- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

TRAILCO - SIERRA CLUB RESP TO APPLICANT OPPOSITION TO PRUDENCE REVIEW
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 28 Nov '08

28 Nov '08

Mr. Watkins: I attach the Sierra Club's response to TrAILCo's opposition to the Sierra Club's petition for a continuing prudence review. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission. William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Rep Wolf of VA wants "review"of TrailCo
by Jim Sconyers 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

Gazette November 25, 2008 Va. congressman wants review of power line plans Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf wants Gov. Timothy Kaine to take the lead in forming a compact with other states to review plans for a regional power line. By The Associated Press RICHMOND, Va. -- Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf wants Gov. Timothy Kaine to take the lead in forming a compact with other states to review plans for a regional power line. Wolf urged Kaine in a Monday letter to form a compact with the governors of West Virginia and Pennsylvania to take a final look at the project before it moves forward. Such a compact is allowed under federal law. Wolf's letter addresses a 500-kilovolt transmission line proposed jointly by the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. and Dominion Virginia Power. The line would stretch from Pennsylvania to West Virginia through portions of northern Virginia. In September, Wolf urged Virginia's attorney general to appeal a decision by the State Corporation Commission allowing the line, known as the TRAIL project, to move forward. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: TrAILCo - Sierra Club Petition for Continuing Prudence Review
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 23 Nov '08

23 Nov '08

To WV Chapter Energy Committee Attached is a petition filed with the PSC to request a "continuing prudence review" of the August 1 decision approving TrAILCo, in light of the dramatic drop in electricity demand, as reflected in a PJM decision to push out for one year from June 2012 to June 2013, the date for PATH to be in-service. Bill ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:35 PM Subject: TrAILCo - Sierra Club Petition for Continuing Prudence Review To: jwatkins(a)psc.state.wv.us Mr. Watkins: I attach a Petition for Continuing Prudence Review which is being served on all parties by email today and will be filed with the Commission tomorrow. Please call me if you have any questions pertaining to this filing. William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Rivesville power station renewal
by Duane330＠aol.com 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

The following was sent to you because you are a Member of the DEP Public Notice mailing list. =========================================================== Friday, November 21, 2008 @ 1:21 PM =========================================================== NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT/PROPOSED OPERATING PERMIT RENEWAL Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act and the state Air Pollution Control Act requires that all major sources and certain minor sources have a permit to operate which states all requirements (e.g. emission limitations, monitoring requirements, etc.) established by regulations promulgated under the aforementioned programs. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has determined that the draft/proposed permit renewal referenced herein meets this requirement. The DAQ is providing notice to the general public of its preliminary determination to issue an operating permit renewal to the following company for operation of the referenced electric generating facility: Monongahela Power Company Rivesville Power Station Plant ID No. : 049-00009 Jackson Street, Rt. 19 Rivesville, WV 26588 This notice solicits comments from the public and affected state(s) concerning the above preliminary determination and provides an opportunity for such parties to review the basis for the proposed approval and the "draft" permit renewal. This notice also solicits comments from the U.S. EPA concerning the same preliminary determination and provides an opportunity for the U.S. EPA to concurrently review the basis for the proposed approval as a “proposed” permit. This notice also incorporates changes to the General Requirements of the following preconstruction permit(s): R13-1098B All written comments submitted by the public and affected state(s) pursuant to this notice must be received by the DAQ within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this notice. Under concurrent review, written comments submitted by the U.S. EPA must be received by the DAQ within forty- five (45) days from the date of publication of this notice or from the date the U.S. EPA receives this draft/proposed permit renewal, whichever is later. In the event that the 30th/45th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the comment period will be extended until 5:00 p.m. on the following regularly scheduled business day. The public shall have 135 days from the date of publication of this notice to file petitions for concurrently reviewed permits. Upon notice by the U.S. EPA to the DAQ, prior to the end of the 45- day notice period, the U.S. EPA may choose to hold the 30 day comment period on the draft permit and the 45 day comment period on the proposed permit sequentially. During the public comment period any interested person may submit written comments on the draft permit and may request a public hearing, if no public hearing has already been scheduled. A request for a public hearing shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. The Director of the DAQ shall grant such a request for a hearing if he concludes that a public hearing is appropriate. Any public hearing shall be held in the general area in which the facility is located, after 30 day notice is given. The DAQ will consider all written comments prior to final action on the permit. Copies of the DAQ Fact Sheet and Draft/Proposed Permit Renewal may be downloaded from the DAQ's web site at the following address: http://www.wvdep.org/daq. Copies of the Permit Application, DAQ Fact Sheet, and Draft/Proposed Permit Renewal are available for public review at the following location between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57th Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Contact: Frederick Tipane (304) 926-0499 ext.: 1215 Comments and questions concerning this matter should be addressed to the above referenced individual. **************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?re… %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)

1 0

FW: [wvec-board] natural gas industry refuses to reveal what it uses to drill for fossil fuel
by Grubb, Karen 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

From: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Young Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:36 PM To: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: [wvec-board] natural gas industry refuses to reveal what it uses to drill for fossil fuel ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Fesenmaier <mailto:fesenms@wvlc.lib.wv.us> To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mailstore06.ntelos.net <mailto:> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:51 PM Subject: *** SPAM *** natural gas industry refuses to reveal what it uses to drill for fossil fuel Features <http://www.sciam.com/department.cfm?id=feature-articles> - November 17, 2008 Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute Water http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water& print=true The natural gas industry refuses to reveal what is in the mixture of chemicals used to drill for the fossil fuel By Abrahm Lustgarten and ProPublica In July a hydrologist dropped a plastic sampling pipe 300 feet down a water well in rural Sublette County, Wy. and pulled up a load of brown oily water with a foul smell. Tests showed it contained benzene, a chemical believed to cause aplastic anemia and leukemia, in a concentration 1,500 times the level safe for people. The results sent shockwaves through the energy industry and state and federal regulatory agencies. Sublette County is the home of one of the nation's largest natural gas fields, and many of its 6,000 wells have undergone a process pioneered by Halliburton called hydraulic fracturing, which shoots vast amounts of water, sand and chemicals several miles underground to break apart rock and release the gas. The process has been considered safe since a 2004 study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that it posed no risk to drinking water. After that study, Congress even exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Today fracturing is used in 9 out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States. Over the last few years, however, a series of contamination incidents have raised questions about that EPA study and ignited a debate over whether the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing may threaten the nation's increasingly precious drinking water supply. An investigation by ProPublica, which visited Sublette County and six other contamination sites, found that water contamination in drilling areas around the country is far more prevalent than the EPA asserts. Our investigation also found that the 2004 EPA study was not as conclusive as it claimed to be. A close review shows that the body of the study contains damaging information that wasn't mentioned in the conclusion. In fact, the study foreshadowed many of the problems now being reported across the country. The contamination in Sublette County is significant because it is the first to be documented by a federal agency, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. But more than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In one case a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane seeped into the residential water supply. In other cases the contamination occurred not from actual drilling below ground, but on the surface, where accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of each contamination, or measure its spread across the environment accurately, because the precise nature and concentrations of the chemicals used by industry are considered trade secrets. Not even the EPA knows exactly what's in the drilling fluids. And that, EPA scientists say, makes it impossible to vouch for the safety of the drilling process or precisely track its effects. "I am looking more and more at water quality issues... because of a growing concern," said Joyel Dhieux, a drilling field inspector who handles environmental review at the EPA's regional offices in Denver. "But if you don't know what's in it I don't think it's possible." Toxic Brew? Of the 300-odd compounds that private researchers and the Bureau of Land Management suspect are being used, 65 are listed as hazardous by the federal government. Many of the rest are unstudied and unregulated, leaving a gaping hole in the nation's scientific understanding of how widespread drilling might affect water resources. Industry representatives maintain that the drilling fluids are mostly made up of non-toxic, even edible substances, and that when chemicals are used, they are just a tiny fraction of the overall mix. They say that some information is already available, and that releasing specific details would only frighten and confuse the public, and would come at great expense to the industry's competitive business. "Halliburton's proprietary fluids are the result of years of extensive research, development testing," said Diana Gabriel, a company spokeswoman, in an email response. "We have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are able to protect the fruits of the company's research.... We could lose our competitive advantage." "It is like Coke protecting its syrup formula for many of these service companies," said Scott Rotruck, vice president of corporate development at Chesapeake Energy, the nation's largest gas driller, which has been asked by New York State regulators to disclose the chemicals it uses. Thanks in large part to hydraulic fracturing, natural gas drilling has vastly expanded across the United States. In 2007 there were 449,000 gas wells in 32 states, thirty percent more than in 2000. By 2012 the nation could be drilling 32,000 new wells a year, including some in the watershed that provides drinking water to New York City and Philadelphia, some five percent of the nation's population. The rush to drill comes in part because newly identified gas reserves offer the nation an opportunity to wean itself from oil. Natural gas, as T. Boone Pickens said recently, is "cleaner, cheaper... abundant, and ours." Burning gas, used primarily to heat homes and make electricity, emits 23% less carbon dioxide than burning oil. Gas is the country's second-largest domestic energy resource, after coal. The debate over water arises at a critical time. In his last days in office President George W. Bush has pushed through lease sales and permits for new drilling on thousands of acres of federal land. President-elect Barak Obama has identified the leasing rush as one of his first pressing matters and is already examining whether to try to reverse Bush's expansion of drilling in Utah. State regulators and environmentalists have also begun pressing the gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use and urging Congress to revisit the environmental exemptions hydraulic fracturing currently enjoys. But in the meantime, the drilling continues. In September the Bureau of Land Management approved plans for 4,400 new wells in Sublette County, despite the unresolved water issues. Tests there showed contamination in 88 of the 220 wells examined, and the plume stretched over 28 miles. When researchers returned to take more samples they couldn't even open the water wells; monitors showed they contained so much flammable gas that they were likely to explode. Dirty Water News that water in Sublette County was contaminated was especially shocking because the area is so rural that until a few years ago cattle were still run down Main Street in Pinedale, the nearest town to the gas field. The county is roughly the size of the state of Connecticut but has fewer people than many New York city blocks. With so little industry, there was little besides drilling that people could blame for the contamination. "When you just look at the data... the aerial extent of the benzene contamination, you just say . . . . This is huge," says Oberley, who is charged with water study in the area. "You've got benzene in a useable aquifer and nobody is able to verbalize well, using factual information, how the benzene got there." Other signs of contamination were also worrying residents. Independent tests in several private drinking wells adjacent to the anticline drilling showed fluoride -- which is listed in Halliburton's hydraulic fracturing patent applications and can cause bone damage at high levels -- at almost three times the EPA's maximum limit. "We need the gas now more than ever," says Fred Sanchez, whose water well is among those with high levels of fluoride. But gazing off his deck at the prized trout waters of the New Fork River, he wonders whether drilling has gone too far. "You just can't helter skelter go drilling just because you have the right to do it. It's not morally right to do it. There should be some checks and balances." Further east, in the town of Clark, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality found benzene in a residential well after an underground well casing cracked. In Pavilion, another small town, a series of drinking water wells began running with dark, smelly water, a problem a state official speculated might be linked to drilling nearby. "There is no direct evidence that the gas drilling has impacted it," says Mark Thiesse, a groundwater supervisor for the Wyoming DEQ. "But it sure makes you wonder. It just seems pretty circumstantial that it's happening." On federal land, which is where most of the Sublette County wells are located, the BLM governs leasing and permitting for gas development, with secondary oversight from the state and only advisory input from the EPA. When the contaminated water results were first reported, both the BLM and the state downplayed their significance. The EPA's regional office in Denver sharply disagreed. But because it has only an advisory role in the federal review process, and hydraulic fracturing is exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, there was little the EPA could do. It rebuked the BLM in a strongly worded letter and gave the development plans in Sublette County a rare "unsatisfactory" rating. It also recommended that the project be stopped until further scientific study could be done. The BLM, backed by a powerful business lobby, ignored that recommendation. Why do a study if you can't prove something is wrong, industry argued. Drilling operators said the benzene came from leaky equipment on the trucks that haul water and waste to and from the drill sites - and in one or two cases, EPA scientists say that was likely. One theory put forth by the BLM blamed the benzene contamination on malicious environmentalists "hostile to gas production," an accusation the agency later said it had no evidence of. Thiesse, the DEQ supervisor, recounted a meeting where the debate dwindled down to semantics: "I called it contamination, and somebody said is it really contamination? What if it's naturally occurring?" The industry insisted, as it has for years, that hydraulic fracturing itself had never contaminated a well, pointing to an anecdotal survey done a decade ago by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a coalition of state regulatory bodies and, again, to the 2004 study by the EPA. "You have intervening rock in between the area that you are fracturing and the areas that provide water supplies. The notion that fractures are going to migrate up to those shallow formations -- there is just no evidence of that happening," says Ken Wonstolen, an attorney representing the Colorado Oil and Gas Association who has worked with the petroleum industry for two decades. "I think fracturing has been given a clean bill of health." A flurry of mail from industry representatives to the BLM said the sort of study the EPA wanted would needlessly slow production. "BLM's restrictions on drilling in the Intermountain west have seriously reduced the supply of natural gas reaching consumers," wrote the American Gas Association. Washington leaned down on Pinedale too. The message, according to Chuck Otto, field manager for the BLM: Make this happen by November. The 4,400 new wells were approved in September without any deadline for cleaning up the contamination or further research. State regulators told ProPublica that hydraulic fracturing was not even considered as a possible cause. "The BLM looks at it more as a business driven process," Otto said. "It's not like I have Vice President Cheney calling me up and saying you need to get this done. But there definitely is that unspoken pressure... mostly from the companies, to develop their resources as they'd like to see fit... to get things done and get them done pretty fast." Flawed Report? The 2004 EPA study is routinely used to dismiss complaints that hydraulic fracturing fluids might be responsible for the water problems in places like Pinedale. The study concluded that hydraulic fracturing posed "no threat" to underground drinking water because fracturing fluids aren't necessarily hazardous, can't travel far underground, and that there is "no unequivocal evidence" of a health risk. But documents obtained by ProPublica show that the EPA negotiated directly with the gas industry before finalizing those conclusions, and then ignored evidence that fracking might cause exactly the kinds of water problems now being recorded in drilling states. Buried deep within the 424-page report are statements explaining that fluids migrated unpredictably -- through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought -- in as many as half the cases studied in the United States. The EPA identified some of the chemicals as biocides and lubricants that "can cause kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage through prolonged or repeated exposure." It found that as much as a third of injected fluids, benzene in particular, remains in the ground after drilling and is "likely to be transported by groundwater." The EPA began preparing its report on hydraulic fracturing in 2000, after an Alabama court forced the agency to investigate fracturing-related water contamination there under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Political pressures were also mounting for the agency to clarify its position on fracturing. The 2001 Energy Policy, drafted in part by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, a former Halliburton CEO, noted that "the gas flow rate may be increased as much as 20-fold by hydraulic fracturing." While the EPA was still working on its report, legislation was being crafted to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Before that happened, however, the EPA sought an agreement with the three largest hydraulic fracturing companies, including Halliburton, to stop using diesel fuel in fracturing fluids. Diesel fuel contains benzene, and such a move would help justify the report's conclusion that no further studies were needed. "Our draft is pending release," a senior EPA official wrote to Halliburton's counsel in an August 2003 email. "It would certainly strengthen our preliminary position not to continue studying the issue... if the service companies were able to remove diesel all together, or even move in that direction." In a subsequent meeting, an EPA official's handwritten notes show that a Halliburton attorney asked federal officials: "are we willing to entertain regulatory relief in other areas; eg: fewer inspections?" "Willing...," was the reply from Tracy Mehan, then the EPA's assistant administrator for water. A Halliburton spokesperson declined to comment on this exchange. The diesel agreement was signed. But according to the EPA, it isn't legally enforceable and the agency hasn't checked to see if diesel is still being used. Furthermore, the agreement applies only to fluids used in a specific kind of gas drilling, not all drilling across the United States. Mehan did not return calls for comment about his negotiations. Roy Simon, associate chief of the Drinking Water Protection Division's Prevention Branch at EPA headquarters in Washington says the "EPA still stands by the findings outlined in the (2004) report." But one of the report's three main authors, Jeffrey Jollie, an EPA hydrogeologist, now cautions that the research has been misconstrued by industry. The study focused solely on the effect hydraulic fracturing has on drinking water in coal bed methane deposits, typically shallow formations where gas is embedded in coal. It didn't consider the impact of above-ground drilling or of drilling in geologic formations deep underground, where many of the large new gas reserves are being developed today. "It was never intended to be a broad, sweeping study," Jollie says. "I don't think we ever characterized it that way." Nevertheless, a few months after the report's release, the sweeping 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. Almost no attention was paid to the three paragraphs that stripped the federal government of most of its authority to monitor and regulate hydraulic fracturing's impact on the environment. By default, that responsibility would now fall to the states. "That pretty much closed the door," said Greg Oberley, an EPA groundwater specialist working in the western drilling states. "So we absolutely do not look at fracking... under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It's not done." Dangerous Ground On April 30, 2001 a small drilling company now owned by the Canadian gas company Encana fractured a well at the top of Dry Hollow, a burgeoning field in western Colorado that has seen one of the fastest rates of energy development in the nation. The well sat at the end of a dirt drive among pinion pines and juniper at the crest of a small mesa overlooking the Colorado River. It was also less than 1,000 feet from the log farmhouse where Larry and Laura Amos lived. As usual that day, water trucks lined up like toy soldiers on the three acre dirt pad cleared for drilling just across the Amos' property line. They pumped 82,000 gallons of fluids at 3,600 pounds of pressure thousands of feet into the drill hole. Suddenly the Amos' drinking water well exploded like a Yellowstone geyser, firing its lid into the air and spewing mud and gray fizzing water high into the sky. State inspectors tested the Amos well for methane and found lots of it. They did not find benzene or gasoline derivatives and they did not test fracking fluids, state records show, because they didn't know what to test for. The Amoses were told that methane occurs naturally and is harmless. Inspectors warned them to keep the windows open and vent the basement, but they were never advised to protect themselves or their infant daughter from the water. It wasn't until three years later, when Laura Amos was diagnosed with a rare adrenal tumor, that she started challenging the state about the mysterious chemicals that might have been in her well. Much of what is known about the makeup of drilling fluids comes from the personal investigations of Theo Colborn, an independent Colorado-based scientist who specializes in low-dose effects of chemicals on human health and has testified before Congress on drilling issues. Although she opposes drilling, her research is referenced by scientists at the EPA, at the United States Geological Survey, and at state-level regulatory agencies and is widely believed to be the most comprehensive information available. Spurred by reports of water contamination in Colorado, Colborn painstakingly gathered the names of chemicals from shipping manifests that trucks must carry when they haul hazardous materials for oil and gas servicing companies. Whenever an accident occurred -- a well spill in Colorado, or an explosion at a drilling site in Wyoming - she took water and soil samples and tested them for contaminants, adding the results to her list. Industry officials say they use such tiny amounts of chemicals in the drilling - of the million or so gallons of liquid pumped into a well, only a fraction of one percent are chemicals - that they are diluted beyond harmful levels. But on some fracturing sites that tiny percentage translates to more than 10,000 gallons of chemicals, and Colborn believes even very low doses of some of the compounds can damage kidney and immune systems and affect reproductive development. In Garfield County there were signs this was already happening. Animals that had produced offspring like clockwork each spring stopped delivering healthy calves, according to Liz Chandler, a veterinarian in Rifle, Co. A bull went sterile, and a herd of beef cows stopped going into heat, as did pigs. In the most striking case, sheep bred on an organic dairy farm had a rash of inexplicable still births - all in close proximity to drilling waste pits, where wastewater that includes fracturing fluids is misted into the air for evaporation. Among Colborn's list of nearly 300 chemicals - some known to be cancer causing -- is a clear, odorless surfactant called 2-BE, used in foaming agents to lubricate the flow of fracking fluids down in the well. Colborn told Congress in 2007 that it can cause adrenal tumors. Laura Amos, who suffered from such a tumor, pressed Encana on whether the compound had been used to fracture the well near her house. For months the company denied 2-BE had been used. But Amos persisted, arguing her case on TV and radio. In January 2005 her lawyers obtained documents from Encana showing that 2-BE had, fact, been used in at least one adjacent well. "Our daughter was only six months old when fracturing blew up our water well," Amos wrote in a letter to the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, an anti-drilling group. "I bathed her in that water every day. I also continued breast-feeding her for 18 more months... If there was a chemical in my body causing my tumor, she was exposed to it as well." In 2006 Amos stopped talking to the media after she accepted a reported multi-million settlement from Encana. The company was fined $266,000 for "failure to protect water-bearing formations and ... to contain a release of (gas production) waste." Yet investigators also concluded, without further explanation, that hydraulic fracturing was not to blame. Asked about the Amos case and the rash of complaints in the area, an Encana spokesman said the company disagreed with the state's judgment on the Amos case and emphasized that there was no proof that fracturing had caused the explosion. Environmentalists had created a climate of fear in the community, he added. "The concerns residents have expressed - and some of them are legitimate and heartfelt concerns - a lot of them are out of misinformation," said Doug Hock. "Just because chemicals are used at a site does not create risk. We have a proven process that helps us ensure that there are no pathways." Deep Impact In the past 12 months a flurry of documented incidents has made such reports harder to dismiss. "We've kind of reached the tipping point," says Dhieux, the EPA inspector in Denver. "The impacts are there." In December 2007 a house in Bainbridge, Ohio exploded in a fiery ball. Investigators discovered that the neighborhood's tap water contained so much methane that the house ignited. A study released this month concluded that pressure caused by hydraulic fracturing pushed the gas, which is found naturally thousands of feet below, through a system of cracks into the groundwater aquifer. In February a frozen 200-foot waterfall was discovered on the side of a massive cliff near Parachute, Co. According to the state, 1.6 million gallons of fracturing fluids had leaked from a waste pit and been transported by groundwater, where it seeped out of the cliff. In a separate incident nearby in June benzene was discovered in a place called Rock Spring. Three weeks later a rancher was hospitalized after he drank well water out of his own tap. Tests showed benzene in his water, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission cited four gas operators, not knowing which one was responsible for the spill. Colorado state records show more than 1,500 spills since 2003, in which time the rate of drilling increased 50 percent. In 2008 alone records show more than 206 spills, 48 relating to water contamination. As more contamination cases are documented, state governments and Washington are being pressured to toughen oversight. One aim is to institutionalize the precautionary measures some companies are already experimenting with. When ProPublica visited an Encana drilling operation in Pinedale, for example, the company was placing its drill rigs on raised platforms to protect the underlying landscape and using rubber pools to catch spilled fluids before they could seep into the soil. Drilling companies in New Mexico have begun storing waste in enclosed steel tanks rather than open pits. Such efforts can add 10 percent to drilling costs, but they also dramatically lessen the environmental risks, an Encana employee said. Government Oversight State regulators and Washington lawmakers though are increasingly impatient with voluntary measures and are seeking to toughen their oversight. In September U.S. Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman John Salazar, from Colorado, and Congressman Maurice Hinchey, from New York, introduced a bill that would undo the exemptions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Wyoming, widely known for supporting energy development, has begun updating its regulations at a local level, as have parts of Texas. New Mexico has placed a one year moratorium on drilling around Santa Fe, after a survey found hundreds of cases of water contamination from unlined pits where fracking fluids and other drilling wastes are stored. "Every rule that we have improved . . . industry has taken us to court on," said Joanna Prukop, New Mexico's cabinet secretary for Energy Minerals and Natural Resources. "It's industry that is fighting us on every front as we try to improve our government enforcement, protection, and compliance... We wear Kevlar these days." The most stringent reforms are being pursued in Colorado. Last year it began a top-to-bottom re-write of its regulations, including a proposal to require companies to disclose the exact makeup of their fracking fluids - the toughest such rule in the nation. In mid August the Colorado debate intensified when news broke that Cathy Behr, an emergency room nurse in Durango, CO, had almost died after treating a wildcatter who had been splashed in a fracking fluid spill at a BP natural gas rig. Behr stripped the man and stuffed his clothes into plastic bags while the hospital sounded alarms and locked down the ER. The worker was released. But a few days later Behr lay in critical condition facing multiple organ failure. Her doctors searched for details that could save their patient. The substance was a drill stimulation fluid called ZetaFlow, but the only information the rig workers provided was a vague Material Safety Data Sheet, a form required by OSHA. Doctors wanted to know precisely what chemicals make up ZetaFlow and in what concentration. But the MSDS listed that information as proprietary. Behr's doctor learned, weeks later, after Behr had begun to recuperate, what ZetaFlow was made of, but he was sworn to secrecy by the chemical's manufacturer and couldn't even share the information with his patient. News of Behr's case spread to New York and Pennsylvania, amplifying the cry for disclosure of drilling fluids. The energy industry braced for a fight. "A disclosure to members of the public of detailed information... would result in an unconstitutional taking of [Halliburton's] property," the company told Colorado's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. "A number of studies have concluded there are no confirmed incidents of contamination of drinking water aquifers due to stimulation operations... EPA reached precisely this conclusion after undertaking an extensive study." Then Halliburton fired a major salvo: If lawmakers forced the company to disclose its recipes, the letter stated, it "will have little choice but to pull its proprietary products out of Colorado." The company's attorneys warned that if the three big fracking companies left, they would take some $29 billion in future gas-related tax and royalty revenue with them over the next decade. In August the industry struck a compromise by agreeing to reveal the chemicals in fracturing fluids to health officials and regulators -- but the agreement applies only to chemicals stored in 50 gallon drums or larger. As a practical matter, drilling workers in Colorado and Wyoming said in interviews that the fluids are often kept in smaller quantities. That means at least some of the ingredients won't be disclosed. "They'll never get it," says Bruce Baizel, a Colorado attorney with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, about the states' quest for information. "Not unless they are willing to go through a lawsuit. When push comes to shove Halliburton is there with its attorneys." Asked for comment, Halliburton would only say that its business depended on protecting such information. Schlumberger and BJ Services, the two other largest fracturing companies, did not return calls for comment. Lee Fuller, vice-president for government relations at The Independent Petroleum Association of America, said the oil and gas industry's reluctance to release information about drilling chemicals is to be expected. "These operations are ones where companies have spent millions of dollars," he says. "They are not going to want to give up that competitive advantage. So I would fully expect that they will try to protect that right as long as they possibly can." Abraham Lustgarten is an investigative reporter for ProPublica <http://www.propublica.org/> , an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces journalism in the public interest. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/message/207;_ylc=X3oDMTMzYmwzZ TIwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRtc2dJZ AMyMDcEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4BHRwY0lkAzIwNw--> (1) Reply (via web post) <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwbzJzNTFrBF9T Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRtc2dJZAMyMDcE c2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4?act=reply&messageNum=207> | Start a new topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaTdibTVnBF9T Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNs awNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyMjcyMzg1Njg-> Messages <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN3JrY2x2 BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRy BHNsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjcyMzg1Njg-> | Files <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZjI4bDFsBF9 TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHN sawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4> | Photos <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcjQ2NzQ4BF 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBH NsawNwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEyMjcyMzg1Njg-> | Links <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOWFycDF1BF9 TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHN sawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4> | Database <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJkMThudWht BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRy BHNsawNkYgRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4> | Polls <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnam8xdDhrBF9 TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHN sawNwb2xscwRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4> | Members <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZXF1YjZmB F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyB HNsawNtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjcyMzg1Njg-> | Calendar <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOHI2aXZ0 BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRy BHNsawNjYWwEc3RpbWUDMTIyNzIzODU2OA--> MARKETPLACE ________________________________ >From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13r2lotse/M=493064.12016295.13271503.108355 68/D=groups/S=1705365392:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1227245768/L=/B=qv9VAkLaX.g-/J =1227238568676264/A=5530388/R=0/SIG=11nuutlas/*http:/explore.yahoo.com/g roups/kraftmealsmadesimple/> Yahoo! Groups <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlM2lxcDE3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkA zIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTIyN zIzODU2OA--> Change settings via the Web <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbW1hb25qBF9T Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNs awNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest <mailto:wvec-board-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Di gest> | Switch format to Traditional <mailto:wvec-board-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery %20Format:%20Traditional> Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGRsMm1lBF9TAzk3M zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNoc GYEc3RpbWUDMTIyNzIzODU2OA--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe <mailto:wvec-board-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=> Recent Activity * 1 New Members <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbDA3ZWs3B F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDdnRsB HNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMjI3MjM4NTY4> Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board;_ylc=X3oDMTJmajdndW1xBF9TAzk3M zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z 2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyMjcyMzg1Njg-> Yahoo! News Get it all here <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13oti1sho/M=493064.12016309.12445701.867457 8/D=groups/S=1705365392:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1227245768/L=/B=q_9VAkLaX.g-/J=12 27238568676264/A=3848627/R=0/SIG=10obc6i69/*http:/news.yahoo.com/> Breaking news to entertainment news Sell Online Start selling with <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o32tqef/M=493064.12016255.12445662.867457 8/D=groups/S=1705365392:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1227245768/L=/B=rP9VAkLaX.g-/J=12 27238568676264/A=4025291/R=0/SIG=12bsapn24/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44 092/*http:/smallbusiness.yahoo.com/merchant> our award-winning e-commerce tools. All-Bran Day 10 Club <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o7vri8j/M=493064.12016283.12445687.867457 8/D=groups/S=1705365392:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1227245768/L=/B=rf9VAkLaX.g-/J=12 27238568676264/A=5202317/R=0/SIG=11aijbghb/*http:/new.groups.yahoo.com/a llbrangroup> on Yahoo! Groups Feel better with fiber. . Web Bug from http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=21584041/grpspId=1705365392/m sgId=207/stime=1227238568/nc1=3848627/nc2=4025291/nc3=5202317<http://www .mailscanner.tv/1x1spacer.gif> __,_._,___

1 0

FW: Annual WV Environmental Council (WVEC) Fall Benefit
by Grubb, Karen 20 Nov '08

20 Nov '08

From: WVEC - Don Alexander [mailto:paradox@spectrumz.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:03 PM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: Annual WV Environmental Council (WVEC) Fall Benefit West Virginia Environmental Council Memo November 20, 2008 WVEC Alerts Archive <http://www.wvecouncil.org/take_action/index.html> ________________________________ Annual WV Environmental Council (WVEC) Fall Benefit When? Tuesday, November 25th >From 6:30 PM - 10:00 PM Where? The Empty Glass (now smoke-free) 410 Elizabeth Street, Charleston What? Live Music by Kodac Harrison from Atlanta and other local talent! Please come, visit with friends, have fun, and support the goals and mission of the West Virginia Environmental Council! A donation of whatever you can afford is appreciated at the door. An Auction will also take place featuring an array of interesting items. Refreshments will be served. Hope to see you there! ________________________________ Don Alexander <mailto:paradox@spectrumz.com> WVEC E-mail List Coordinator Subscribe or Unsubscribe Online <http://www.wvecouncil.org/take_action/index.html>

1 0

FW: PATH resources updated on my site
by Grubb, Karen 20 Nov '08

20 Nov '08

From: Tina Rappaport [mailto:tinazipp@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:09 PM To: Bill Howley (PATH) Cc: Connie McColley; Crystal Yoak; Dave Martin - Mountain Institute; James Kotcon (Sierra Club); Jane Doyle; Justin Honey; Grubb, Karen; Norma; Patsy Buvoltz; Sarah (from Spencer); Steve Gormezano; Tom & Connie; tinazipp(a)gmail.com Subject: PATH resources updated on my site Hi Bill, (and everyone else on my personal powerline list so far) http://urparamount.com/PATH-Powerline/ We now have an email sign up form, so we can all send out messages and notices as we see fit. I'll send out messages for all of us involved, if you send me the copy you want sent - of course after we accumulate names!! I've also redone the PATH Petition to include emails (and county) and then to be sent to me so I can enter the emails into the new database before sending the petitions on to either Steve or whomever. Note all the new links on the bottom and send me additional links as you see fit. I will be reorganizing the links soon. Are there any other ways we can make this page useful to all of us involved? By the way - some of the sales info (from my regular site) will be removed soon - my brilliant "webmaster-son" is creating a new "behind the scenes system" to turn on and off various sections. It will be helpful for everyone getting this email to actually sign up through the link above to make it onto the new, big database list. Thanks all! All suggestions welcome! My best always, Tina Rappaport www.URparamount.com <http://www.urparamount.com/> 304-655-0003 Tina(a)URparamount.com

1 0

FW: Obama Energy & Environment Policy Transition Team
by Grubb, Karen 20 Nov '08

20 Nov '08

I sent in my comments and thought you might like to participate. From: John Podesta, Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team [mailto:autoresponse@esmtp.change.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:48 PM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: Take a look Obama-Biden Transition Team <http://www.change.gov/page/m2/3855d437/685439c3/2b90a01a/5e6bcbae/35318 17867/VEsH/> Dear Karen, 62 days. That's how much time we have left to prepare for the Obama-Biden Administration that will bring the change Americans demanded so strongly in this past election. President-elect Obama has set a high bar for the Transition team: to execute the most efficient, organized, and transparent transfer of power in American history. As a co-Chair for the Transition, I want to tell you about a few steps we've already taken to achieve this goal. First, we adopted the strictest ethics guidelines ever applied to any transition team. President-elect Obama pledged to change the way Washington works, and that begins with shifting influence away from special interests and restoring it to the everyday Americans who are passionate about fixing the problems facing our country. Opening up the Transition means listening to your ideas and stories and providing a window into how the process works. To give you a look at how we're approaching some of the nation's most pressing issues, we filmed this meeting of our Energy and Environment Policy Transition Team and interviewed team member Heather Zichal. Watch the video and submit your ideas on energy and the environment: <http://www.change.gov/page/m2/3855d437/685439c3/2b90a01a/5e6bcbad/35318 17867/VEsE/> Watch the video <http://www.change.gov/page/m2/3855d437/685439c3/2b90a01a/5e6bcbad/35318 17867/VEsF/> President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden have set an ambitious agenda, and we are going to make Change.gov <http://www.change.gov/page/m2/3855d437/685439c3/2b90a01a/5e6bcbac/35318 17867/VEsC/> a source of information, as well as a place to participate in the decisions being made about your government. Since the decisions we're making affect all Americans, we're counting on citizens from every walk of life to get involved. You can help us right now by making sure your friends and neighbors know about Change.gov <http://www.change.gov/page/m2/3855d437/685439c3/2b90a01a/5e6bcbac/35318 17867/VEsD/> and give their input, too. We're continuing to develop new ways to open up the process, and we'll keep you posted along the way. Thanks, John John Podesta Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team Content copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. This email was sent to: karen.grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.change.gov/unsubscribe <http://www.change.gov/page/m2/3855d437/685439c3/2b90a01a/5e6bcbab/35318 17867/VEsA/> <http://www.change.gov/page/o2/3855d437/685439c3/2b90a01a/5e6bcbaa/35318 17867/open.gif>

2 1

First Reserve Corporation's BLUE SOURCE
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Goldman Takes Stake in Blue Source SustainableBusiness.com News, October 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS) has purchased a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a U.S. developer of carbon credits from greenhouse gas reduction project, according to a release issued yesterday by the two companies. The size of the equity stake and the purchase price were not disclosed. However, Reuters reported that a source close to the deal said the stake is less than 10%. Through the collaboration, Goldman Sachs will structure and market a broad range of verified emissions reductions (VERs) resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction projects in Blue Source's portfolio, including those associated with methane management from coal mining, wastewater treatment, landfills and animal waste; energy efficiency; carbon capture and sequestration from fertilizer and natural gas production; and industrial gas destruction. Goldman Sachs aims to bring the reductions to a market increasingly eager to engage in a low carbon economy. In addition, Goldman Sachs gains tools to help its clients manage GHG-related risks in both the voluntary and pre-compliance carbon markets. Furthermore, the recently announced _joint venture _ (http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16627) between Blue Source and certain affiliated investment funds of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC (NYSE:OZM) provides a competitive source of funding to identify, develop and manage emission-related investments, thereby supporting the growth of Blue Source's offset portfolio. "Combining the market reach and trading capabilities of Goldman Sachs with the project development skills and supply position of Blue Source is not only a winning combination, but an important step in the development of the North American carbon market," said Bill Townsend, CEO of Blue Source. "This unique agreement is the next step for Blue Source as the US carbon market evolves from voluntary to compliance. We have been able to develop a high-quality portf olio of independently verified emission reductions from projects based in North America, and this new alliance creates an exceptional opportunity to reach a broad range of offset buyers through a highly experienced and well-trusted institution." "Goldman Sachs is committed to leveraging the first-mover position of Blue Source and its extensive experience and relationships to provide best-in-class risk management to North American voluntary and compliance buyers," said Leslie Biddle, Global Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman Sachs. "Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the US is growing rapidly and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk." About Goldman Sachs The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company that provides a wide range of services worldwide to a diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high net worth individuals. Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other major financial centers around the world. About Blue Source, LLC Blue Source offers businesses multiple approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. Blue Source provides access to capital to fund project development, works with companies on developing projects and oversees production of long-term Verified Emission Reductions (VERs). Blue Source is a portfolio company of First Reserve Corporation, a leading private equity investor in the energy industry, who since 2006 has been a major equity partner in the company, and certain affiliated investment funds of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC. Blue Source has offices in Salt Lake City, Utah; Calgary, Alberta; Houston; Denver, Colo.; Raleigh, N.C.; San Francisco; and New York. Website: _http://www.ghgworks.com/_ (http://www.ghgworks.com/) Source of News: _http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17025_ (http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17025) **************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red… p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)

1 0

Fw: Texas Environmentalists Praise By-the-Mile Auto Insurance Option - Innovative Insurance Policy Reduces Premiums, Congestion and Air Pollution
by Jim Sconyers 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:20:52 PM Subject: Texas Environmentalists Praise By-the-Mile Auto Insurance Option - Innovative Insurance Policy Reduces Premiums, Congestion and Air Pollution Hi Folks, This is something that some of you may be able to pick up and run with. It's a very important subtle way to shift rewards to less driving. Consumer activists should support this, but they may need some hand-holding to understand why it is valuable. Overcomes regressive insurance practices, incentivizes less driving, all the benefits of reduced driving. This has the same effect a carbon tax would. Pay at the Pump insurance would be better, but maybe this is a step in that direction. - Ned ________________________________ From: PTI Sustainability Members List To: SUSTAINABILITY(a)DISCUSSIONS.PTI.ORG Sent: Mon Nov 17 12:55:01 2008 Subject: Texas Environmentalists Praise By-the-Mile Auto Insurance Option - Innovative Insurance Policy Reduces Premiums, Congestion and Air Pollution: Dear Council members: Interesting idea....................... TexasEnvironmentalists Praise By-the-Mile Auto Insurance Option - Innovative Insurance Policy Reduces Premiums, Congestion and Air Pollution: Environmental Defense Fund, November 12, 2008 http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8801 Texans will become the first in the nation to have a “by-the-mile” choice of auto insurance that gives drivers the opportunity to save money while also protecting the environment. MileMeter recently launched a pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) insurance program that will reward low-mileage drivers with lower premiums than traditional, flat-rate insurance. A Brookings Institution report released in July estimates that if PAYD were offered to all drivers, it would save two-out-of-three households an average of $270 per car, result in an 8 percent decline in driving, reduce driving-related damages by $50 billion to $60 billion, and cut carbon dioxide emissions and oil consumption. Thanks, Ronda Ronda Mosley Senior Director for Research and Government Services 937 667 4142 rmosley(a)pti.org www.pti.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

2 1

EPA decision on coal plants could affect W.Va.
by Jim Sconyers 14 Nov '08

14 Nov '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "jim_scon(a)yahoo.com" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:56:36 AM Subject: [ Email Story ] EPA decision on coal plants could affect W.Va. jim_scon(a)yahoo.com sent you this article ----- November 13, 2008 EPA decision on coal plants could affect W.Va. By Ken Ward Jr. Staff writer The Bush administration has offered no valid legal reason to not limit greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants, a federal environmental appeals board ruled Thursday. Read more ----- EPA one step closer to requiring CO2 controls for new power plants.

1 0

Fwd: Fw: "Ruling: Coal Plants Must Limit C02"
by James Kotcon 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

It never rains, but it pours. In addition to the PA-PUC decision earlier today, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board issued this decision today in a case where Sierra Club appealed an air permit for the Deseret coal-fired power plant in Utah, on the grounds that the permit did not include limits on CO2 emissions. While the decision goes against the Club on several counts, it does conclude that EPA MUST include a BACT analysis in air permits for coal-fired power plants. It includes some interesting language that states that, because the Utah Chapter had raised the CO2 issue in its original comments (even before the May 2007 Supreme Court ruling that CO2 was a pollutant subject to regulation by EPA), EPA was obliged to consider CO2 in this permit. We have raised the CO2 issue in our comments on Longview, but I suspect that our settlement agreement precludes us from raising that issue here. However, we also cited the issue in our comments on TrAILCo power line, and we will certainly raise them with any new power plant. Hence, I think this is a pretty big decision with a lot of relevance for us in WV. Limits on CO2 will be inevitable for new power plants, and may be applicable to existing plants not too many years in the future JBK >>> Paula Carrell <Paula.Carrell(a)sierraclub.org> 11/13/2008 7:07 PM >>> ----- Forwarded by Paula Carrell/Sierraclub on 11/13/2008 04:06 PM ----- Christina Yagjian/Sierraclub 11/13/2008 03:49 PM November 13, 2008 Contact: Virginia Cramer, 804-225-9113 x 102 Ruling: Coal Plants Must Limit C02 In a move that signals the start of the our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions. “Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy,” said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. “This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America.” “The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century,” continued Spalding The decision follows a 2007 Supreme Court ruling recognizing carbon dioxide, the principle source of global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act. “Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. “Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric.” The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. “Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover,” said Nilles. To get background information and see how the case unfolded visit www.sierraclub.org/coal/plantlist.asp A copy of the decision can be found here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/PSD%20Permit%20Appeals%20(CAA… (Embedded image moved to file: pic31322.gif) Christina Marie Yagjian National Conservation Organizer Sierra Club, Global Warming and Energy 202.675.7911

1 0

Fwd: [Pa-transmission] PA PUC approves portion of TrAILCo project
by James Kotcon 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

>>> <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> 11/13/2008 1:25 PM >>> In case you haven't seen this--- bad news on the TrAILCo line. The 1.2-mile portion was the important part. Elena K. Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 2nd St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax) ----- Forwarded by Elena Saxonhouse/Sierraclub on 11/13/2008 10:21 AM ----- "Ginny Kreitler" <g.kreitler(a)comcast.net> Sent by: pa-transmission-bounces(a)lists.conserveland.org 11/13/2008 08:28 AM Please respond to PA Transmission Listserv <pa-transmission(a)lists.conserveland.org> To "listserve" <pa-transmission(a)lists.conserveland.org> cc Subject [Pa-transmission] PA PUC approves portion of TrAILCo project The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today approved an agreement that allows a 1.2-mile portion of the 37.2-mile transmission line proposed by the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. (TrAILCo) and stays the remainder of the proceeding for further consideration. More details below. PUC OKs Portion of TrAILCo Transmission Line, Establishes Collaborative Process for Other Issues November 13, 2008 HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today approved an agreement that allows a 1.2-mile portion of the 37.2-mile transmission line proposed by the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. (TrAILCo) and stays the remainder of the proceeding for further consideration. The Commission voted 4-1 to adopt a motion by PUC Chairman James H. Cawley that approves the 1.2-mile Pennsylvania segment of the 502 Substation to Loudoun line. Vice Chairman Tyrone J. Christy dissented. In a separate motion by Chairman Cawley, the Commission voted 3-2 to stay the remainder of the proposal and directed the active parties in the case to establish a collaborative process to discuss and develop possible alternatives regarding the remainder of the line. Vice Chairman Christy and Commissioner Wayne E. Gardner dissented. Audio of the PUC meeting is available here. “In approving the 502 Junction Facilities, it is important to note the seriousness this Commission attaches to regional reliability,” Chairman Cawley said in a statement. “We approved this project despite Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) policies that currently discourage regional cooperation. FERC policies make all PJM customers pay equally for major backbone transmission projects, independent of who actually benefits. More sound policies would rationally allocate most costs to beneficiaries, while allocating a smaller portion to all customers given the long term uncertainty and overall grid-wide reliability benefits of a well interconnected grid.” “As a PUC Commissioner, balancing the interests of the public with that of our utilities is my primary responsibility,” said Vice Chairman Tyrone J. Christy in his dissenting statement. “It is clear that customers in western Pennsylvania will receive little in return for the siting of these lines in their back yards except upward pressure on the price they will pay for generation and transmission. Only the stockholders, generation owners and perhaps customers in eastern PJM will benefit. I can not support a project that imposes all of the costs and none of the benefits on one segment of the public. I would like to make it clear that my comments should not suggest that I am opposed to the construction of new, large, high-voltage electric transmission projects in the Commonwealth. Transmission line siting cases present two fundamental issues to this Commission - whether the need for the line exists; and, whether the proposed route is the best of all alternatives considered. It is painfully apparent from the record that TrAILCo did not come close to meeting its burden of proof in this case on either count.” “There is a great need to improve the infrastructure of this Commonwealth and our country,” said Commissioner Robert F. Powelson in a statement. “This need extends well past improving our roads and bridges, but also to the facilities that transmit our necessary public utility services to us whether they be gas or water mains, telephone cables or electric transmission facilities. As a nation, the United States spends less than 2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product on infrastructure, compared to China, which spends 9 percent and India, which spends 6 percent. As policymakers, we play an important role in reversing this historic failure to invest, and that role starts with approving projects such as these.” Commissioner Kim Pizzingrilli made a statement from the bench. Commissioner Gardner also issued a statement. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission balances the needs of consumers and utilities to ensure safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates; protect the public interest; educate consumers to make independent and informed utility choices; further economic development; and foster new technologies and competitive markets in an environmentally sound manner. For recent news releases, audio of select Commission proceedings or more information about the PUC, visit our Web site at www.puc.state.pa.us. _______________________________________________ Pa-transmission mailing list Pa-transmission(a)lists.conserveland.org http://lists.conserveland.org/mailman/listinfo/pa-transmission To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.conserveland.org/mailman/listinfo/pa-transmission or email info(a)conserveland.org with the subject line UNSUBSCRIBE - TRANSMISSION LISTSERV.

1 0

Fw: [ Email Story ] Obama expected to tighten coal regulations
by Jim Sconyers 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

jim_scon(a)yahoo.com sent you this article ----- November 9, 2008 Obama expected to tighten coal regulations By Ken Ward Jr. Staff writer CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Coal industry watchdogs are looking for Obama to reverse Bush administration rule changes, beef up enforcement, and put the nation's first ever limits on carbon dioxide from power plants. Read more ----- forward it

1 0

Fw: The Obama Agenda
by Jim Sconyers 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

The timing couldn't be more propitious for the "Green New Deal" espoused by Van Jones. The perfect marriage of Keynesian economics ( the answer in depression), renewed infrastructure, good job creation, and energy solutions. No time to be timid. Krugman on "the Obama agenda" below. Question: How do we make it work in WV? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net> To: Undisclosed Recipients <fslider(a)verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:25:10 AM Subject: re: The Obama Agenda The Obama Agenda By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: November 7, 2008 Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you. Skip to next paragraph Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times Paul Krugman But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can. Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform. Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice. About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign. Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won. Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce. This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate. What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable? Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes. But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011. Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda. Now, the Obama administration shouldn’t emulate the Bush administration’s habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help — let’s cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work — let’s do some more!) But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer. And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump. So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs. The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself. More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on November 7, 2008, on page A35 of the New York edition. Past Coverage * ECONOMIC SCENE; Top Priority Is Stabilizing the Patient (November 6, 2008) * A Towering Economic To-Do List for Obama (November 6, 2008) * NEWS ANALYSIS; For Obama, Long-Term Ills and Short-Term Pain (November 6, 2008) * Obama Aides Tamp Down Expectations (November 6, 2008)

1 0

Fw: Al Gore Group Urges Obama To Create US Power Grid | CommonDreams.org
by Jim Sconyers 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Fred Heutte <phred(a)SUNLIGHTDATA.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:45:51 AM Subject: Re: Al Gore Group Urges Obama To Create US Power Grid | CommonDreams.org I have said this before so let me go through the basic points once more. The yearning for a "national grid" is the triumph of slogans over substance from well-meaning people. But in addition, there is a fleet of would-be financiers, construction, utility and power marketing deep thinkers who would love to make crazy money off the difference between physical rights and financial rights for long distance transmission under the guise of a national grid. Let me explain. Electric power transmission is effectively limited by the loss of power from resistive heating. Even at very high voltages -- 500 kilovolts (kv) and up, this means that with rare exceptions feasible transmission paths are about 800 miles or less. The longest transmission lines in the world, such as the two AC and one DC lines forming the Pacific Intertie from the Columbia River to southern California, exist because of special conditions. For example, the Intertie exists to accommodate "seasonal diversity exchange," where surplus spring and summer hydro from the Northwest is sent to California, and the energy is generally returned from surplus gas peaking capacity in the LA basin and other resources from this time in the winter through early spring. Planning for the Intertie was effectively in place in the late 1960s, -40- years ago. The longest Intertie path is just short of 1000 miles. The longest transmission line in the world, Inga-Shaba in Congo, is just slightly longer at 1,050 miles. It was constructed with Eximbank finance guarantees to promote copper and cobalt production in Katanga (and thus undermine the 1970s insurgency there), as a benefit to then-Zaire president Mobutu, who may have personally skimmed tens of millions of dollars from this project alone. The story is more complicated, but suffice it to say it was never economical and with the ongoing civil war in Congo, the line is basically permanently defunct. Very-high-voltage lines longer than about 600 to 800 miles are not feasible because they lose too much power (for AC lines) or synchronization costs too much (DC). For the AC Intertie lines, for example, power losses between the Columbia River and southern California range from 10% to 15%. When the Intertie is fully loaded (which is not very common), therefore, about 1,000 of its 8,000 megawatt capacity is lost due to resistive heating and other conditions. That's the equivalent of dropping two full-size coal, gas or hydro facilities over that distance. The only reason to do the Intertie was the special conditions prevailing with hydro variability between the winter and the summer in the Northwest. It was and is an appropriate exception to the rule for transmission distance (although it opened the Northwest to being clobbered through no fault of its own by California's catastrophic deregulation policy and the 2000-2001 power crisis that followed). It is absurd to think of generating solar power in Arizona or wind power in Montana and shipping it to Boston or Atlanta, which is the implicit promise of all the so-called national grid schemes. If this were tried, at least half the power would be lost over the transmission path. It isn't going to happen. Period. Proponents then quickly change the subject and start talking about advanced transmission technology to overcome resistive heating and other technical issues. They usually refer to superconductivity (and other variants). Certainly this is a way to decrease resistive losses, but the problem is that superconductive transmission line development has been in the labs for 40 years and will be there another couple decades barring a miraculous leap. There are other issues with a "national grid" as well, such as voltage regulation and phase synchronization, but I'll skip the details since I'm not a power engineer to begin with and there are plenty of resources on this around the Internet. Thus, it is no surprise that no new Intertie-length transmission lines have been built in the US since the 1970s, nor will there be in any foreseeable future, much less the backbone for a "national grid." We can't do it and we don't need it, since plenty of renewables exist in -all- regions to serve those regions over much shorter distances. Instead, I want to talk about the real motivation for the "national grid" concept, which is a combination of greed and power. Specifically, the greed comes from Wall Street and business interests who want to create a national system of financial rights for transmission and link the regional grids together -as if- they are a unified physical entity. This ignores the reality of voltage loss and lack of physical transmission paths and costs, of course, and would create yet another electric power casino for hot money to go and yield big quick profits and create grand market distortions, as happened on a smaller geographic scale in California and the west in 2000-2001 and on a lower but chronic level in the existing regional transmission organizations today (NEISO, NYISO, PJM, MISO and CAISO), where physical rights and financial rights at least have some bearing on each other. The current transmission policy at the federal level as promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission claims to produce four results: (1) lower costs; (2) higher reliability; (3) investment in new transmission where needed; and (4) greater accountability and transparency. In reality, the RTOs do none of those. Instead, they permit utilities and marketers to make more money by selling power over longer distances while increasing congestion, raising prices and decreasing reliability, while hiding behind "stakeholder" process games. The answer to these problems is to make the RTOs more complicated. For example, the California ISO MRTU (Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade) will basically add a bunch more features to the California power pool and lots of fancy and complicated software, while putting handcuffs on renewable energy development. Naturally, it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the project is already far over budget and years late. Yet the "primitive" west coast bilateral power market just hums along as it has for 20 years, filling power and transmission needs and keeping prices at a reasonable level. (The bilateral market wasn't intended for planning, however, so that is a big gap that should be filled.) We need real reform of federal electric transmission law. We need national standards for reliability and transmission sales that do not handcuff electric customers to a one-size-fits-all rigged market to benefit generators, transmission operators and speculators. We need to shorten the distance of physical and financial transmission deals, and we need to direct new transmission funding to where the renewable resources are, and keep the new lines away from high- impact lands and habitats. The answer is -not- to move toward a "national grid" which will go the next step toward beyond the ill-begotten "energy corridors" of the 2005 Energy Act in completely suppressing even poorly run state siting authority. The answer is also not to give in to Southern Co. and others who want to use the existing fragmentary and weak state siting process to lock in permanent dependence on coal. What we need is federal transmission policy reform that: (1) creates strong regional planning bodies that unlike RTOs do -not- operate transmission markets; and (2) provide national standards for reliability and environmental protection and renewable development while allowing regional flexibility. Neither a national nor a local focus is appropriate for transmission planning: the regional level, which is the natural and economically defined limit of transmission systems, is the right level. The "national grid" as presently envisioned will strip states of siting authority, proceed with new transmission corridors that override even federal law in some circumstances (already happened in the Energy Act of 2005), assign quasi-governmental authority, including the authority to override state jurisdiction, to private entities, the RTOs (already happened in 2005), rely on "the market" to make decisions about investment in new transmission with no reference to studies of need and environmental value and impacts (a system that has already failed at the regional level), and make short-term power and transmission market pools supreme over other market forms (including well-functioning bilateral markets) as well as avoid the hard work needed for transmission capacity assessment, planning and siting. In the words of my geek friends, the "national grid" poses a potential "epic fail." Unless we define "national grid" very differently than I have seen out there from any number of sources. fh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Regina Hendrix has sent you a message from truthout
by regina1936＠verizon.net 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

1 0

The RAND Corporation reports.............
by duane330＠aol.com 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

RAND study warns of liquid coal problems By Ken?Ward Jr., Staff writer, Charleston Gazette, November 5, 2008 CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Alternative sources of fossil fuels such as coal-to-liquids technologies have "significant economic promise," but also major environmental challenges, according to a recent study by the RAND Corp. Turning coal into liquid fuel could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, and the costs of reducing those emissions might make the process too costly, according to the study by RAND's Environment, Energy and Economic Development Program. "Because the potential environmental impacts are considerable, decision makers need to assess the economic and other benefits of alternative fuels relative to these environmental concerns," said Mike Toman, lead author of the report. The report, issued last month, analyzes coal-to-liquids fuels along with Canadian oil sands technologies, considers possible impacts of fuel costs from carbon dioxide limits and compares the costs of these alternative fuels to projected conventional petroleum prices in 2025. In West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin is pushing for coal-to-liquids plants. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has been running campaign ads to say that the state's coal miners "will free us from foreign oil." But many energy experts are worried that liquid coal creates perhaps twice as much carbon dioxide as traditional gasoline. Liquid coal would produce greenhouse gases when the fuel is made, and then again when it is burned. Producing liquid fuel from oil sands poses similar problems, and - like coal mining - can harm local water quality and cause large-scale disturbances of land. The RAND study found that liquid coal and oil sands "do not, in themselves, offer a path to greatly reduced [carbon dioxide] emissions, though there are additional possibilities for limiting emissions." RAND found that even when carbon dioxide emissions from fuel production are captured and stored, "life-cycle emissions of [carbon dioxide] for these alternative fuels are comparable to those of conventional fuels." "Large-scale production of these unconventional fuels does not reduce emissions of CO2," the RAND study said. RAND said the future cost of liquid coals could "be reasonably competitive" with conventional petroleum, provided that: Oil prices do not fall back to pre-2006 levels; there are further improvements in coal-to-liquids technology as production volumes grow; and carbon dioxide limits do not impose "too large a cost burden on liquid fuels from coal relative to conventional fuels." "Since major investments in coal-to-liquids become more likely if environmentally sound carbon capture and storage can be commercialized at relatively low cost, the future expansion of this fuel source will be strongly influenced by future private sector and government initiatives to support such commercialization," Toman said. "However, even with carbon capture and storage deployed, neither alternative fuel offers a path toward large long-term reductions in total carbon dioxide emissions to limit climate change," Toman added. "There will still be a need to develop lower-carbon fuel options, such as fuel synthesized from a mixture of coal and sustainably grown biomass." RAND is a nonprofit research organization "providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world." Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...(a)wvgazette.com or 348-1702. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2772241.html

1 0

Longview's Acid Rain Permit
by duane330＠aol.com 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

=========================================================== Thursday, November 6, 2008 @ 3:31 PM =========================================================== NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT/PROPOSED ACID RAIN PERMIT Under Phase II of the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR 72 and 45CSR33), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) proposes to approve a Phase II Acid Rain Permit, R33-56671-2013-1, for Unit 001 at Longview Power LLC’s Longview Power facility located near Morgantown, West Virginia. Longview Power is not eligible to receive sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance allocations from the U.S. EPA under 40 CFR part 73, but may acquire allowances from other sources. This unit is still obligated to hold SO2 allowances as required under and in accordance with 40 CFR §72.9(c)(1). One allowance authorizes the unit to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide. The permit does not affect Longview Power’s responsibility to meet all other existing local, state and federal requirements related to SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. The Designated Representative for Longview Power is Mr. Charles Huguenard of Longview Power LLC, 306 Dents Run Road, Morgantown, WV 26501. All written comments submitted by the public and affected state(s) pursuant to this notice must be received by the DAQ within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this notice. Under the Direct proposed procedures of 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(v), if no significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be deemed issued on the publication date of this notice or from the date the USEPA receives this draft/proposed permit, whichever is later. Written comments submitted by the USEPA must be received by the DAQ within forty-five (45) days from such date. If significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be issued in accordance with 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(iv). In the event that the 30th//45th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the comment period will be extended until 5:00 p.m. on the following regularly scheduled business day. Copies of the Draft/Proposed Permit may be downloaded from the DAQ's web site at the following address: http://www.wvdep.org/daq The Draft/Proposed Permit and the Administrative Record, except information protected as confidential, are available for public review at the following location(s) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Contact: Frederick Tipane (304) 926-0499 ext. 1215 OR WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality North Central Regional Office 2031 Pleasant Valley Road, Suite #1 Fairmont, WV 26554-9295 (304) 368-3910 Send comments, and/or requests for a public hearing to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality, at the above Charleston address. Submit all comments in duplicate and identify the permit to which the comments apply. The submission shall include the commenter’s name and address, the commenter’s interest in this matter and the affiliation, if any, the commenter has to the owner or operator of the unit(s) covered by the permit. All relevant, timely comments will be considered except for those pertaining to any standard requirement under 40 CFR §72.9 and issues not related to the permit, such as the environmental effects of acid rain or permit issuance procedures or actions on other permit applications not relevant to the issuance or denial of the permit. Any person who requests a public hearing must state the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. If the DAQ finds that a hearing will contribute to the decision making process by clarifying significant issues affecting the draft/proposed permit, a hearing will be announced.

1 0

Fw: Bottle bill as climate response
by Jim Sconyers 06 Nov '08

06 Nov '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2008 12:40:37 AM Subject: Bottle bill as climate response I don't normally bother with petitions, but we really need a national bottle bill as part of a climate response. The petition is just a token effort, but it might be something that some of you can pass along. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-a-national-bottle-bill If you want to know a whole lot more about bottle bills, go to http://www.container-recycling.org/ A national bottle bill would be a free way to create 100,000 new jobs, recycle about 1.5 billion containers every year, and save a percent or so of our national energy each year. 14 states have bottle bills and nothing industry has ever said to oppose this legislation is true. - Ned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fw: Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mt licensing process
by Jim Sconyers 04 Nov '08

04 Nov '08

Do we want to sign on to this? BTW/FYI - WVSC was a leader in the early 90s, getting, in effect, a ban on nuke power in WV through the WV legislature. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Jane Feldman <janefeldman(a)EARTHLINK.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 4:36:08 PM Subject: FW: Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mt licensing process For more than a decade DOE has been conducting studies and preparing to seek a license to construct a repository at Yucca Moun For your information and the action of your home organizations. Jane Las Vegas ________________________________ From:Michael Mariotte [mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:11 PM To: janefeldman(a)earthlink.net Subject: Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mt licensing process Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mountain licensing process November 3, 2008 Dear Friends, Below is a letter we intend to send in mid-November to the NRC Commissioners and relevant members of Congress. It describes some of the many problems associated with the Department of Energy’s application to the NRC for licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain , Nevada , radioactive waste dump, and particularly the difficulties this process has placed on potential intervenors and everyone interested in this issue. The license application itself is massive, and incomplete. New information submitted by the DOE since their initial application already has changed that application. Yet the NRC is plowing along with the process, and sticking with its deadlines, as if it weren’t already a complete mockery of public participation and fairness. We hope you’ll sign onto this letter by November 15, 2008. To sign on your organization, send your name, organization name, city and state to nirsnet(a)nirs.org. Individual sign-ons are also welcome to the same address. Thanks for all you do! Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service Chairman Dale E. Klein Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko Commissioner Peter B. Lyons Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dear Commissioners: For more than a decade DOE has been conducting studies and preparing to seek a license to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain . During the time of Site Characterization technical exchanges were held between NRC and DOE to determine the most important questions to be addressed and answered regarding the suitability and safety of a proposed repository. All of this was being done, we were told, in order to make a sound suitability determination and to insure that an eventual license application would be thorough and complete. During the last several years the DOE has been postponing or abdicating their responsibility to uphold agreements made with the NRC and others regarding providing information and technical or scientific study results. As dates were moved ahead for deadlines to make information available, NRC and the public were finally assured that everything would be provided at the time of License Application (LA) and that the application itself would be of high quality and complete. Knowing that various studies had not been finished at the time that the application was submitted in June 2008, many of us raised complaints about the completeness of the application and about DOE’s certification of its document collection posted on the Licensing Support Network (LSN). We were told by NRC officials both before and after receipt of the application that they would carefully review it and it would not be accepted or docketed if it was incomplete. NRC held a public meeting in Nevada to go through and explain their process in making these decisions and to tell us about timelines that would begin if the LA was docketed. After offering comment explaining our belief that DOE was not submitting a complete or high quality License Application, we could only wait for NRC to do its initial review and make its own decision. That decision was made and the LA was accepted, docketed and a Federal Register notice was posted in October 2008 beginning the clock for parties to participate in the licensing process by submitting contentions before a December 2008 deadline. Since submission of the LA, a series of new reports have come from DOE and also supplementation of their LSN collection. Most recently a revision of the repository design basis was released which will cause changes or supplements to the LA that was submitted in June and declared “complete.” Any party who intends to participate in licensing is now in the position of having to reassess contentions that have been written by carefully reading this large document and attempting to compare it to the more than 8,000 page LA to see what changed and how significant it is. All other parties involved in or concerned about Yucca Mountain are at a serious disadvantage to the agencies of the federal government, most especially the non- governmental public interest organizations. With very limited budgets and less capable computer equipment, we are trying to represent our members and the general public by participating in this project that will affect people throughout the country. The NRC licensing process financially excludes many groups and the DOE is difficult for even the most experienced people to deal with. We are attempting to stay up to date and on schedule to provide comment for several documents that are now out for public review and at the same time examining how, if at all possible, we can participate in upcoming Yucca Mountain licensing hearings. Trying to do all that, as DOE continually adds to or changes information to make up for omissions in its incomplete LA, is more than we should be expected to do. The NRC’s mission is to insure public safety and to regulate licensees, one of whom would be the DOE if a Yucca Mountain license is granted. In the current process, the NRC is far more accommodating to the DOE than it is to the public. If the DOE is allowed to toss in new information and updated documentation at will throughout the process, other parties and the public are put at an even more severe disadvantage. The actions of the DOE also place a heavier burden on the NRC but, as the regulator, it can make demands on the applicant regarding schedules and performance. If NRC condones these actions by this applicant, it appears to all of us that the process is unfair and has the appearance and the actual effect of intentionally putting the public at an overwhelming disadvantage. We ask that you take immediate steps to require the DOE to finalize all documents, designs, and issues that must be included in a complete and high quality LA. All matters that may be the subject of contentions must be available in final form so that the other parties have adequate time and a reasonable opportunity to examine the final application and supporting documents and write contentions within the allowed time. Sixty days are allowed for the submission of contentions after a Notice of Hearing is published. We ask that you reset that clock now, based on DOE’s practice of updating supporting LA documents, and at any future time that DOE significantly changes, updates, or supplements the LA. Telling us that we can play along by writing late contentions as we are able to learn more is not acceptable. Filing late contentions makes us players in a piecemeal process and increases our disadvantage. We ask that NRC put a stop to the DOE’s abuse of the process and instill public fairness for the benefit of all. Sincerely, Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service Takoma Park, MD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

3 2

FW: TrAIL - PATH resolution- final version
by Grubb, Karen 03 Nov '08

03 Nov '08

Here is a WVHC resolution against PATH and TrAIL. It should be in the next Highlands Voice.

1 0

Fwd: AP: Future Gen Update
by James Kotcon 31 Oct '08

31 Oct '08

Bad ideas, like Sauron, never truly die. JBK >>> Kathy Andria <kathyandria(a)GMAIL.COM> 10/31/2008 1:48 PM >>> Posted on Fri, Oct. 31, 2008 Coal plant backers see new hope in a new president By DAVID MERCER Associated Press Writer When the U.S. Department of Energy scrapped plans to build an experimental coal-fired power plant in a corn field outside Mattoon, citing ballooning costs, the project appeared dead. But an alliance of power and coal companies that had worked with the government on the project, dubbed FutureGen, stuck together. Their allies in Washington pulled strings to keep the project breathing - though just barely - long enough to let President Bush's successor consider it. Now the FutureGen Alliance, which chose Mattoon over a site in Texas, believes there is a good chance to revive plans to build the plant, which would test whether greenhouse gases could be stored underground instead of sent out smokestacks. "We're awaiting the change of administration, I'll put it that way," said Mike Mudd, chief executive of the FutureGen Alliance. Members talk regularly to policy experts on the campaign staffs for Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, pushing the idea that FutureGen should be a national priority, Mudd said. "The message that we have been delivering and will just ratchet up is that FutureGen at Mattoon is not just a public works project in Illinois," he said. Sen. Dick Durbin, one of the project's most vocal backers, said he believes Mattoon has a chance with either candidate, "perhaps a little better chance with Sen. Obama." Neither campaign responded to a request for comment from The Associated Press, but Obama and McCain repeatedly talked during their last televised debate about the merits of clean-coal technology to control carbon-dioxide emissions. Obama has expressed support for building FutureGen in his home state, while McCain and running-mate Sarah Palin have pledged to spend billions to develop technology to capture and stores the carbon from coal. That's what FutureGen, launched in 2003 by President Bush, was designed to do. But the plan - which called for building the plant at one site - was falling out of favor with the Energy Department even before Mudd announced in December that Mattoon, a town of 17,000 about 50 miles south of Champaign, had been selected. Then the DOE, which was going to cover 74 percent of the costs, scrapped the project in January, complaining that its projected price tag had increased from $950 million to $1.8 billion. But the project's backers rejected the cost argument, blaming Bush's Texas roots and the snub of two sites in that state. The agency later announced plans to spend $1.3 billion on carbon-capture technology at several still-to-be-selected sites around the country. DOE spokesman John Grasser said the agency is reviewing "several" bids from interested builders and plans to announce the next step for that project in December. Still, Mudd and Mattoon officials believe they could keep the original plan alive. Angela Griffin, the president of the local economic development group Coles Together, says FutureGen and its prospects come up at every business meeting. "Regardless of the nature of the meeting, it always comes up - 'Where are we? What are we doing? What can we expect with the next administration?'" she said. "We've had tremendous optimism in the county and in the region, frankly, for a new administration doing the right thing." One of the reasons they're optimistic is the support they've gotten from Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. Durbin, who complained bitterly that the decision to shelve the plan to build FutureGen at Mattoon was driven by Bush and other Texans in his administration, convinced the Senate Appropriations Committee to set aside more than $134 million in federal money for FutureGen into 2009. Durbin also threatened to block any nominations the president makes to the Energy Department through the end of Bush's term because of the administration's withdrawal from the project. "I think Sen. Durbin last summer made a very strong case in Illinois and Washington that this project was needed and that he was going to continue to watch what was happening and help," said John Mead, director of the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. "Coming from somebody in leadership, that means a lot. I think that's very important." The Illinois congressional delegation and the companies behind the project also gathered congressional and coal-industry allies in key coal states such as Wyoming and Kentucky. Project supporters and outside observers, like Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Howard Herzog, also note that the Mattoon site was already well into the planning stages when the DOE walked away. "The biggest reason I think that FutureGen mattered was it was the most advanced along the way, and I think there is some time urgency," said Herzog, who last year co-authored a study on the future of coal power. "We start hearing from the scientific community that we need to put the technologies in place sooner rather than later." On Oct. 20 the International Energy Agency said the world's most industrialized countries, including the United States, aren't doing nearly enough work on carbon-capture projects to make the technology viable. The agency, which makes energy policy recommendations for its 28 member countries, said the world needs 20 demonstration projects over the next decade. Even if a new president does revive FutureGen, it'll be years before it's up and running. That's why Durbin hopes FutureGen will be in the next president's first budget, something Congress typically gets its initial look at in February. And if all goes well, Mudd would like to start building in 2010 and have the plant running by 2013. Although environmentalists have mixed feelings on clean-coal technology, many say it's clear that coal is not going to disappear as a source of electricity. "Regardless of which candidate receives the majority of votes on November 4th, on November 5th the majority of the United States' electricity is still going to be coming from coal," said John Thompson, a Carbondale, Ill., resident and a member of the Massachusetts-based Clean Air Task Force. "If we don't change the way coal is used, it's gonna' kill us." Associated Press Writer Jim Suhr contributed to this article from St. Louis. (c) 2007 Belleville News-Democrat and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.belleville.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Re: [EC] New Report on Coal Costs
by Michael Price 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

1 0

Re: [EC] Fw: Please sign onto GNEP comment extension letter!
by Michael Price 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC