and not just because of the recession. The task is to build on this trend during the economic recovery. Changes in our energy infrastructure are making this possible. In Texas, our highest-emitting state and a bastion of climate skepticism, carbon emissions have been declining since 2004 thanks in part to a renewable energy standard — signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush — that accelerated the installation of wind power and created thousands of jobs along the way. The Department of Energy now has 7,000 clean energy projects across the country — projects that save money, create jobs, and reduce emissions. According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute, by leveraging existing authority over the next ten years the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent to 12 percent below 2005 levels. This is far short of the 17 percent reduction Obama promised in Copenhagen and nothing close to what needs to be done. But if we continue cutting emissions before asking voters to embrace a cap, we prove that cuts are both technologically feasible and economically sustainable. And we'll be in a better position when the next legislative opportunity comes. Until then, the climate war will be waged by cities, states, regional cap-and-trade programs, and, above all, the EPA, which early next year is set to begin regulating stationary sources of CO2 — power plants and large factories. Welcome to the "glorious mess" — Michigan Rep. John Dingell's phrase for the tangle of regulation and litigation that will follow when Congress fails to act. We are about to experience precisely the sort of costly, protracted, plant-by-plant trench warfare the cap was intended to avoid. Since the utilities and the manufacturers weren't willing to cut a deal, this is what they get. The fragile period of compromise and cooperation between environmentalists and big business may now be coming to an end. Green groups that have invested time and money into the legislative process are now putting on their war paint and returning to the courts, with a renewed focus on stopping new coal- fired power plants and shutting down the oldest and dirtiest ones. Tough new EPA rules for conventional pollutants will help, and so will new EPA carbon regulations. Perhaps these strict new regulations will refresh the power bosses' appetite for a cap. But they have plenty of lawyers, and the long, ugly battles over implementation of EPA regulations could extend the current period of uncertainty by many years. Republicans (and some Democrats) will try to strip EPA of its authority over carbon, or at least delay implementation of its new rules. In effect, the Senate will be saying that Congress alone should have the power to act — so that it can then not exercise that power. Obama's aides say the president will be fully engaged in the battle to save EPA authority over carbon. It is a fight that he can't possibly duck, because it is our last line of defense. As Gore reminded me in Copenhagen, "The fact that this is extremely hard doesn't mean we should quit." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SC CNRCC CONST Climate & Energy" group. To post to this group, send email to sc-cnrcc-const-climate--energy(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sc-cnrcc-const-climate--energy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sc-cnrcc-const-climate--energy?hl=en. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fw: Register TODAY for EPA's Coal Ash Webinar: Aug 5 and Aug 12
by Jim Sconyers 02 Aug '10

02 Aug '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Lisa Evans <levans(a)EARTHJUSTICE.ORG> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:26:37 AM Subject: Register TODAY for EPA's Coal Ash Webinar: Aug 5 and Aug 12 All- Please participate in EPA's webinars THIS WEEK and NEXT WEEK on Aug 5 and Aug 12. The information is pasted below (See http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-webina…): -- Thursday, August 5, 2010, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm EDT - Environmental/Health, Environmental Justice, and Community impacts -- Thursday, August 12, 2010, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm EDT - Industry and Beneficial Use impacts All stakeholders are welcome to attend both webinars - the presentation by EPA staff will be identical. To register for the webinars: After registering you will be given a phone number that can be used to listen to the webinar. If you plan to ask a question during the webinar, you will need to use the GoToWebinar chat feature and not the phone line. The phone line is for listening purposes only. For August 5th: To register, go to GoToWebinar: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/993822802 For August 12th: To register, go to GoToWebinar: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/709912418 Thanks. Lisa Evans Senior Administrative Counsel Earthjustice 21 Ocean Ave. Marblehead, MA 01945 T: (781) 631-4119 F: (212) 918-1556 www.earthjustice.org *please consider the environment before printing The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

kentucky coverage of coal 527
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 01 Aug '10

01 Aug '10

coal money to candidates<http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/07/27/coal-execs-hope-to-spend-b…>

1 0

Re: [EC] 'Energy Storage' Rules in California To Help Meet GHG-Reduction Goals
by James Kotcon 31 Jul '10

31 Jul '10

A very good read, and something to think about in West Virginia. If we are serious about developing renewables in a big way, we need to start planning for energy storage too. JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 7/31/2010 12:43 AM >>> Here is the actual study referred to below, which can help everyone better understand the various facets of renewables' "intermittency". - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd: Numbers Documenting EVs' Advantage Over Gasoline Cars No Matter Where
by James Kotcon 31 Jul '10

31 Jul '10

FYI, Good analysis. JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 7/30/2010 11:19 PM >>> Grid sets electric cars' green standard David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, July 19, 2010 When you drive an electric car in California, you're not just driving on electricity - you're driving on natural gas, nuclear power, hydropower and coal. Drive an electric car in, say, Georgia, and it's mostly coal and nuclear. Public fascination with electric cars is growing, as people and politicians look for ways to fight global warming and wean America off oil. Palo Alto's Tesla Motors has developed a cult following for its pricey electric sports cars, and Nissan by year's end will start selling a less-expensive, all-electric sedan dubbed the Leaf. The buzz tends to obscure a basic fact - electric cars are only as green as the power grid that supplies their juice. They don't burn fossil fuels or spew greenhouse gases into the air. But most of the power plants that generate their electricity do. Many energy analysts, however, love them anyway. Even when power plant emissions are included, electric cars still pump far less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than do their gasoline-burning brethren, analysts say. "In California, you plug into the grid with an electric vehicle, and you're going to see a two-thirds reduction in your global warming pollution," said Roland Hwang, transportation program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's a big benefit." Note that he mentioned California. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions saved by electric cars varies widely from state to state. California's grid is relatively carbon-free, drawing 14.4 percent of its electricity in 2008 from nuclear plants, 11 percent from large hydroelectric dams and 10.6 percent from renewable sources such as geothermal plants and wind farms, according to the California Energy Commission. More than 45 percent of the state's electricity comes from burning natural gas, which produces less carbon dioxide than coal. Many states in the Midwest or Southeast, however, rely heavily on coal. There, electric cars will still produce fewer emissions than gasoline vehicles, but the difference won't be as great. "A Tesla in Georgia would give you about the same greenhouse gas emissions as a good Prius," Hwang said, referring to Toyota's popular hybrid car. "You're not going backward, but you're only doing as well as a Prius." Different figures Figuring out the greenhouse gas emissions associated with different kinds of cars and fuels has become something of a cottage industry, with many researchers coming up with their own estimates. Those estimates have taken on greater importance as state and federal officials wrestle with energy policy and climate change. Researchers use an approach called "well to wheels," in which they study the greenhouse gas emissions generated by making fuel and delivering it to customers as well as burning it in a car. A well-to-wheels study of gasoline, for example, looks at the emissions produced by pumping crude oil from the ground, shipping it to refineries, processing it into gasoline, delivering the gas to stations and burning it while driving. The Natural Resources Defense Council, using data from the U.S. Department of Energy and the California Air Resources Board, estimates that a typical gas-powered car produces 465 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. Electric cars feeding off of California's power grid produce 142 grams per mile. Electric cars plugged into the grid elsewhere in the country - drawing power from the nation's average mix of natural gas, coal and nuclear plants - produce 214 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. A study for the California Energy Commission, which estimated greenhouse gas emissions from cars two years from now, yielded comparable results. Cars burning gasoline will produce 473 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, the study found, while electric cars in California will produce 123 grams. Energy analysts say the benefits of electric cars will increase as the use of renewable power grows. It's far easier to "de-carbonize" the electricity grid than it is to cut the greenhouse gas emissions from millions of fuel-burning cars. 'Cleaner over time' "Even if the grid is dirty now, we expect it to get cleaner over time," said Patricia Monahan, deputy director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "In the long run, by 2030, we really need to be on a path to electrification if we want deep greenhouse gas reductions." Electric car owners tend to know exactly where their power comes from. Some even take steps to make that power greener. Steve Casner of Sunnyvale stuck solar panels on his house. The software engineer owns both a Tesla and an electric Rav4, which Toyota sold from 1997 to 2003. (The Japanese automaker announced Friday that it would develop a new electric Rav4 with Tesla's help, with the vehicles hitting the market in 2012.) "Some people would say to me that I was just diverting my pollution elsewhere, so I said, 'I can solve that problem,' " Casner said. "I can't make gasoline at my house, but I can make electricity." Casner charges his cars at night, so they don't draw their electricity directly from the solar panels. But he usually generates more electricity in the afternoon than he can use, selling the excess back to the grid. He figures it all evens out. "We treat the grid as a big battery," he said. E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker(a)sfchronicle.com. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/19/BU0M1EF33T.DTL This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd: from the Center for Media and Democracy: Fight Over Fracking
by Paul Wilson 30 Jul '10

30 Jul '10

The Weekly Spin, *July 28, 2010* CMD ReportsFight Over Fracking<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OutUuUjbSQpcfvZKGeEO…> by Anne Landman The state of New York has some of the cleanest drinking water in the country, but natural gas drilling is threatening water resources there. At issue is whether drilling companies know enough about how to protect groundwater sources from contamination by a drilling procedure called " fracking<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gnTHN13PbrETjWSsLvNG…>," the term used for the hydraulic fracturing of rock formations to make them produce more gas. Citizens also doubt whether existing rules and regulations can assure drilling companies will do enough to protect water sources, and whether there are enough qualified staff people to enforce current and future drilling regulations. In the Gulf of Mexico, drilling technology outpaced the industry's knowledge of how to cap an out-of-control well and clean up an environmental disaster caused by drilling activities. Similar problems exist with the natural gas drilling. Increasingly, land owners report that exposure to fracking chemicals has made them sick and that fracking contaminated streams and drinking water wells on their property, rendering them unusable. Gas companies fight having to reveal the secret cocktail of chemicals that make up their proprietary "fracking fluids," and fracking was exempted from the national Safe Drinking Water Act during the George W. Bush<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=SbolKFoR0jmLDLn1jVRI…>Administration, so there is little help for citizens trying to stop drilling companies from using the procedure. A Web site called "Clean Water Not Dirty Drilling"<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=SKITnPswqeZwJWxPn%2F…>is urging people to contact the New York State Senate to ask for a "time out" on drilling until more is known about how to make the activity safer. Go here<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2FPLkPlx08QXjNj706y…>to watch the video. Read the rest of this item<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rMfl6bToBWVvalO%2BW%…> -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

2 1

Marcellus drilling Industrial Landfill Planned for Bruceton Mills Area
by Frank Young 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

----- Original Message ----- From: CCWALBRIDGE(a)cs.com To: gmcorio(a)mail.wvu.edu ; suetaft(a)ncweb.com ; honeymow(a)aol.com ; backlundpaddles(a)juno.com ; vsmith(a)ap.org ; steepcreeks(a)yahoo.com ; chrisrkirkman(a)yahoo.com ; JMac221(a)aol.com ; chevymanmp(a)adelphia.net ; ikayak4fun(a)hotmail.com ; Chrizee(a)msn.com ; warlickone(a)hotmail.com ; jblack(a)mail.nesc.wvu.edu ; bob_spangler_jr(a)yahoo.com ; emtem(a)mountain.net ; info(a)karstsports.com ; Tom_Chapman(a)FWS.gov ; bobgedek(a)icubed.com ; frankly(a)mtparty.org ; ehughes(a)wvpubcast.org ; bill.blauvelt(a)verizon.net ; SStough(a)gcnetmail.com ; KKehoe(a)dnr.state.md.us ; mtnlionwv(a)direcway.com ; jhamill(a)dejazzd.com ; dbrown(a)americaoutdoors.org ; jblaney(a)quixnet.net ; chuckstump(a)juno.com ; riverrat55(a)hotmail.com ; Grady.Fred(a)NMNH.SI.EDU ; adam(a)hazmatlaw.com ; moxiemeister(a)hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:09 AM Subject: Industrial Landfill Planned for Bruceton Mills Area I recently learned that that a developer is proposing to build and operate a 150 acre industrial landfill about 1 mile south of Bruceton Mills, in the Little Sandy and Big Sandy watersheds. The proposed facility would serve as a disposal site for residual brine from natural gas drilling operations. Residual brine is a term for a by-product of Marcellus shale drilling, specifically a process called hydro fracturing or fracing. Water recovered from the fracing process contains a variety of proprietary compounds in addition to high levels of salt. The used fracking material is processed and dried. This concentrated, dried material must be disposed of, and project will concentrate drilling waste from a large area. The fracking process is not regulated by the state and federal government so no one knows what chemicals it contains. The WV Department of Environmental Protection has been informed about this project but has yet to receive their Class F industrial landfill permit application. This projects could have serious effects on the community. Local residents, farm animals, and game species all depend on surface and ground water and many fracking chemicals have very harmful effects. The river is also a popular recreational resource, with thousands of people kayaking, swimming, and hiking beside its waters each year. The Little Sandy was recently reclaimed, after a multi-million dollar investment, from the effects of acid mine drainage caused by many years of coal mining, For the first time in many years the river supports brook trout. This, too, is at risk. Marcellus Shale gas is important to the area and to the country. We all need energy for all facets of life. Like many of my neighbors, I leased my land for gas exploration and have friends who work in the gas business. I'd like this work to be successful, but have trouble sifting between environmental hype and industry spin. Events in the Gulf show that we can't trust industry to do the right thing. Any advice, contacts, or thoughts are welcome. Sincerely, Charlie Walbridge 1886 Little Sandy Road; Bruceton Mills, WV 26525 304-379-9002; ccwalbridge(a)cs.com

2 1

General Mills installs solar power system at Mass. site
by Frank Young 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

Blank July 26 -- A new solar power installation at a General Mills warehouse in Methuen, Mass., is expected to supply nearly 80% of the site´s summertime power needs, and 40% during the rest of the year. http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/email.html?id=1280149271

1 0

NYTimes.com: E.P.A. Considers Risks of Gas Extraction
by william.depaulo＠gmail.com 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

This page was sent to you by: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com. BUSINESS | July 24, 2010 E.P.A. Considers Risks of Gas Extraction By TOM ZELLER Jr. Pennsylvania residents point to fouled wells, deformed livestock and poisoned fish near natural gas wells that blast underground rock with water and chemicals. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/energy-environment/24gas.html?em… ---------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com. NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

1 0

Fwd: [WVaPATH] EIS
by James Kotcon 20 Jul '10

20 Jul '10

Not sure how many of you are on this list-serve, but here is what was happening at Harper's Ferry last night. JBK >>> Keryn Newman <keryn(a)frontiernet.net> 7/19/2010 11:11 PM >>> The notebook of statements was a big hit with the Park & Forest Services! Overall, it was a very successful meeting (if we can judge by the amount of obsessive cell-phone and blackberry use by the Allegheny & AEP guys). The park service displays were very well done and impartial -- Morgan held true to her word on that. These guys are really on our side here (if they could be on anyone's side). One of the rangers even bought one of our t-shirts ;-) They were somewhat adamant that they could not expand the scope of the EIS to cover the entire project. One guy told me that FERC and NERC would have to order them to expand it. We persisted in trying to make our case anyhow! One thing that we didn't cover that one of the rangers/park service personnel mentioned -- EMF effects on animals (farm or otherwise) -- and aren't we all animals too? You all might want to create another topic using Martin Blank's Va. Testimony for the Tucker County meeting. They allowed public speaking during the last hour of the meeting. Morgan said she wasn't sure if they would continue the practice tomorrow night in Purcellville, but you all may want to prepare something and make the request at the beginning of the meeting. Speakers are limited to 6 minutes, but Patience ran over and refused to shut up and sit down until she was done with the book presentation speech. A member of the Sierra Club gave a great little speech that seemed to resonate with the federal personnel. One of our County Commissioners spoke, and another member of our executive committee spoke for a few minutes as well. Ron Poff's little friend was either recording the speeches or broadcasting them on his cellphone to someone/someplace else, not sure which, but it was one or the other. They were/are VERY interested in what we're doing... poor fellas seem a little worried :-( We had attendance of well over 100 people coming and going throughout the evening. Very impressive turnout! PATH did not have a table, but there were probably 8 - 10 of them circulating and they were easy to pick out, especially since we know a couple of them by name. The ones I can name off hand were Ron Poff and Randy Palmer. They really didn't want to talk to us much and weren't trying to be very sneaky since they knew we knew who they were. If anything, they lost at being sneaky, since I eavesdropped on one of them who thought he was alone and was having a loud cellphone conversation about Capito. The hotel was very nice and allowed us to first set up our own little table out front, and then asked us to move, but it was to the downstairs lobby right outside the meeting room. The only one who didn't act like we had cooties was Randy Palmer. He made some snide remark about not liking Patience's StopPATH WV t-shirt, so I bought him one of the ones that Steve picked up in Tucker County last year. Not sure which one of you designed these shirts, but here's a photo of Patience presenting Randy with his shirt. He says he "collects this stuff" and also asked for one of our StopPATH logo hand fans. I was going to give him a glow-in-the-dark EMF bracelet, but I'm not sure if he ever got it. Must make sure his PATH collection is complete, because this is the fight they're going to lose! If anyone has any specific questions that I didn't address, just let me know. (or if someone else on this listserv who was there wants to post their own reflection on the evening -- go for it!) Tomorrow Steve and I are going over to Purcellville where we can pay more attention to what the power company guys are doing and less time being serious. We also plan to attend Wednesday in Frederick.

1 0

Fwd: Solar Power now Cheaper than New Nuclear in NC
by James Kotcon 17 Jul '10

17 Jul '10

You may find this report as fascinating as I did. The author is former Chancellor of Duke University and an economist with 30 years experience in estimating energy costs. His report shows that the cost of solar electricity in North Carolina is now cheaper than nuclear, that nuclear costs are projected to continue to climb while solar costs will keep coming down. The data clearly show this historic crossover occurs in 2010, this year. Furthermore, given the 6-10 years needed to construct a plant, the cost imbalance will be even greater by the time a new nuclear plant is built. The report is available at: http://www.ncwarn.org/?p=2290 Use this the next time someone tries to argue that we need nukes as a solution to global warming. Jim Kotcon >>> Hugh Mitchell goshawk(a)FRONTIERNET.NET> 7/16/2010 9:17 PM >> ( mailto:goshawk@FRONTIERNET.NET> ) Abstract from New York Times article, Sunday, 7/11/10 “A New Analysis Triples Plutonium Waste Figures” “The amount of plutonium buried at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State is nearly Three times what the federal government previously reported, a new analysis indicates, suggesting that a cleanup To protect future generations will be far more challenging that planners had assumed.” “The fear is that in a few hundred years [plutonium is radioactive for 24,000 years half-life] plutonium could Reach an underground area called the saturation zone, where water flows, and from there enter the Columbia River.” “So far, the cleanup, which began in the 1990’s, has involved moving some contaminated material near the banks of the Columbia to drier locations. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/science/earth/11plutonium.html?src=mv Hugh Mitchell Atlantic Chapter, Rochester

1 0

Fwd: RE: Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio
by James Kotcon 16 Jul '10

16 Jul '10

It was recently brought to my attention that the PSC finalized some rule changes to the Net Metering rules as mandated by last year's Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio bill. While the changes create some concerns for our net-metering program (adding the various fossil fuels sources as eligible for net metering), the program is still limited to small residential generators, and is not that different from certain distributed generation programs in a few other states. Of greater concern is that the bill mandated PSC rule-making to implement the Alternative and Renewable Energy standards. We had long been concerned that the bill, by including natural gas plants and certain coal plants in the definition of "Alternative", did not provide a real incentive for renewables. Earlier this year, I re-read the bill and saw that it included "SuperCritical" boiler technology as one of the sources eligible for "Alternative" energy credits. Not being an engineer, it has only slowly dawned on me that some of West Virginia's larger power plants have "supercriticial" boilers, but it was not until Byron Harris's e-mail below that I realized how many. When legislators were voting for this bill, how many of them realized that, under the language of the bill, the John Amos and Fort Martin plants qualify as "Alternative" energy sources? Under this bill, the utilities in 2009 were already meeting the standard required by 2025. Note: The bill requires that by 2025, utilities hold "credits" equal to 25 % of the electricity sold to retail customers in the state. As originally passed in 2009, the bill only included "ultra-supercritical technology", but due to technical errors, the bill was not signed. I believe that only the Longview plant would have qualified as "ultrasupercritical" as AEP's ultra plants are in other states, and Allegheny does not have any. When it was re-introduced in the Special session of May, 2009, the words "supercritical technology" were added to the definition of "Advanced coal technology", which is what let in Amos, Fort Martin, et al. I have not done the math, but a ball park estimate is that 2/3 of the electricity generated in WV is sold out of state. So 25 % of the 1/3 sold in-state would have to come from these "Alternative" generation facilities. Since no other state will award credits for supercritical boilers, the only place that AEP or Allegheny would have to use credits from Fort Martin, John Amos, Mountaineer, or Harrison are in WV. Thus they can still sell all their renewable, hydro, or truly "alternative" energy to out-of state customers to meet the portfolio standards in those states, and not have to do a thing for West Virginia's law. Would it be appropriate to start labeling this bill as "Manchin's fraudulent Renewable Energy bill". How did the words "Supercritical technology" get added to the bill when it was introduced in the special session? Did Governor Manchin know he was lying to us when he told us in January that it would be the most aggressive such standard in the nation, or was he also fooled, or was it a deliberate change that only came up between April and May? JBK >>> "Harris, Byron" <BHarris(a)cad.state.wv.us> 7/9/2010 3:33 PM >>> Jim, You are correct that West Virginia's largest plants use supercritical boilers. As for the Allegheny companies, Mon Power the 2 units at Ft. Martin (576 Mw each) are subercritical units. Aslo, Mon Power owns a 20% share of the 3 units at Harrison (684 Mw each - MP share = 420Mw). Potomac Edison does not own any generationf. As for AEP, Appalachian Power the 3 units at John Amos and the single unit at Mountaineer are supercritical. Apco owns 100% of Mountaineer and Amos units 1 & 2 (816 Mw each). Apco also owns 1/3 of unit 3 (1300Mw). Wheeling Power doesn't own any generation. Several power plants in WV are owned by out of state utilities and aren't subject to the statute. For example, Mt. Storm is owned by Dominion Virginia Power and Kammer is owned by Ohio Power. You can view/download all of the filings in G.O. 184.25 from the Commission's website. Here is the link: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/ Click on Case Information, then Search By Activity, in the Case Number dialog box enter 184.25 Byron Harris, Director Consumer Advocate Division 723 Kanawha Blvd., Room 700 Charleston, WV 253-1 Ph. 304.558.0526 Email bharris(a)cad.state.wv.us From: James Kotcon [mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:37 PM To: Stollings, Jennifer Subject: Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio I was just recently made aware of the PSC's G.O. 184.25 regrading the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards adopted as HB. 104 in 2009 and an contacting you after having reviewed your comment letter of Oct. 1, 2009, as posted on the PSC web page. I am very concerned that the definitions of "Alternative" energy are so broad as to make the Act meaningless. For example, the use of "supercritical technology" for coal-fired boilers is considered as an "alternative" energy source that could be used to meet a utility's required emissions credits. It is my understanding that several of West Virginia's largest power plants use supercritical boilers, including the John Amos power plant. If that is the case, would not that one plant be sufficient to meet all of the requirements for credits in the state for the foreseeable future? As such, the bill would providfe no incentive for carbon capture and sequestration, recycled energy sources, renewable energy courses, or energy efficiency programs. I question whether the Legislature, in voting to adopt HB 104, really understood or intended that John Amos be considered an "Alternative" energy source, as I believe the intent was to promote adoption of "alternative and renewable" energy sources as those terms are more commonly understood. Would you be able to confirm whether my understanding of the definition of "supercritical technology" is correct and that plants such as John Amos would be eligible to generate such alternative energy credits? Can you identify which of AEP's and Allegheny's current plants use "advanced coal technology" as defined in HB 104? Please keep me informed as this proceeding continues. Thank you. James Kotcon, Chair Energy Committee West Virginia Sierra Club 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

2 2

Fw: video of gov manchin telling inspectors to not issue fines/coalcountry
by Jim Sconyers 16 Jul '10

16 Jul '10

FYI Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "MLEvansESP(a)aol.com" <MLEvansESP(a)aol.com> To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 4:12:45 PM Subject: Re: video of gov manchin telling inspectors to not issue fines/coalcountry Jim PLEASE send this out to your list. It is so outrageous maybe someone will pick up the story. ML www.coalcountrythemovie.com Mari-Lynn Evans Evening Star Productions 630 Delaware Avenue, Akron OH 44303 330-867-7443 330-867-7468 fax 330-289-4513 cell ________________________________ From: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com >To: MLEvansESP(a)aol.com >Sent: 7/15/2010 4:08:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time >Subj: Re: Fwd: video of gov manchin telling inspectors to not issue >fines/coalcountry > > Geezus! > > Jim Sconyers >jim_scon(a)yahoo.com >304.698.9628 > >Remember: Mother Nature bats last. > > > > > ________________________________ From: "MLEvansESP(a)aol.com" <MLEvansESP(a)aol.com> >To: webb.bo(a)gmail.com; vernoncrmw(a)gmail.com; vivian(a)ohvec.org; >janet.ovec(a)gmail.com; kward(a)wvgazette.com; judy(a)crmw.net; >dana(a)theallianceforappalachia.org; anromu(a)gmail.com; rich(a)cr23media.com; >andy(a)heartwood.org >Cc: gdanielpacker(a)yahoo.com; wvhollowgirl(a)gmail.com; jmartin(a)sbcglobal.net; >jim_scon(a)yahoo.com; bill.price(a)sierraclub.org; shirley26505(a)yahoo.com; >mozark(a)hughes.net; gypsywagons(a)yahoo.com >Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 4:02:30 PM >Subject: Fwd: video of gov manchin telling inspectors to not issue >fines/coalcountry > >Friends > >I think, at this time, it is especially important to listen to Gov Manchin's >own words about how he treated violations at coal companies. This is the >video and the transcript. Please feel free to send this out to your lists and >to media. MLE > >> >>>http://blip.tv/file/3472953 >>> >>>TIME CODE 6:48 >Gov. Manchin speaking at the WV Coal Symposium, 2008 >"Hey John, you've got a problem here, now before I write you up with a >violation, here's what I think you ought to do to fix it. Let's get >together, get our people together. I'll come back in a week or a month or >whatever the rotation time would be. Then if you've made those changes, >tried to make the changes, we're working in the right direction. Rather than >going out with a ball bat and a cease and desist order and fines, I'd rather >you spend the money to fix what's wrong, try to make it safer, than give the >money to government. I guarantee you we won't fix it." > >TIME CODE 20:30 >Gov. Manchin speaking with Chuck Nelson and Lorelei Scarbo, 10.09 >"It's tough to find balance in an extraction state" > > >www.coalcountrythemovie.com > >Mari-Lynn Evans >Evening Star Productions >630 Delaware Ave. >Akron, Ohio 44303 >330-867-7443 phone >330-867-7468 fax >330-289-4514 cell >mlevansesp(a)aol.com > > >PRAY FOR THE PERISHED AND FIGHT LIKE HELL FOR THE LIVING -MOTHER JONES > >

2 1

NYTimes.com: Project's Fate May Predict the Future of Mining
by william.depaulo＠gmail.com 15 Jul '10

15 Jul '10

This page was sent to you by: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com. NYT'S ARTICLE ON MTR U.S. | July 15, 2010 Project's Fate May Predict the Future of Mining By ERIK ECKHOLM The Obama administration's threat to curtail a major mountaintop mining project could signal a shift in federal mining policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/15mining.html?emc=eta1 ---------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com. NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

1 0

Fw: WVNS story: Union: Hundreds of WV Pipeline Jobs Going to Out of State Workers
by Jim Sconyers 13 Jul '10

13 Jul '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> To: JimSconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 4:04:25 AM Subject: WVNS story: Union: Hundreds of WV Pipeline Jobs Going to Out of State Workers Public News Service-WV July 13, 2010 Union: Hundreds of WV Pipeline Jobs Going to Out of State Workers CHARLESTON, W.Va. - It's estimated that $2 billion worth of pipeline construction will be done in West Virginia to assemble and process the natural gas from the boom in the state's Marcellus Shale drilling. But so far it seems mostly out-of-state contractors are doing the work. Joe Bowen, organizer with the West Virginia Laborers District Council, is part of a protest at one job site in Harrison County. "License plates from Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi. Out of 142 workers, there was like 12 of them from West Virginia." In the past, gas industry representatives have questioned whether West Virginia has workers qualified for the highly-technical pipeline jobs. Bowen says the state's workers are probably better qualified, because of union apprenticeship and drug testing programs specifically for pipeline work. "We train for specific skills in this pipeline industry. And I often question if a lot of these out-of-state workers either have the current drug cards and the training that our men have." Bowen says there is a huge amount of this work to be done in the state, but it's exactly the kind of construction West Virginia's work force knows how to do and has a lot of experience with. "This is just the beginning, and it's not only the pipeline, the processing plants and the compressor stations along with it." No one from the Canadian contractor, Ledcor, returned a call requesting comment. According to a trade group, other pipeline projects have employed mostly in-state workers, but Bowen says they have seen the same pattern at other sites. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/14928-1 --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org and put the word "remove" in the subject line.

1 0

Fw: Scientific American re: shale gas drilling
by Frank Young 11 Jul '10

11 Jul '10

This is a good read. I like the last two summary sentences: "What legacy will we leave? Will we continue to burn the furniture to heat the house?" ----- Original Message ----- From: clrank(a)hughes.net To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:23 AM Subject: [WVHCBOARD] Scientific American re: shale gas drilling July 9, 2010 | Scientific American Concerns Spread over Environmental Costs of Producing Shale Gas The extent to which utilities will burn natural gas to slash carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming is a national issue. But on the ground, where it's being produced, the issues become very local. By Joel Kirkland and ClimateWire: Concerns Spread over Environmental Costs of Producing Shale Gas The extent to which utilities will burn natural gas to slash carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming is a national issue. But on the ground, where it's being produced, the issues become very local. By Joel Kirkland and ClimateWire Pa., a geyser of natural gas and sludge began shooting out of a well called Punxsutawney Hunting Club 36. The toxic stew of gas, salt water, mud and chemicals went 75 feet into the air for 16 hours. Some of this mess seeped into a stream northeast of Pittsburgh. Four days later, as authorities were cleaning up the debris in Pennsylvania, an explosion burned seven workers at a gas well on the site of an abandoned coal mine outside of Moundsville, W.Va., just southwest of Pittsburgh. The back-to-back emergencies were like a five-alarm fire for John Hanger, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. For a brief moment, the cable news channels turned their attention away from the BP PLC oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico to the apparent trouble in the nation's expanding onshore natur al gas fields. The events added force to a tough public debate in Pennsylvania and New York and across northern Appalachia about how the environmental impacts of gas drilling balance against the economic benefits of gas and the role it could play in helping electric utilities transition to cleaner fuels. When used to fire up a power plant, natural gas produces less air pollutants and half of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by conventional coal plants. But extracting the gas from deep sedimentary rock and shipping it to consumers is an industrial process. It requires massive amounts of water and reliable cement and pipe jobs. It also has wastewater-disposal issues and generates air pollution. "This is a test for people in public life," Hanger says. "Do you get into public service to treat the gas industry fairly and protect our resources, or not? You don't have to choose between producing the gas and protecting our water." The extent to w hich U.S. utilities will burn natural gas to slash carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming is a national issue. But on the ground, where it's being produced, all politics is very local. Regulators 'over their heads and drowning'? Hanger is a contentious figure in Pennsylvania. He personifies the state's willingness, or lack thereof, to police drillers operating in the Marcellus Shale natural gas basin under Pennsylvania. At public forums where residents bring their environmental concerns, Hanger's name and the administration of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) attract a mixed bag of praise and frustration. "They need to admit that they're over their heads and drowning," says Jon Bogle, founder of the Responsible Drilling Alliance, a citizens group in northeastern Pennsylvania, the epicenter of Marcellus drilling activity so far t his year. "They are trying. They've toughened their position. They just don't have the personnel to do the job." To some residents, Hanger has shown in recent months he's serious about getting compliance from drillers by fining companies and forcing them to plug poorly constructed wells. To others, development is rapidly outpacing environmental safeguards. The geyser in Clearfield County, the fire in West Virginia and high-profile cases of groundwater contamination in Dimock, Pa., underscore their belief that regulators in the Northeast have been outmanned and outmaneuvered by a powerful industry imported from the friendlier confines of Fort Worth, Texas. "We're not running a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil regulatory apparatus here," Hanger responds. "We're working on rules and regulations that should have been addressed a decade ago." A hangover from the impacts of coal mining Pennsylvania's struggle with gas production is tied as closely to coal as it is to anything else. Coal mining is built into the social topography of Appalachia and the Ohio River Valley. Centuries of mining, from southern Illinois to the Allegheny Mountains, fortified the rural economies but fostered acrimony and distrust among landowners, conservationists and coal companies. Pennsylvania struggles to control acid mine runoff from abandoned coal mines. "One of the greatest challenges is convincing people that we are not the second coming of coal," says Matt Pitzarella, spokesman for gas producer Range Resources. Coal informs discussions about the gas rigs and leases cut into the forests and farmland. And the recent flurry of environmental disasters in oil and coal fields has fueled fears about the impact the gas boom will have on aquifers, fragile ecosystems and public health. BP's Gulf disaster stiffened the resolve of environmental groups in Pennsylvania and New York to challenge industry guarantees about the safety of modern hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") technology used to crack deep deposits of gas-rich shale rock. The collapsed coal-ash containment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, Tenn., raised questions about leaks at similar waste pits located on gas drilling sites. And the explosion in April that killed 29 people at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia offered a bleak reminder of the dangers of this kind of work. Gas producers maintain that the use of horizontal drills to extract gas from under neighboring plots means drillers require less land for well pads and equipment. They argue that chemicals pumped into the ground are benign, aquifers are protected by steel and concrete, drilling requires less water than nuclear power or a coal-fired power plant, and companies can dispose of salt water without poisoning streams. The hotbed of environmental protest about the potential impact of drilling is in New York, where the source of New York City's drinking water is the Catskill Mountains and Delaware River watershed on the eastern edge of the Marcellus Shale. The water supply is fed by underground aquifers and the area's rivers and streams, and the water is pristine enough to flow unfiltered through a system of aqueducts to 9 million New York residents. Public distrust spreads from N.Y. There, public distrust of gas companies has engendered less tolerance for political equanimity. Polluting the aquifer and using too much of the water are the central concerns. A de facto moratorium on drilling the shale already exists, but lawmakers in Albany are considering codifying a one-year moratorium until regulators finish environmental impact studies. As public protests mounted last fall, Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon extended an olive branch and promised not to drill his leases in the watershed. In January, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Gov. David Paterson (D) to put the water supply ahead of the economic benefits to a state $7 billion in the red. "July 14 may be the most important date this summer in the Delaware River Watershed!" shouts a recent e-mail blast from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. "Moratorium is needed on all gas projects!" The group, which targets water pollution in the basin at the confluence of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delawar e, regularly petitions the Delaware River Basin Commission. July 14 is the date of the commission's upcoming meeting. The region's governors are members of the commission, and it sits far enough from politics and the day-to-day lobbying in Harrisburg and Albany to act boldly on petitions to stop drilling in protected areas of the water basin. In the past few months, the commission has done just that. One pending project, a Stone Energy Corp. plan to develop a gas well in Wayne County, Pa., garnered 2,000 written comments, many of which urged the panel to call a development time-out. To that end, the commission has issued sweeping directives since May forcing gas project sponsors, including Stone, to be permitted before drilling production or exploratory wells. And the panel has said it plans to set aside most applications until it adopts regulations for gas drilling in the Marcellus. Regulate first, dri ll later "Your pro-gas drilling forces might see us as impeding the process, and state regulations are sufficient," said commission spokeswoman Katharine O'Hara. "But we are the states," she added. "We're not trying to stymie the industry or overstep. Our goal is to ensure this is done in a responsible way and that it doesn't harm or degrade the resources in the basin." Pennsylvania politics doesn't separate pro-growth politicians from their environmental opponents with neat lines of demarcation. The state continues the search to find middle ground. But increasingly, in some corners, the measured debate in Penn's Woods has been drowned out by hyperbole and accusations that the other side is being disingenuous. And the New York glare from "Gasland," an HBO documentary by filmmaker Josh Fox, has stirred passions on both sides. In it, Fox raises the specter of unchecked corporate power as ga s rigs proliferate across the Pennsylvania landscape, poisoning the groundwater and ruining people's lives. The gas industry has condemned the film as environmental propaganda and wildly exaggerated. The tone of the film aside, the Marcellus debate in Pennsylvania still rests in the middle and is almost entirely about the still-evolving science of hydrology. "We're all affected by what happens in the watersheds," said Jeanne VanBriesen, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and director of the Center for Water Quality in Urban Environmental Systems. "Water here moves in and out of urban and rural environments." Salty water and fish kills Climate change and recent gas drilling-related events have illuminated the difficulties scientists face in pinpointing sources of pollution and the way water flows through the complex wat ershed. "Water predictions are based on historical records on what's happened in a watershed," she explained. "Global climate change is really a game changer for hydro-modeling. The climate is changing in a way that is unsuitable for future predictions." Like coal, the rapid industrial development of natural gas adds to concerns about water usage and disposal. "To understand what it means to use the water for Marcellus development," VanBriesen said, "we need to understand where it goes. If you think we know where all the water is going, you're wrong." In September 2009, a toxic algae bloom killed a massive amount of fish and aquatic life along a 43-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek on the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border. By year's end, a U.S. EPA report had fingered the legal practice of dumping wastewater from a C onsol Energy coal mine into the creek as one of the most likely causes, but not the only cause. Discharges into the creek, according to EPA, included a high level of total dissolved solids (TDS) that probably created the salty conditions needed for the poisonous algae to bloom. TDS measures amounts of sodium, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, carbonates and other minerals, and while they aren't considered major pollutants, they can foul fresh water. Water quality specialists consider TDS levels to be an indicator that other chemical contaminants are in the water. After the fish kill, environmental activists said the high TDS levels could just as likely come from gas drilling in the area, which also extracts huge amounts of salt-laden, high-TDS water from the ground. As much as half of the millions of gallons of water injected into the earth when companies drill or fracture the shale returns to the surface contaminated and extremely salty. Coal and gas companies ar e supposed to strip out the metals before disposing of the water. The region's geology makes it difficult to re-inject water, and recycling is not yet widespread, in part because of the cost of the process. Investigators are still looking at what caused the fish slaughter at Dunkard Creek, but VanBriesen said there's strong support for the conclusion that algae thrive in salty conditions. "The impact of total dissolved solids more broadly on watersheds and ecosystems is less well understood," she said. Still, she asserted, "allowing rivers and creeks to get very salty is not good for the ecosystem." Dimock, a northeastern Pennsylvania township where residents accused Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. of poisoning their water wells, has become a well-known symbol of the troubles in gas country. Busted gas wells and the migration of methane into water wells put the challenge to Hanger. In April, the DEP ordered Cabot to plug three wells believed to be the s ource of migrating gas. The agency ordered Cabot to suspend the drilling of new wells for a year in and around Dimock, and it fined Cabot $240,000. 'What legacy will we leave?' Gas industry groups have defended Cabot. They argue that shallow methane is a naturally occurring phenomenon in Pennsylvania, a pre-existing condition that shouldn't be laid at the feet of a new industry. In Pennsylvania, unlike in New York, there are legal limits to actions a regulator can take to stop a company from operating. Hanger has asked the Legislature for clear authority to withhold new permits for companies that repeatedly violate rules. Hanger's DEP has hired more inspectors this year. With the support of environmental groups and some gas companies, the DEP also pushed for water quality regulatory reforms that a few weeks ago received the go-ahead from an independent review board in Pennsylvania. The new rules require gas producers to treat wastewater to the same quality as drinking water before du mping it into a stream. That means ensuring TDS levels don't exceed 500 milligrams per liter. The new rules also establish buffer zones for drilling around critical waterways. On Tuesday, Gov. Rendell signed a $28 billion state budget that, as part of an agreement among legislative leaders, includes a pledge to develop a severance tax on gas production by Oct. 1. It has been among the stickiest issues for lawmakers. Few in Harrisburg said they wanted to slow the economic growth, but in recent months, broad support grew for crafting a tax to help pay for environmental cleanup and local costs incurred because of the drilling. Rendell, who tends to emphasize both the economic opportunity and the environmental hazards, gave Hanger and another member of the governor's inner circle, John Quigley, secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the green light this year to sharpen their tone against the gas industry. The three have kept the p ressure on with regard to the tax on gas. "It is difficult for me to swallow the argument that an industry led by the likes of Exxon, one of the largest companies in the world, is in fact an infant industry," Quigley said at a conference in Pittsburgh in May. "To suggest we should wait to tax the industry strains credulity." The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents the major Marcellus gas producers, has opposed the tax, arguing that saddling producers with a tax on production of anywhere from 4 to 8 percent could stifle development in the early stages. The group's president, Kathryn Klaber, has crisscrossed the state to press the industry's case. "If you tax something, you get less," she says. "Not everyone takes this economic argument to heart." More than 7 million Pennsylvania acres is now under lease for gas exploration, about one-quarter of the state's landmass. At a conference in Pittsburgh in May, Quigley called on citizens groups to protest proposals to expand leasing in state parks. "There are those who would ignore the questions of balance and sustainability, who would look to the public lands to balance the budget without regard to consequence," he told the packed room at Duquesne University. "What legacy will we leave? Will we continue to burn the furniture to heat the house?" __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Re: [EC] [wvec-board] Fwd: RE: Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio
by DSGJr＠aol.com 10 Jul '10

10 Jul '10

In a message dated 7/9/2010 6:03:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jkotcon(a)wvu.edu writes: Would it be appropriate to start labeling this bill as "Manchin's fraudulent Renewable Energy bill". I believe we have already done that, Jim. You helped me write an op ed that said as much. How did the words "Supercritical technology" get added to the bill when it was introduced in the special session? Jeff Herholdt was the lead on it, as I recall. And the governor's staff assisted. With your help, I did what I could, but it was greased. Did Governor Manchin know he was lying to us when he told us in January that it would be the most aggressive such standard in the nation, or was he also fooled, or was it a deliberate change that only came up between April and May? Oh, come on now! As a lobbyist I have learned to use the "lying" label very sparingly and carefully. From the moment we walked in his conference room he was "spinning." As was Kelly Goes beforehand. From the very beginning, Governor Manchin's "energy plan" has only been about mining and burning more WV coal. The coal and power company lobby boys are de facto members of his staff. -- don garvin

1 0

Re: [EC] More on Immediate action needed to protect WV waters
by Duane330＠aol.com 08 Jul '10

08 Jul '10

In a message dated 7/8/2010 10:19:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, blittle(a)citynet.net writes: DEP is proposing a statewide water quality standard for “Total Dissolved Solids” (TDS) of 500mg/l measured in-stream (currently WV has no standard). This is stronger than Pennsylvania’s standard of 500mg/l which is measured only at public water supply in-takes. However, it is twice as high as the 250mg/l that EPA recommends as the Human Health Standard for total dissolved solids (TDS is an indicator of the presence of a broad array of chemical contaminants) If we look in detail at the EPA recommendation, it is 250 mg/l for chloride and sulfate, not "total" dissolved solids....................... See the exerpt below from the following web site: _http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf_ (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SOLIDS (DISSOLVED) AND SALINlTY CRITERION: 250 mg/L for chlorides and s u l f a t e s i n domestic water supplies (welfare). INTRODUCTION: Dissolved s o l i d s and t o t a l d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s are terms g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with freshwater systems and c o n s i s t of inorganic s a l t s , small amounts of organic matter, and dissolved materials (Sawyer, 1960). The equivalent terminology i n Standard Methods is f i l t r a b l e residue (Standard Methods, 1971). S a l i n i t y is an oceanographic term, and although not precisely equivalent t o the t o t a l dissolved s a l t content it is related t o it (Capurro, 1970). For most purposes, the terms t o t a l dissolved s a l t content and s a l i n i t y are e q u i v a l e n t . The p r i n c i p a l inorganic anions dissolved i n water include the carbonates, chlorides, s u l f a t e s , and n i t r a t e s ( p r i n c i p a l l y i n ground waters) ; the p r i n c i p a l cations are sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. RATIONALE : Excess dissolved s o l i d s are objectionable i n drinking water because of possible physiological e f f e c t s , unpalatable mineral tastes, and higher c o s t s because of c o r r o s i o n or t h e n e c e s s i t y for additional treatment. The p h y s i o l o g i c a l effects d i r e c t l y related t o d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s include l a x a t i v e e f f e c t s p r i n c i p a l l y from sodium s u l f a t e and magnesium s u l f a t e and the adverse effect of sodium on c e r t a i n p a t i e n t s a f f l i c t e d w i t h cardiac disease and women w i t h toxemia a s s o c i a t e d w i t h pregnancy. One study w a s made using data ,. ~ e collected from wells in North Dakota. Results from a questionnaire showed that with wells in which sulfates ranged from 1,000 to 1,500 mg/L, 62 percent of the respondents indicated laxative effects associated with consumption of the water. However, nearly one-quarter of the respondents to the questionnaire reported difficulties when concentrations ranged from 200 to 500 mg/L (Moore, 1952). To protect transients to an area, a sulfate level of 250 mg/L should afford reasonable protection from laxative effects. As indicated, sodium frequently is the principal component of dissolved solids. Persons on restricted sodium diets may have an intake restricted from 500 to 1,000 mg/day (Nat. Res. Coun., 1954). That portion ingested in water must be compensated by reduced levels in food ingested so that the total does not exceed the allowable intake. Using certain assumptions of water intake (e.g., 2 liters of water consumed per day) and sodium content of food, it has been calculated that for very restricted sodium diets, 20 mg/L in water would be the maximum, while for moderately restricted diets, 270 mg/L would be maximum. Specific sodium levels for entire water supplies have not been recommended but various restricted sodium intakes are recommended because: (1) the general population is not adversely affected by sodium, but various restricted sodium intakes are recommended by physicians for a significant portion of the population, and (2) 270 mg/L of sodium is representative of mineralized waters that may be aesthetically unacceptable, but many domestic water supplies exceed this level. Treatment for removal bf sodium in water supplies is costly (NAS, 1974). A study based on consumer surveys in 29 California water systems was made to measure the taste threshold of dissolved salts in water (Bruvold et al., 1969). Systems were selected to eliminate possible interferences from other taste-causing substances than dissolved salts. The study revealed that consumers rated waters with 319 to 397 mg/L dissolved solids as llexcellentwlhti le those with 1,283 to 1,333 mg/L dissolved solids were "unacceptable" depending on the rating system used. A *lgoodll rating was registered for dissolved solids less than 658 to 755 mg/L. The 1962 PHS Drinking Water Standards recommended a maximum dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L unless more suitable supplies were unavailable. Specific constituents included in the dissolved solids in water may cause mineral tastes at lower concentrations than other constituents. Chloride ions have frequently been cited as having a low taste threshold in water. Data from Ricter and MacLean (1939) on a taste panel of 53 adults indicated that 61 mg/L NaCl was the median level for detecting a difference from distilled water. At a median concentration of 395 mg/L chloride a salty taste was distinguishable, although the range was from 120 to 1,215 mg/L. Lockhart, @t al. 1955) evaluated the effect of chlorides on water used for brewing coffee indicated threshold concentrations for chloride ranging from 210 mg/L to 310 mg/L depending on the associated cation. These data indicate that a 0 level of 250 mg/L chlorides is a reasonable maximum level to \.p protect consumers of drinking water. The causation of corrosion and encrustation of metallic surfaces by water containing dissolved solids is well known. In water distribution systems corrosion is controlled by insulating dissimilar metal connections by nonmetallic materials, using pH control and corrosion inhibitors, or some form of galvanic or impressed electrical current systems (Lehmann, 1964). In household systems water piping, wastewater piping, water heaters, faucets, toilet flushing mechanisms, garbage grinders and both clothes and dishwashing machines incure damage. By using water with 1,150 mg/L dissolved solids as compared with 250 mg/L, service life was reduced from 70 percent for toilet flushing mechanisms to 30 percent for washing equipment. Such increased corrosion was calculated in 1968 to cost the consumer an additional $0.50 per 1,000 gallons used. All species of fish and other aquatic life must tolerate a range of dissolved solids concentrations in order to survive under natural conditions. Based on studies in Saskatchewan it has been indicated that several common freshwater species survived 10,000 mg/L dissolved solids, that whitefish and pikeperch survived 15,000 mg/L, but only the stickleback survived 20,000 mg/L dissolved solids. It was concluded that lakes with dissolved solids in excess of 15,000 mg/L were unsuitable for most freshwater fishes (Rawson and Moore, 1944). The 1968 NTAC Report also recommended less than that caused chloride. maintaining osmotic pressure levels of by a 15,000 mg/L solution of sodium Marine f i s h e s a l s o e x h i b i t v a r i a n c e i n a b i l i t y t o t o l e r a t e s a l i n i t y changes. However, f i s h k i l l s i n Laguna Madre o f f t h e Texas coast h a v e o c c u r r e d with s a l i n i t i e s i n the range of 75 t o 100 o/oo. Such c o n c e n t r a t e d seawater is caused by e v a p o r a t i o n and l a c k of exchange w i t h the Gulf of Mexico (Rounsafell and Everhart, 1953). E s t u a r i n e s p e c i e s of f i s h a r e t o l e r a n t of s a l i n i t y changes ranging from fresh t o brackish t o seawater. Anadromous species likewise are t o l e r a n t although evidence indicates t h a t the young cannot t o l e r a t e t h e change u n t i l t h e normal t i m e of migration (Rounsefell and Everhart, 1953). Other a q u a t i c s p e c i e s are more dependent on s a l i n i t y f o r p r o t e c t i o n from p r e d a t o r s o r r e q u i r e c e r t a i n minimal s a l i n i t i e s for successful hatching of eggs. The o y s t e r d r i l l cannot t o l e r a t e s a l i n i t i e s less than 12.5 o/oo, Therefore, estuarine segments containing s a l i n i t i e s below about 1 2 . 5 o/oo produce most of t h e seed o y s t e r s f o r p l a n t i n g (Rounsefell and Everhart, 1953). Based on similar examples, the 1968 NTAC Report recommended t h a t t o p r o t e c t f i s h and o t h e r marine animals no changes in hydrography or stream flow should be allowed that permanently change isohaline p a t t e r n s i n the estuary by more than 10 percent from n a t u r a l variation. Many of the recommended game bird l e v e l s f o r dissolved s o l i d s concentrations i n drinking water have been extrapolated from data c o l l e c t e d on domestic species such as chickens. However, young ducklings were r e p o r t e d poisoned i n Suisan Marsh by s a l t when maximum summer s a l i n i t i e s v a r i e d from 0.55 t o 1.74 o/oo w i t h ~ means as high as 1.26 o/oo ( G r i f f i t h , 1963). I n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of excess dissolved solids are primarily the elimination of desirable food plants and other habitat-forming p l a n t s . Rapid s a l i n i t y changes cause plasmolysis of t e n d e r l e a v e s and stems because of changes i n osmotic pressure. The 1968 NTAC Report recommended the following l i m i t s i n s a l i n i t y variation from natural t o protect w i l d l i f e habitats: Natural Salinity Variation Permitted (O/OO) (o/oo) 0 t o 3.5 1 3.5 to 13.5 2 13.5 to 35 4 A g r i c u l t u r a l uses of water a r e a l s o l i m i t e d by excessive d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s concentrations. Studies have indicated t h a t chickens, swine, c a t t l e , and sheep can survive on s a l i n e waters up t o 15,000 mg/L of s a l t s of sodium and calcium combined with bicarbonates, c h l o r i d e s , and s u l f a t e s but only 10,000 mg/L of corresponding s a l t s of potassium and magnesium. The approximate l i m i t for highly alkaline waters containing sodium and calcium carbonates is 5,000 mg/L (NTAC, 1968). I r r i g a t i o n use of water depends not only upon the osmotic effect of dissolved solids, but a l s o on the r a t i o of the various c a t i o n s p r e s e n t . I n a r i d and s e m i a r i d a r e a s general c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s a l i n i t y hazards has been prepared (NTAC, 1968) (see Table 9). Table 9.-Dissolved Solids Hazard f o r I r r i g a t i o n Water (mg/L). water from which no detrimental effects w i l l usually be noticed--------------------- 500 .-... ,, water which can have detrimental e f f e c t s on sensit i v e crops--------------------- 500-1,000 water t h a t may have adverse effects on many crops and requires c a r e f u l managemerit practices----------------- 1,000-2,000 water t h a t can be used f o r t o l e r a n t p l a n t s on permeable s o i l s w i t h c a r e f u l management practices----------- 2,000-5,000 The amount of sodium and the percentage of sodium i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r c a t i o n s a r e o f t e n i m p o r t a n t . I n a d d i t i o n t o c o n t r i b u t i n g t o osmotic p r e s s u r e , sodium is t o x i c t o c e r t a i n plants, e s p e c i a l l y f r u i t s , and frequently causes problems in s o i l s t r u c t u r e , i n f i l t r a t i o n , and p e r m e a b i l i t y rates ( A g r i c u l t u r e Handbook #60, 1954). A high percentage of exchangeable sodium i n s o i l s c o n t a i n i n g c l a y s t h a t s w e l l when w e t can cause a s o i l c o n d i t i o n adverse t o water movement and p l a n t growth. The exchangeable-sodium percentage (ESP) * is an index of the sodium s t a t u s of s o i l s . An ESP of 1 0 t o 15 p e r c e n t is c o n s i d e r e d excessive i f a high p e r c e n t a g e of s w e l l i n g clay m i n e r a l s is p r e s e n t ( A g r i c u l t u r a l Handbook #60, 1954). 0 For s e n s i t i v e f r u i t s , t h e t o l e r a n c e f o r sodium f o r i r r i g a t i o n water is f o r a sodium a d s o r p t i o n r a t i o (SAR)** of about 4, whereas for g e n e r a l c r o p s and forages a r a n g e of 8 t o 18 is g e n e r a l l y considered usable (NTAC, 1968). It is emphasized t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n of these f a c t o r s must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o s p e c i f i c s o i l conditions e x i s t i n g i n a given l o c a l e and t h e r e f o r e frequently r e q u i r e s f i e l d i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n d u s t r i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s s o l v e d s o l i d s . ,- c o n t e n t of raw waters is q u i t e v a r i a b l e . Table 10 i n d i c a t e s Table 10.-Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations of Surface Waters That Have Been Used as Sources for Industrial Water Supplies Industry/Use Maximum Concentration ( m g m Textile 150 Pulp and Paper 1,080 Chemical 2,500 Petroleum 3,500 Primary Metals . 1,500 Boiler Make-up 35,000 maximum values accepted by various industries for process requirements (NAS, 1974). Since water of almost any dissolved 0 solids concentration can be de-ionized to meet the most stringent requirements, the economics of such treatment are the 1 imiting factor for industry. *ESP = 100 [a + b(SAR)] 1 [a + b(SAR)] where: a = intercept respresenting experimental error (ranges from -0.06 to 0.01) from 0.014 to 0.016) b =slope of regression line (ranges **SAR = sodium adsorption ratio = Na - [0.5(Ca + Mg)]"" SAR is expressed as milliequivalents (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY

1 0

More on Immediate action needed to protect WV waters
by Beth Little 08 Jul '10

08 Jul '10

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection is proposing changes to the rules governing Water Quality Standards for consideration by the Legislature in 2011 and the more public response the better. Industry is saying there is no need to be hasty about new regulations, that we should slow down, but water withdrawals during the low water season have already created serious problems and action is needed now. The public hearing for this rule will begin at 6 p.m., Monday, July 19 in the Coopers Rock Training Room at DEP's Charleston headquarters, 601 57th Street S.E., Charleston, WV 25304. The comment period will end at the conclusion of the hearing. For more information on the Water and Waste Management Rules call 304-926-0495. Oral and written comments will be limited to the proposed revisions and will be made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the rules are available from the Secretary of State's office or from the DEP at www.wvdep.org <http://www.wvecouncil.org/take_action/2010/www.wvdep.org> . Written comments may be submitted to the Public Information Office at the above address or delivered at the public hearing. Comments may also be e-mailed to DEP.Comments(a)wv.gov <http://www.wvecouncil.org/take_action/2010/DEP.Comments@wv.gov> . Comments should reference 47CSR2 - Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards Here are talking points: The proposed "Narrative Water Quality Standards" language that makes "certain water withdrawal activities" not allowable in state waters, is a good first step. However, this additional language alone does not go far enough to protect West Virginia streams from water withdrawals. In order to be protective of both human health and aquatic life, DEP should draft legislation for immediate consideration by the West Virginia Legislature that establishes guidelines and a permit process for water withdrawals. DEP is proposing a statewide water quality standard for "Total Dissolved Solids" (TDS) of 500mg/l measured in-stream (currently WV has no standard). This is stronger than Pennsylvania's standard of 500mg/l which is measured only at public water supply in-takes. However, it is twice as high as the 250mg/l that EPA recommends as the Human Health Standard for total dissolved solids (TDS is an indicator of the presence of a broad array of chemical contaminants) A. DEP should adopt the federal standard for human health of 250mg/l. B. In addition, DEP fails to propose in this rule an aquatic life standard for conductivity, with which TDS levels are closely associated. DEP should adopt an aquatic life criterion for conductivity as proposed by EPA. In addition, any TDS/conductivity criteria should be protective of streams threatened by golden algae.

1 0

Immediate action needed to protect WV waters
by Beth Little 08 Jul '10

08 Jul '10

The attached warning from UMRA (Upper Monongahela River Assoc) is not unexpected. The current hot dry weather has created low water conditions a little early this year. The immediate action needed is from the WV DEP. If you have a moment, you might call Scott Mandirola, Chief of the DEP Dividsion of Water and Waste Management (304) 926-0495 and ask him to make an emergency rule. You could mention the stream conditions you see near you as your reason for concern. And, if you are out and about and see any trucks with hoses in a creek, report them to Mandirola, take pictures if you can, and let me know. We don't need any more Dunkard Creeks.

1 0

Fwd: [WVaPATH] AEP and Allegheny Energy Announce Progress in PATH Transmission Line Case
by James Kotcon 08 Jul '10

08 Jul '10

>>> Sara Lampo <revlis04(a)hotmail.com> 7/8/2010 10:44 AM >>> You've probably already seen this.... AEP and Allegheny Energy Announce Progress in Transmission Line Case Testimony filed in West Virginia will be followed by filings in Maryland and Virginia COLUMBUS, Ohio, and GREENSBURG, Pa., July 8, 2010 – American Electric Power (AEP) and Allegheny Energy, Inc. today announced that updated testimony filed in West Virginia strongly supports the need for the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH). The new data, filed as supplemental testimony in an application before the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, incorporates new studies by independent grid operator PJM Interconnection recommending the construction of PATH to resolve significant reliability issues on the region’s electric transmission grid. The PATH companies also plan to incorporate the new information into the existing application in Maryland, as well as in a new application to be filed in Virginia in the third quarter. “Today’s filing reflects our ongoing commitment to provide state regulatory commissions and the public with the most accurate, up-to-date information available justifying the need for PATH,” said Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of AEP. “We strongly support the open, thorough process in place to review evidence supporting this project, and we’re confident that PATH will be found to be absolutely necessary to maintain a reliable electric system.” The latest analyses, conducted as part of PJM’s 2010 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP), are consistent with previous studies recommending the construction of PATH. PJM evaluated PATH against several alternatives and found it to be the most comprehensive solution to resolve significant voltage-related issues and line overloads that will begin to occur in mid-2015. Among the other alternatives examined, PATH is the only solution that resolves nearly all projected reliability issues within PJM’s 15-year planning period. The new in-service deadline for PATH is June 1, 2015. “Reliable electricity is vital to our economy, national security and way of life,” said Paul J. Evanson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer at Allegheny Energy. “That’s why it’s critical to have a strong transmission system. We’re committed to taking the necessary and appropriate steps to modernize our nation’s electric grid, with PATH as a vital link.” The supplemental testimony and exhibits filed today include updated information on the projected cost of the project. Today’s filing estimates the project cost at $2.1 billion, which accounts for new local and state requirements; minor route adjustments for the overbuilding and relocation of existing transmission lines; changes in design criteria to meet external requirements; and cost increases in labor, materials and services due to the revised project schedule. The original estimate was $1.8 billion. Allegheny Energy’s share of the $2.1 billion total is approximately $1.4 billion, with AEP’s share worth approximately $700 million. Affiliates of AEP and Allegheny are seeking authorization to construct a 275-mile, 765-kilovolt transmission project extending from the Amos substation in Putnam County, W.Va., to a proposed substation in Frederick County, Md. For more information about PATH, including the complete regulatory applications, visit the project website at www.pathtransmission.com. This message was sent from PATH News to revlis04(a)hotmail.com. It was sent from: PATH, 800 Cabin Hill Drive , Greensburg, PA 15601 . You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.Email Marketing by Manage your subscription __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic Recent Activity: Visit Your Group 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. Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC