- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

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

06 Aug '10

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

1 0

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

04 Aug '10

I don't see anybody from WV on this Team. So I hope some of you will explore the SC Activist Network and join Team that you are interested in. cheers, paul w. http://connect.sierraclub.org/Team/Hydrofracking_Team -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fw: Renewables 2010 Global Status Report
by Jim Sconyers 04 Aug '10

04 Aug '10

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

1 0

Fwd: Great NYT piece on relative costs of nukes, solar, ee
by James Kotcon 03 Aug '10

03 Aug '10

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

1 0

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

03 Aug '10

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

1 0

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

02 Aug '10

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

1 0

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

01 Aug '10

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

1 0

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

31 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

31 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

30 Jul '10

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

2 1

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

27 Jul '10

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

2 1

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

26 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

24 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

20 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

17 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

16 Jul '10

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

2 2

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

16 Jul '10

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

2 1

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

15 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

13 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

11 Jul '10

This is a good read. I like the last two summary sentences: "What legacy will we leave? Will we continue to burn the furniture to heat the house?" ----- Original Message ----- From: clrank(a)hughes.net To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:23 AM Subject: [WVHCBOARD] Scientific American re: shale gas drilling July 9, 2010 | Scientific American Concerns Spread over Environmental Costs of Producing Shale Gas The extent to which utilities will burn natural gas to slash carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming is a national issue. But on the ground, where it's being produced, the issues become very local. By Joel Kirkland and ClimateWire: Concerns Spread over Environmental Costs of Producing Shale Gas The extent to which utilities will burn natural gas to slash carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming is a national issue. But on the ground, where it's being produced, the issues become very local. By Joel Kirkland and ClimateWire Pa., a geyser of natural gas and sludge began shooting out of a well called Punxsutawney Hunting Club 36. The toxic stew of gas, salt water, mud and chemicals went 75 feet into the air for 16 hours. Some of this mess seeped into a stream northeast of Pittsburgh. Four days later, as authorities were cleaning up the debris in Pennsylvania, an explosion burned seven workers at a gas well on the site of an abandoned coal mine outside of Moundsville, W.Va., just southwest of Pittsburgh. The back-to-back emergencies were like a five-alarm fire for John Hanger, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. For a brief moment, the cable news channels turned their attention away from the BP PLC oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico to the apparent trouble in the nation's expanding onshore natur al gas fields. The events added force to a tough public debate in Pennsylvania and New York and across northern Appalachia about how the environmental impacts of gas drilling balance against the economic benefits of gas and the role it could play in helping electric utilities transition to cleaner fuels. When used to fire up a power plant, natural gas produces less air pollutants and half of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by conventional coal plants. But extracting the gas from deep sedimentary rock and shipping it to consumers is an industrial process. It requires massive amounts of water and reliable cement and pipe jobs. It also has wastewater-disposal issues and generates air pollution. "This is a test for people in public life," Hanger says. "Do you get into public service to treat the gas industry fairly and protect our resources, or not? You don't have to choose between producing the gas and protecting our water." The extent to w hich U.S. utilities will burn natural gas to slash carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming is a national issue. But on the ground, where it's being produced, all politics is very local. Regulators 'over their heads and drowning'? Hanger is a contentious figure in Pennsylvania. He personifies the state's willingness, or lack thereof, to police drillers operating in the Marcellus Shale natural gas basin under Pennsylvania. At public forums where residents bring their environmental concerns, Hanger's name and the administration of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) attract a mixed bag of praise and frustration. "They need to admit that they're over their heads and drowning," says Jon Bogle, founder of the Responsible Drilling Alliance, a citizens group in northeastern Pennsylvania, the epicenter of Marcellus drilling activity so far t his year. "They are trying. They've toughened their position. They just don't have the personnel to do the job." To some residents, Hanger has shown in recent months he's serious about getting compliance from drillers by fining companies and forcing them to plug poorly constructed wells. To others, development is rapidly outpacing environmental safeguards. The geyser in Clearfield County, the fire in West Virginia and high-profile cases of groundwater contamination in Dimock, Pa., underscore their belief that regulators in the Northeast have been outmanned and outmaneuvered by a powerful industry imported from the friendlier confines of Fort Worth, Texas. "We're not running a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil regulatory apparatus here," Hanger responds. "We're working on rules and regulations that should have been addressed a decade ago." A hangover from the impacts of coal mining Pennsylvania's struggle with gas production is tied as closely to coal as it is to anything else. Coal mining is built into the social topography of Appalachia and the Ohio River Valley. Centuries of mining, from southern Illinois to the Allegheny Mountains, fortified the rural economies but fostered acrimony and distrust among landowners, conservationists and coal companies. Pennsylvania struggles to control acid mine runoff from abandoned coal mines. "One of the greatest challenges is convincing people that we are not the second coming of coal," says Matt Pitzarella, spokesman for gas producer Range Resources. Coal informs discussions about the gas rigs and leases cut into the forests and farmland. And the recent flurry of environmental disasters in oil and coal fields has fueled fears about the impact the gas boom will have on aquifers, fragile ecosystems and public health. BP's Gulf disaster stiffened the resolve of environmental groups in Pennsylvania and New York to challenge industry guarantees about the safety of modern hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") technology used to crack deep deposits of gas-rich shale rock. The collapsed coal-ash containment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, Tenn., raised questions about leaks at similar waste pits located on gas drilling sites. And the explosion in April that killed 29 people at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia offered a bleak reminder of the dangers of this kind of work. Gas producers maintain that the use of horizontal drills to extract gas from under neighboring plots means drillers require less land for well pads and equipment. They argue that chemicals pumped into the ground are benign, aquifers are protected by steel and concrete, drilling requires less water than nuclear power or a coal-fired power plant, and companies can dispose of salt water without poisoning streams. The hotbed of environmental protest about the potential impact of drilling is in New York, where the source of New York City's drinking water is the Catskill Mountains and Delaware River watershed on the eastern edge of the Marcellus Shale. The water supply is fed by underground aquifers and the area's rivers and streams, and the water is pristine enough to flow unfiltered through a system of aqueducts to 9 million New York residents. Public distrust spreads from N.Y. There, public distrust of gas companies has engendered less tolerance for political equanimity. Polluting the aquifer and using too much of the water are the central concerns. A de facto moratorium on drilling the shale already exists, but lawmakers in Albany are considering codifying a one-year moratorium until regulators finish environmental impact studies. As public protests mounted last fall, Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon extended an olive branch and promised not to drill his leases in the watershed. In January, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Gov. David Paterson (D) to put the water supply ahead of the economic benefits to a state $7 billion in the red. "July 14 may be the most important date this summer in the Delaware River Watershed!" shouts a recent e-mail blast from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. "Moratorium is needed on all gas projects!" The group, which targets water pollution in the basin at the confluence of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delawar e, regularly petitions the Delaware River Basin Commission. July 14 is the date of the commission's upcoming meeting. The region's governors are members of the commission, and it sits far enough from politics and the day-to-day lobbying in Harrisburg and Albany to act boldly on petitions to stop drilling in protected areas of the water basin. In the past few months, the commission has done just that. One pending project, a Stone Energy Corp. plan to develop a gas well in Wayne County, Pa., garnered 2,000 written comments, many of which urged the panel to call a development time-out. To that end, the commission has issued sweeping directives since May forcing gas project sponsors, including Stone, to be permitted before drilling production or exploratory wells. And the panel has said it plans to set aside most applications until it adopts regulations for gas drilling in the Marcellus. Regulate first, dri ll later "Your pro-gas drilling forces might see us as impeding the process, and state regulations are sufficient," said commission spokeswoman Katharine O'Hara. "But we are the states," she added. "We're not trying to stymie the industry or overstep. Our goal is to ensure this is done in a responsible way and that it doesn't harm or degrade the resources in the basin." Pennsylvania politics doesn't separate pro-growth politicians from their environmental opponents with neat lines of demarcation. The state continues the search to find middle ground. But increasingly, in some corners, the measured debate in Penn's Woods has been drowned out by hyperbole and accusations that the other side is being disingenuous. And the New York glare from "Gasland," an HBO documentary by filmmaker Josh Fox, has stirred passions on both sides. In it, Fox raises the specter of unchecked corporate power as ga s rigs proliferate across the Pennsylvania landscape, poisoning the groundwater and ruining people's lives. The gas industry has condemned the film as environmental propaganda and wildly exaggerated. The tone of the film aside, the Marcellus debate in Pennsylvania still rests in the middle and is almost entirely about the still-evolving science of hydrology. "We're all affected by what happens in the watersheds," said Jeanne VanBriesen, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and director of the Center for Water Quality in Urban Environmental Systems. "Water here moves in and out of urban and rural environments." Salty water and fish kills Climate change and recent gas drilling-related events have illuminated the difficulties scientists face in pinpointing sources of pollution and the way water flows through the complex wat ershed. "Water predictions are based on historical records on what's happened in a watershed," she explained. "Global climate change is really a game changer for hydro-modeling. The climate is changing in a way that is unsuitable for future predictions." Like coal, the rapid industrial development of natural gas adds to concerns about water usage and disposal. "To understand what it means to use the water for Marcellus development," VanBriesen said, "we need to understand where it goes. If you think we know where all the water is going, you're wrong." In September 2009, a toxic algae bloom killed a massive amount of fish and aquatic life along a 43-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek on the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border. By year's end, a U.S. EPA report had fingered the legal practice of dumping wastewater from a C onsol Energy coal mine into the creek as one of the most likely causes, but not the only cause. Discharges into the creek, according to EPA, included a high level of total dissolved solids (TDS) that probably created the salty conditions needed for the poisonous algae to bloom. TDS measures amounts of sodium, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, carbonates and other minerals, and while they aren't considered major pollutants, they can foul fresh water. Water quality specialists consider TDS levels to be an indicator that other chemical contaminants are in the water. After the fish kill, environmental activists said the high TDS levels could just as likely come from gas drilling in the area, which also extracts huge amounts of salt-laden, high-TDS water from the ground. As much as half of the millions of gallons of water injected into the earth when companies drill or fracture the shale returns to the surface contaminated and extremely salty. Coal and gas companies ar e supposed to strip out the metals before disposing of the water. The region's geology makes it difficult to re-inject water, and recycling is not yet widespread, in part because of the cost of the process. Investigators are still looking at what caused the fish slaughter at Dunkard Creek, but VanBriesen said there's strong support for the conclusion that algae thrive in salty conditions. "The impact of total dissolved solids more broadly on watersheds and ecosystems is less well understood," she said. Still, she asserted, "allowing rivers and creeks to get very salty is not good for the ecosystem." Dimock, a northeastern Pennsylvania township where residents accused Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. of poisoning their water wells, has become a well-known symbol of the troubles in gas country. Busted gas wells and the migration of methane into water wells put the challenge to Hanger. In April, the DEP ordered Cabot to plug three wells believed to be the s ource of migrating gas. The agency ordered Cabot to suspend the drilling of new wells for a year in and around Dimock, and it fined Cabot $240,000. 'What legacy will we leave?' Gas industry groups have defended Cabot. They argue that shallow methane is a naturally occurring phenomenon in Pennsylvania, a pre-existing condition that shouldn't be laid at the feet of a new industry. In Pennsylvania, unlike in New York, there are legal limits to actions a regulator can take to stop a company from operating. Hanger has asked the Legislature for clear authority to withhold new permits for companies that repeatedly violate rules. Hanger's DEP has hired more inspectors this year. With the support of environmental groups and some gas companies, the DEP also pushed for water quality regulatory reforms that a few weeks ago received the go-ahead from an independent review board in Pennsylvania. The new rules require gas producers to treat wastewater to the same quality as drinking water before du mping it into a stream. That means ensuring TDS levels don't exceed 500 milligrams per liter. The new rules also establish buffer zones for drilling around critical waterways. On Tuesday, Gov. Rendell signed a $28 billion state budget that, as part of an agreement among legislative leaders, includes a pledge to develop a severance tax on gas production by Oct. 1. It has been among the stickiest issues for lawmakers. Few in Harrisburg said they wanted to slow the economic growth, but in recent months, broad support grew for crafting a tax to help pay for environmental cleanup and local costs incurred because of the drilling. Rendell, who tends to emphasize both the economic opportunity and the environmental hazards, gave Hanger and another member of the governor's inner circle, John Quigley, secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the green light this year to sharpen their tone against the gas industry. The three have kept the p ressure on with regard to the tax on gas. "It is difficult for me to swallow the argument that an industry led by the likes of Exxon, one of the largest companies in the world, is in fact an infant industry," Quigley said at a conference in Pittsburgh in May. "To suggest we should wait to tax the industry strains credulity." The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents the major Marcellus gas producers, has opposed the tax, arguing that saddling producers with a tax on production of anywhere from 4 to 8 percent could stifle development in the early stages. The group's president, Kathryn Klaber, has crisscrossed the state to press the industry's case. "If you tax something, you get less," she says. "Not everyone takes this economic argument to heart." More than 7 million Pennsylvania acres is now under lease for gas exploration, about one-quarter of the state's landmass. At a conference in Pittsburgh in May, Quigley called on citizens groups to protest proposals to expand leasing in state parks. "There are those who would ignore the questions of balance and sustainability, who would look to the public lands to balance the budget without regard to consequence," he told the packed room at Duquesne University. "What legacy will we leave? Will we continue to burn the furniture to heat the house?" __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

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

10 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

08 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

08 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

08 Jul '10

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

1 0

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

08 Jul '10

>>> Sara Lampo <revlis04(a)hotmail.com> 7/8/2010 10:44 AM >>> You've probably already seen this.... AEP and Allegheny Energy Announce Progress in Transmission Line Case Testimony filed in West Virginia will be followed by filings in Maryland and Virginia COLUMBUS, Ohio, and GREENSBURG, Pa., July 8, 2010 – American Electric Power (AEP) and Allegheny Energy, Inc. today announced that updated testimony filed in West Virginia strongly supports the need for the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH). The new data, filed as supplemental testimony in an application before the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, incorporates new studies by independent grid operator PJM Interconnection recommending the construction of PATH to resolve significant reliability issues on the region’s electric transmission grid. The PATH companies also plan to incorporate the new information into the existing application in Maryland, as well as in a new application to be filed in Virginia in the third quarter. “Today’s filing reflects our ongoing commitment to provide state regulatory commissions and the public with the most accurate, up-to-date information available justifying the need for PATH,” said Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of AEP. “We strongly support the open, thorough process in place to review evidence supporting this project, and we’re confident that PATH will be found to be absolutely necessary to maintain a reliable electric system.” The latest analyses, conducted as part of PJM’s 2010 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP), are consistent with previous studies recommending the construction of PATH. PJM evaluated PATH against several alternatives and found it to be the most comprehensive solution to resolve significant voltage-related issues and line overloads that will begin to occur in mid-2015. Among the other alternatives examined, PATH is the only solution that resolves nearly all projected reliability issues within PJM’s 15-year planning period. The new in-service deadline for PATH is June 1, 2015. “Reliable electricity is vital to our economy, national security and way of life,” said Paul J. Evanson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer at Allegheny Energy. “That’s why it’s critical to have a strong transmission system. We’re committed to taking the necessary and appropriate steps to modernize our nation’s electric grid, with PATH as a vital link.” The supplemental testimony and exhibits filed today include updated information on the projected cost of the project. Today’s filing estimates the project cost at $2.1 billion, which accounts for new local and state requirements; minor route adjustments for the overbuilding and relocation of existing transmission lines; changes in design criteria to meet external requirements; and cost increases in labor, materials and services due to the revised project schedule. The original estimate was $1.8 billion. Allegheny Energy’s share of the $2.1 billion total is approximately $1.4 billion, with AEP’s share worth approximately $700 million. Affiliates of AEP and Allegheny are seeking authorization to construct a 275-mile, 765-kilovolt transmission project extending from the Amos substation in Putnam County, W.Va., to a proposed substation in Frederick County, Md. For more information about PATH, including the complete regulatory applications, visit the project website at www.pathtransmission.com. This message was sent from PATH News to revlis04(a)hotmail.com. It was sent from: PATH, 800 Cabin Hill Drive , Greensburg, PA 15601 . You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.Email Marketing by Manage your subscription __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic Recent Activity: Visit Your Group MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Human impact video on oil gusher
by James Kotcon 05 Jul '10

05 Jul '10

Worth four minutes. JBK >>> "CRAIG L." <alanskoalas(a)YAHOO.COM> 7/4/2010 9:55 PM >>> "Drill Baby Drill" Video by Gulf Coast resident "Don't you dare chant to us...." The best video I have seen showing the impact on the daily lives of those coping with the spill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-heDWycOuYM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

Fwd: State and Local Victories - Late June edition
by Paul Wilson 30 Jun '10

30 Jun '10

these are in the Clubhouse website, so you will need the password. Good opportunity to learn about the Clubhouse website, if you don't know how to use it. paul w. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Scott Elkins <scott.elkins(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:04 PM Subject: State and Local Victories - Late June edition To: CONS-CRP-MEMBERS(a)lists.sierraclub.org *State and Local Victory Tracker: http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/* We now have victories posted on the Tracker from 38 states plus the District of Columbia; but we need to hear from the rest of you, and we need more local victories from our California chapters! Highlights this time include important clean energy victories from Texas, Oklahoma and Maryland: * The Lone Star (Texas) Chapter capped a year-long effort by convincing their state energy office to strengthen residential building codes to require greater energy efficiency<http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/2010/6-10-TX-building-code…> . * In Oklahoma, our chapter led the advocacy effort that saw passage of legislation to establish an important renewable energy goal<http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/2010/05-10-OK-renewable-go…>and a path for no new coal-powered power plants in the state. * Our Maryland Chapter pushed the bar up a notch on their existing Renewable Electricity Standard, by strengthening the mandate for solar powered electricity<http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/2010/05-10-MD-solar-energy…> . Share your recent and historic victories on the Tracker by filling out this form: http://tinyurl.com/y8fn9an. It takes just five minutes or so, and helps to both spread the word about your success and demonstrate the power of the Sierra Club to improve our world. Scott Elkins, Director for Chapter Coordination Sierra Club 612-659-9124 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-CRP-MEMBERS list, send any message to: CONS-CRP-MEMBERS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Financial Times: Pollution Laws to Cause NG to Replace Coal
by James Kotcon 29 Jun '10

29 Jun '10

2 1

Re: [EC] FW: BBC Story Airing Tonight!
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 28 Jun '10

28 Jun '10

Saw it! The BBC did a good job covering this story. -Jonathan John Christensen wrote: > /Fingers crossed but link to story is included./ > > John Christensen > Mountain View Solar and Wind > Consultation, Sales, and Installation > 410-499-4873 cell > 304-754-8505 > john(a)mtvsolar.com <mailto:john@mtvsolar.com> > www.mtvsolar.com <http://www.mtvsolar.com> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Mountain View Builders <mailto:mtviewbuilders@verizon.net> > *To: *Mike McKechnie <mailto:mike@mtvsolar.com> > *Sent:* 6/28/2010 12:08:06 PM > *Subject:* BBC Story Airing Tonight! > > The BBC piece is airing tonight at 7PM -- we are having a viewing > party beginning at 6:30 PM at the Mountainside Restaurant in > Berkeley Springs, WV! Hope to see you there! > > ** Mike McKechnie on his company's approach ** > Mike McKechnie explains how his company, Mountain View Solar and > Wind, approaches doubtful local consumers who have been married to > coal energy for generations. > < > _http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8763236.stm_ > > > > Thanks, > Kelly > __________________________ > Kelly J. Waugh > *Mountain View Builders, LLC > **Mountain View Solar & Wind, LLC > > *T: 304.258.4320 > F: 304.258.4250 > > Kelly(a)MTVSolar.com > mtviewbuilders(a)verizon.net > > www.mountainviewbuilders.com > www.MTVSolar.com > > Main Office: > 15 Greenway Drive > Berkeley Springs, WV 25411 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > EC mailing list > EC(a)osenergy.org > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Shale Gas > Not Under My Back Yard
by Duane330＠aol.com 26 Jun '10

26 Jun '10

Energy: Science Magazine: June 25, 2010 Natural Gas From Shale Bursts Onto the Scene <NOBR>Richard A Engineering ingenuity is unlocking a vast storehouse of natural gas buried beneath American soil from Texas to New England. The sudden great promise of clean, homegrown shale gas has all kinds of people excited. National-security types see it as a replacement for foreign oil and gas, environmentalists as a replacement for dirty coal and even oil. And because it yields only 45% of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal, advocates of taming global warming see it as a temporary crutch while carbon-free energy sources are developed and deployed. Everyone seems to agree with a March study by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates that concluded that shale gas "provides the potential to transform North America's energy landscape." The problem is that word "potential." Every link in the chain between the newly abundant domestic energy source and its transformative impact is still shrouded in uncertainty. And a rising tide of NUMBY—not under my backyard—that's greeting shale gas in the Northeast could hobble the revolution (_see sidebar_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573988.654.0r2V29Nui) ). Full story at _http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1624?sa_campaign=Email… (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573987.654.0r2V29Nui) ____________________________________ Energy: Not Under My Backyard, Thank You <NOBR>Richard A. Now that drillers have figured out how to extract gas trapped in shale rock (_see main text_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573986.654.0r2V29Nui) ), a new and perhaps more hazardous style of drilling is coming to parts of the country unfamiliar with the ways of the oil and gas industry. To those outside the industry, the scariest part of the new drilling might be the way drillers unleash the gas. They drill straight down, turn the drill to go horizontally, and then pump in chemically treated water to pressurize a horizontal section of the well until surrounding rock fractures and begins to give up its gas. Many local residents and environmentalists have worried that this "fracing" (pronounced and sometimes written "fracking") might propagate fractures upward into overlying aquifers so that escaping gas, chemicals, and brine will contaminate groundwater. Full story at _http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1625?sa_campaign=Email… (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573985.654.0r2V29Nui) ____________________________________

1 0

Fwd: PATH EIS scoping meetings
by James Kotcon 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

Note that the fedeal agencies do NOT propose to assess the impacts of the entire route, they propose to only evaluate the segments crossing federal lands. They claim it is the responsibility of the North American Electric Reliablity Council and the WV PSC to protect the environment in those other sections. We will ant a good turnout at these to demand that the entire project be considered, as demand side management aternatives would be faster, safer, cleaner and cheaper. JBK

3 2

Fwd: Grassroots Briefing and strategy call EPA's proposed coal ash rule: June 29, 3pm ET
by James Kotcon 23 Jun '10

23 Jun '10

Anyone want to join in the National briefing and strategy call next Tuesday? I will be out of town that day, is there someone who can participate? Bill Price and I have outlined a fairly aggressive campaign in WV (the National Coal Campaign is pulling out all the stops on this) and he will be circulating an outline of upcoming actions, etc. The goal at this point will be for the Chapter Energy Committee (us) to prepare our comments to EPA, and request a public hearing before July 21. National will send a series of Convio alerts beginning within a week, and Bill suggested that the Chapter save our alert for announcing a public hearing, probably sometime shortly after July 21, as that message will be much more targeted and local to West Virginia. We are also planning a rally/protest (possibly at the Governor's office) to coincide with July interim meetings, July 19-21. And there will be phone-banking, editorial board meetings, and possibly formal testimony. But staying current on the National strategy would be helpful, so I hope someone can join the call-in next Tuesday. Jim Kotcon >>> Sam Flenner <samf.environmentalintegrity(a)gmail.com> 6/22/2010 7:44 PM >>> Please excuse cross postings. Hello All, This is the National Grassroots Organization conference call that we promised months ago before the rule was delayed. Please do not confuse it with other strategy calls scheduled for later this week. And please join us. Sam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lyndsay Moseley <Lyndsay.Moseley(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:41 PM Subject: Grassroots Briefing and strategy call EPA's proposed coal ash rule: June 29, 3pm ET To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org Friends and Colleagues: You are invited by Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, NRDC, SELC, Physicians for Social Responsibility and many others to join a national grassroots community briefing and strategy session on the EPA?s recently proposed coal ash rule, next Tuesday June 29th at 3pm ET. If you can participate, please RSVP by June 25th, with "Grassroots coal ash call" in the subject line to: energy.intern(a)sierraclub.org. NOTE: The call-in information will be sent separately to all who RSVP by June 25th. What: Briefing and strategy call on EPA coal ash rule When: June 29, 2010 at 3pm ET RSVP: If you can attend, please RSVP by June 25th, with "Grassroots coal ash call" in the subject line to: energy.intern(a)sierraclub.org. NOTE: The call-in information will be sent separately to all who RSVP by June 25th. Coal ash is the second-largest industrial waste stream in America, second only to mining waste. Coal ash contains arsenic, selenium, lead, boron and mercury. These substances leach out of coal ash at disposal sites around the country ? and sometimes burst out of a ruptured dam, as they did in December 2008 in Kingston, Tennessee, flooding a river valley, destroying three homes, and covering 300 acres with thick, toxic sludge. The terrible disaster in Tennessee has helped create an historic opportunity to win significant long-term protections for communities from the dangers of toxic coal ash, but we need your help to get the job done. EPA published their proposed rule in the Federal Register on Monday June 21, triggering a 90-day public comment period. Please join this call for a briefing and strategy session as we seek to demonstrate strong public support for the EPA subtitle C option. (For a quick briefing/overview of the rule as proposed, see the attached summary document). Many of you are already actively participating in our coalition efforts. For those who might be newer to coal ash issue, please join us to learn more and get connected to others at the national level. Ways you can engage: 1. Participate in the strategy session on June 29th, 3pm ET. Please RSVP to: energy.intern(a)sierraclub.org (NOTE: call-in information will be sent separately to all who RSVP by June 25). 2. Join the coal ash listerv, if you haven't already (instructions included in attached document). 3. Participate in massive grassroots response to demonstrate support by mobilizing your networks to generate public comment and turnout at EPA hearings; organizing letters of support for strong EPA, and pushing back against industry influence in Congress and mobilize Champs to support strong EPA rule. These are things we will be brainstorming together on the conference call. 4. Invite other potential allies to join the coalition! We hope you?ll join us. Resources attached: Summary of EPA's rule Coal ash - myths vs. fact Summary of EPA's proposed rule Environmental community letter to Administrator Jackson Environmental community letter to President Obama (signed by 240 organizations) Coal ash listserv (sign-up directions attached) Lyndsay Moseley Washington Representative Sierra Club 408 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 tel: 202-548-4581 fax: 202-547-6009 Samuel E. Flenner III Outreach Associate Environmental Integrity Project samf.environmentalintegrity(a)gmail.com 317.352.2339 c-317.850.0436 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

3 2

Rolling Stones article on fly ash.....
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 23 Jun '10

23 Jun '10

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64853

1 0

Save the Mountain: Stop Pine Creek MTR Mine
by Jim Sconyers 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Please send your message about this MTR permit and share widely. Tell the EPA to reject Pine Creek MTR mine permit Dear Sandra, On April 1, Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced strong new guidelines on mountaintop removal (MTR) mining permits. The first test of these tough guidelines for new permits is here. Coal-Mac, Inc. has applied for a new mountaintop removal mine permit for Pine Creek, West Virginia. Join us in telling the EPA that they must protect America's mountains and reject the Pine Creek mine permit. Pine Creek mine would contaminate 2.75 miles of streams, streams that already have dangerous levels of pollution from surface mining, which has made it nearly impossible for aquatic life to survive. Pine Creek mine is also expected to produce 14.3 million tons of coal, which would emit over 40 million tons of carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, further spurring climate change. We need your help to stop the further degradation of the Appalachian Mountains, the contamination of streams and drinking water and the exacerbation of the climate crisis. Please encourage the EPA to keep its word. Tell the EPA to uphold the Clean Water Act and protect Americans' health by rejecting the Pine Creek mine permit. Thank you for taking action to protect the mountains, streams and communities of Appalachia! For the mountains, Amanda Starbuck Global Finance Campaign Rainforest Action Network 221 Pine Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 USA Phone: (415) 398-4404 Fax: (415) 398-2732

1 0

WVDEP concludes investigation on Buckeye Creek
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

============================================================ Friday, June 18, 2010 @ 4:40 PM ============================================================ The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Oil and Gas released its final report on an incident that took place in Doddridge County last summer. In the report, the agency concludes that the petroleum- based material in the stream was most likely associated with Tapo Energy’s drilling activity, but there is insufficient credible evidence to conclude that the discharge was anything other than accidental. As a result of the investigation, Tapo Energy was issued a notice of violation for discharging pollutants into the waters of the state and was assessed a penalty of $10,000. In Aug. 2009, the DEP was notified of an orange substance on the surface of Buckeye Creek near West Union. The Office of Oil and Gas inspectors spent many hours monitoring the cleanup of the material and investigating the incident. The report, which can be found on the agency’s website at http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Pages/default.aspx, provides chronological detail of the agency’s actions in the investigation, as well as its findings. In addition to the report, all available public information related to the investigation can be found on the Office of Oil and Gas’ site under the heading Buckeye Creek Discharge Investigation.

1 0

"Gasland" movie critical of drilling
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

_‘Gasland’ movie critical of drilling_ (http://www.timesleader.com/news/_lsquo_Gasland_rsquo__movie_critical_of_dri…) An organization funded by the natural gas industry disputes the HBO film’s conclusions. By _Steve Mocarsky_ (http://www.timesleader.com/reporter/Steve_Mocarsky.html) _smocarsky(a)timesleader.com_ (mailto:smocarsky@timesleader.com) Staff Writer, The Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader, June 18, 2010 After Josh Fox was offered nearly $100,000 to lease his 20 acres in Wayne County to a gas company, he heard two different accounts – one, a story of easy money, the other a tale of horror. The 37-year-old independent filmmaker set out to find the truth about natural gas drilling, and his conclusions can be seen in his documentary film “ Gasland,” to air on HBO at 9 p.m. on Monday. And while representatives of the gas industry call the film a piece of propaganda filled with exaggerations and inaccuracies, Fox stands by his work and says it’s the industry’s response that is propaganda. In a phone interview Thursday afternoon, as he was getting ready for a special screening of the documentary at the HBO Theater in New York City that night, Fox said a land man with a gas company told him in 2008 that the company probably wouldn’t even drill on the land. But he heard from others that environmentally, gas drilling was “very polluting.” “There was such a disparity between what was being said and what was being offered, I needed to see with my own eyes,” Fox said. So, Fox set out for the village of Dimock in Susquehanna County to talk with folks whose well water was polluted by natural gas migration from leaking gas wells. “It was completely a disaster area. There were Halliburton trucks swarming everywhere. Water was bubbling and fizzing; some you could light on fire. There was a feeling of regret and betrayal in the air,” Fox said. Residents were unaware of the contamination until Norma Fiorentino’s water well exploded on Jan. 1, 2009, Fox said. The state Department of Environmental Protection fined the drilling company and ordered the wells capped. Fox visited 23 other states where natural gas drilling was taking place. He interviewed people whose health and quality of life were negatively impacted; scientists, one of whom warns of the dangers of drinking water infused with chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking), which releases the gas from the underground shale formations; and government officials on both sides of the issue. One of the officials Fox interviewed was DEP Secretary John Hanger, who minimized the negative effects of fracking but refused to drink a glass of water from an affected well, according to a synopsis of the film on the HBO website. On the same day as a special screening of the film in Montrose earlier this month, Energy in Depth – a gas-industry-funded organization, released an alert on its website entitled “Debunking Gasland,” pulling out numerous quotes from the movie and disputing them. Energy In Depth claimed that Fox was “misstating the law” when he said that a 2005 energy bill exempted the oil and gas industry from the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law and other regulations. The industry is regulated under every single one of those laws, said Energy In Depth spokesman Chris Tucker. The organization states that Fox was “flat-out making stuff up” when he said the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah gas fields of Wyoming are directly in the path of a 1,000-year-old migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse, each species of which is endangered. Energy in Depth countered that three species of the pronghorn are endangered and none are found near the Pinedale Anticline, citing the Great Plains Nature Center; that only mule deer from New Mexico, noting that mule deer are so plentiful in Wyoming, there is a mule deer hunting season; and citing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife report stating that the sage grouse is not on the endangered list and there are “robust populations” of the bird in Wyoming. Fox also blamed an algae bloom that killed fish and other aquatic life in Dunkard Creek in Washington County on natural gas development, Tucker said. But DEP reports show the bloom was caused by coal mine drainage. The organization also cites a reference in the documentary to Colorado resident Lisa Bracken, who reported to environmental regulators occurrences of natural gas in the West Divide Creek, which she believed was related to natural gas drilling. “Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo., on natural gas development,” the release states. Energy In Depth published links to reports on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission website that showed the methane was naturally occurring. Tucker said those reports were available long before “Gasland” was released. Theo Stein, communications director for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, said a commission investigation revealed that the methane Bracken reported bubbling in her beaver ponds near the creek was naturally occurring swamp gas from rotting vegetation. Stein confirmed, however, that about a quarter-mile upstream, some methane gas was still present from a gas migration into the creek from a leak in a well drilled in 2004 by EnCana Oil & Gas, the company that will begin drilling in Luzerne County next month. EnCana received the largest fine in Colorado’s history for allowing that leak to occur. Tucker, who is a native of Kingston Township and has been closely following the development of the Marcellus Shale in Northeastern Pennsylvania, said the press release was addressing only Bracken’s claims in the documentary. He was unfamiliar with the incident involving EnCana and said the issue alert was not meant to be misleading.

1 0

Fwd: Re: [WVaPATH] PATH EIS scoping process begins TODAY
by James Kotcon 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

I can only second what Bill and Cindy write below. Let's start turning out some comments. I will prepare a more detailed response for the Chapter, but dozens or hundreds of letters will be needed, so please put this on your "to do" list. JBK >>> Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net> 6/17/2010 10:56 AM >>> Well, you all have seen Cindy's email about the EIS process. This is big and requires us to move quickly. As far as I can see, they haven't posted any meeting schedules anywhere. These scoping meetings will determine what gets studies and how it gets studied. Of all the public meetings to be held in the EIS, THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT. We need to get lots of people to the meetings to push the following ideas: The EIS needs to cover the entire PATH project, not just where the line crosses federal lands. This is actually required by federal law, although bureaucrats try to minimize their workload by just focusing on federal lands. The power companies will be looking to limit the EIS as much as possible. The EIS needs to have an indepth evaluation of the need for PATH. The NPS/USFS have said that the "no build" option is a part of the EIS process. The consulting firm they have hired, CH2M Hill, will not want to recommend "no build" because they also work for power companies and don't want to get a bad reputation among future clients. We are the only ones who can advocate fully for the "no build" option in the EIS process. We need to list the broad range of environmental impacts of PATH -- habitat fragmentation, forest destruction, invasive species, fragmentation of forest floor ecosystems, etc. (be sure to mention greenhouse gases) We need to get ourselves organized quickly, with lots of people, because these meetings will be happening within a month and will likely require some travel, because there will only be three of them. If you want questions answered directly, call the NPS planning coordinator for the PATH EIS, Morgan Elmer at -- Morgan McCosh Elmer, Project Manager NPS Denver Service Center – Planning 12795 W Alameda Pkwy PO Box 25287 Denver CO 80225 (303) 969-2317 cell 303-648-1046 fax: 303-969-2920 Morgan_Elmer(a)nps.gov On 6/17/2010 7:45 AM, clrank(a)hughes.net wrote: ATTENTION ALL: ~~~ Scoping process begins today (June 17, 2010)..... public meetings to be held as well.... Dates and Meeting Notices: The public scoping period will commence on the date this notice is published in the Federal Register and last for at least 30 days or until 15 days after the last public scoping meeting. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will hold public meetings near the parks and forest to provide the public an opportunity to review the proposal and project information, and provide comments. All public meetings will be announced through local media, mailings, and the NPS planning Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ appa/, at least 15 days prior to each meeting. The meetings will be concluded at least 15 days prior to the close of comment. ContentsFederal Register Vol. 75, No. 116 Thursday, June 17, 2010 Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Potomac–Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) Project; Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia , 34477–34479 [2010–14581][TEXT] [PDF] ~~~~~ [Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)] [Notices] [Page 34477-34479] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17jn10-95] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. Forest Service Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) Environmental Impact Statement, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, and Monongahela National Forest, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior and U.S. Forest Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for construction and right-of-way permits requested from Harpers Ferry National Historical Park (NHP), Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST), Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, and Monongahela National Forest, in connection with the proposed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS), lead agency, along with cooperating agencies, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and conducting public scoping meetings for construction and right-of-way permits requested from the agencies by PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation; Potomac Edison Company; and PATH West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC, collectively referred to herein as Applicants. The Applicants are seeking permits for proposed construction of a new 765kV electric transmission line that would cross federal lands within Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia. In May 2009, the Applicants submitted [[Page 34478]] right-of-way applications (Form 299) for those portions of the PATH project proposed to traverse Harpers Ferry NHP, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP, Appalachian NST, Potomac Heritage NST, all managed by the National Park Service; and Monongahela National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These applications also serve as the application for Special Use Permits for construction of the proposed project. The Applicants' proposed project would modify and expand existing rights-of-way across Harpers Ferry NHP and Appalachian NST. In particular, the Applicants propose modification and expansion of existing right-of-way agreements held by Potomac Edison Company over Harpers Ferry NHP and Appalachian NST to allow for placement of the 138 kV Millville-Doubs transmission line as an underbuild on the PATH transmission structures; and also the grant of a new 200-feet-wide right-of-way for the PATH transmission line. While the PATH Project would require a 200-feet right-of-way, it would only require an expansion of the existing right-of-way corridor across Harpers Ferry NHP and Appalachian NST by approximately 105 feet. The Applicants seek a new right-of-way authorization across Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP and Potomac Heritage NST. The requested right-of-way would be approximately 200 feet wide, with a distance over the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP and Potomac Heritage NST properties of approximately 400 feet. The proposed crossing route will be adjacent to (on the north side) existing transmission rights-of-way for the 138 kV Millville-Doubs transmission facility operated by Potomac Edison Company and the 500 kV Mt. Storm-Doubs transmission facility operated by Dominion Virginia Power. The Applicants' proposed crossing of the Monongahela National Forest would require USFS authorization for a new 200-feet-wide right-of-way. The Applicants' stated purpose for the PATH project is to strengthen the electrical transmission grid for reliability purposes at the direction of PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), the regional transmission organization. PJM oversees the overall movement of wholesale electricity throughout a region comprising all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia. PJM has a duty to maintain reliability of the transmission grid according to standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan has identified numerous projected reliability criteria violations that the proposed PATH project is designed to alleviate and has directed construction of a line of sufficient capacity to address these violations by connecting the existing Amos Substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, with two existing 500 kV transmission lines that are in close proximity to each other at a point approximately three miles southeast of New Market, Maryland. The federal action under consideration in this EIS is the Applicants' proposal that the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service grant the requested permits. The agencies' purpose in taking action is to respond to the application for permits in consideration of the needs expressed therein and the public interest, and in light of the missions, purposes and resource management of the affected NPS and USFS units, as expressed in statutes, regulations, and policies. Federal action is needed because the Applicants have submitted the required applications to the National Park Service in accordance with 36 CFR part 14 and applicable NPS management policies and to the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with 36 CFR part 251.54 and Special Uses Handbook (FSH 2709.11). The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service therefore have a responsibility to consider whether, and with what conditions, if any, to issue the requested permits. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will analyze no- action and proposed action alternatives and possibly other alternatives or mitigation strategies that respond to the purpose, need, and objectives of this proposal. The goal of the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service is to identify issues and concerns with the proposed action, additional alternatives, and alternative mitigation strategies through the public scoping process. This notice initiates the public participation and scoping process for the EIS. The public is invited to comment on the purpose, need and objectives for federal action, the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action to be analyzed in the EIS, the appropriate scope of analysis, or any issues associated with the proposal. More information about the purpose of and need for federal action, and issues identified to date is available from the NPS planning Web site at http:// parkplanning.nps.gov/appa/. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewers concerns and comments. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review. Dates and Meeting Notices: The public scoping period will commence on the date this notice is published in the Federal Register and last for at least 30 days or until 15 days after the last public scoping meeting. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will hold public meetings near the parks and forest to provide the public an opportunity to review the proposal and project information, and provide comments. All public meetings will be announced through local media, mailings, and the NPS planning Web site at , at least 15 days prior to each meeting. The meetings will be concluded at least 15 days prior to the close of comment. ADDRESSES: Comments on issues, potential impacts, or suggestions for additional alternatives can be submitted using any one of the following methods. You may submit comments through the NPS planning Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/appa/, which is the preferred method. You may mail your comments to the National Park Service, Attention: PATH EIS Planning Team, Denver Service Center--Planning, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225. Comments may also be submitted at any of the three public meetings to be announced. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morgan Elmer, Project Manager, Denver Service Center--Planning, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Co 80225, telephone 303-969-2317. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will not consider anonymous comments. All others will be included in the administrative record [[Page 34479]] upon which the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will ultimately reach a decision. Margaret O'Dell, Regional Director, National Capital Region, National Park Service. Pam Underhill, Superintendent, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, National Park Service. Jason Reed, District Ranger, Monongahela National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. [FR Doc. 2010-14581 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-70-P http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ appa/ __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic Recent Activity: Visit Your Group MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Good news! Re: Valley Fills & NWP21
by Frank Young 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced today it has suspended the use of Nationwide Permit 21 (NWP 21) in the Appalachian region of six states. NWP 21 is used to authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for surface coal mining activities. The suspension is effective immediately and applies to the Appalachian region of Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. ------------ Forwarded message ------------ Whoo-hoo!!!!!!!!! I guess everything everyone went through that night was worth it!!! http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/06/17/corps-suspends-streamlined… ~~~~~ ------------ Forwarded message ------------ From: Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jun 17, 2010 Subject: [fom] Good news on NWP21 To: 'FOM' <fom(a)lists.riseup.net>, 'The Alliance for Appalachia' <the-alliance-for-appalachia(a)googlegroups.com> NWP 21 is suspended in Appalachian Region. See attachment. Bill Price, Sierra Club EJ Program 922 Quarrier Street, Suite 304 Charleston, WV 25311 Cell 304-389-8822 Fax 304-342-3182 __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Obama's speech tonight
by Jim Sconyers 15 Jun '10

15 Jun '10

Subject: Obama's big speech tonight Hi, Tonight, President Obama will address the nation about the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico and call for clean energy legislation to end America's addiction to oil. But the energy bills currently in the Senate have already been packed with more offshore drilling and taxpayer handouts to Big Oil. I signed a petition urging President Obama to use tonight's speech to demand a bill free of new offshore drilling or tax breaks for Big Oil. Can you join me at the link below? http://pol.moveon.org/obamaoilspeech/?r_by=21126-9116415-a9Chsjx&rc=paste Thanks! PS - We need clean renewable energy NOW, not more handouts for dirty dangerous deadly destructive coal, oil, and nuclear. Tell the President to have some spine and principle and lead us into the clean energy future now! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Twilight of the coal era?
by Frank Young 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

" The electricity market is in the doldrums, but the market for new generating stations that use natural gas is going strong, industry experts say. Why? Because gas is beginning to replace coal, according to Randy H. Zwirn, president of the Siemens Power Generation Group. " ----------------------------------------- NC power plants quitting coal for gas http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/twilight-of-the-coal-era/?hp __._,_.___

1 0

The Nation on Marcellus
by Jim Sconyers 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

Marcellus is a major article in the June 21 The Nation. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fw: National Law Review Coal Ash Analysis
by Jim Sconyers 13 Jun '10

13 Jun '10

Note that this aticle like a lot of commentary considers "beneficial" use in road building, construction, etc. but does not even mention dumping millions of tons at mine sites. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Sam Flenner <samf.environmentalintegrity(a)GMAIL.COM> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sun, June 13, 2010 2:34:06 PM Subject: National Law Review Coal Ash Analysis NATIONAL LAW REVIEW Coal Ash Regulations: EPA Speaks--Sort of... Article By: J. David Brittingham Thomas P. Doyle Dinsmore & Shohl LLP posted on: Saturday, June 5, 2010 On Tuesday May 4, 2010, EPA started the process of federal regulation over the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal ash has been largely exempt from federal regulation, leaving oversight to individual states. The December 2008 breach of a coal ash storage facility and the subsequent massive spill in Kingston, Tennessee brought coal ash storage and disposal national attention. On one side, many people and environmental groups are calling for action from the federal government. Conversely, many people are worried about additional oversight and duplicative regulatory controls in an area where state law exists. Many of the arguments against federal regulation concern the continued ability to recycle coal ash waste. Coal ash is used in concrete, cement, roadways, and other materials. Both sides of the debate argue in the context of the possible re-classification of coal ash as a hazardous waste. Solid Waste is federally regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act1 (RCRA), which gives EPA the authority to control all aspects of hazardous waste. Subtitle C governs the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Subtitle D sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. Subtitle D leaves the majority of regulation to each individual state. Coal ash has been exempt from federal regulation since the inception of the "Bevill Exclusion." In October 1980, RCRA was amended by adding section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), to exclude "solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals" from regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA. This exclusion held pending completion of a study and a Report to Congress, required by section 8002 (f) and (p), and pending a determination by the EPA Administrator either to promulgate regulations under Subtitle C or to declare such regulations unwarranted. In 1993 and 2000, EPA published regulatory determinations stating that coal ash waste does not warrant regulation under Subtitle C and should remain excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. However, in 2000, EPA determined that national non-hazardous waste regulations under RCRA Subtitle D were needed for coal combustion wastes disposed in surface impoundments and landfills and used as fill in surface or underground mines (minefill). EPA further determined that beneficial uses of these wastes, other than for minefilling, pose no significant risk and no additional national regulations are needed. Since 2000, EPA has continued to conduct research and receive comments in regards to proper regulation of coal ash disposal and use. After Kingston, EPA promised to release a proposal for regulation by the beginning of 2010. On May 4, 2010, EPA finally broke its silence. However, instead of releasing a final proposal, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requested feedback. Two options were broadly laid out and EPA is seeking public opinion and guidance on each. EPA will hold hearings and seek public comment for 90 days, but there is no time table for a final decision. Both proposals released by EPA would still regulate coal ash waste under RCRA. Under the first proposal, EPA would reverse its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations regarding coal ash waste and list these residuals as special wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when they are destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. An EPA e-mail sent after Jackson's comments said the agency was creating a "special waste" classification within the hazardous waste regulations, "to help remove the stigma that some believe attaches when a waste is called hazardous." Under the second proposal, EPA would leave the Bevill determination in place and regulate disposal of such materials under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing national minimum criteria. The Subtitle C option creates federal oversight; the Subtitle D option leaves enforcement to the states and citizen lawsuits. Under both alternatives EPA is proposing to establish dam safety requirements to address the structural integrity of surface impoundments to prevent catastrophic releases. Regulation under Subtitle C would normally classify a substance or material as hazardous and would lead to stricter rules and federal enforcement. Many people were concerned that if coal ash waste was re-classified as hazardous and regulated under Subtitle C, any beneficial use of coal ash would be severely hindered. EPA appears to be looking for a way around this main concern. Under the proposal that regulates coal ash waste under Subtitle C, coal ash would be classified as a "special waste" and could still be used in "beneficial" ways. Since the Kingston spill, one side has been advocating for a hazardous classification and regulation under Subtitle C, while the other side argued to leave the non-hazardous classification in place, continue to utilize and explore beneficial uses, and let states regulate to their specific needs. After EPA's May 4, 2010 announcement, the debate remains largely the same. The only thing EPA has clarified is that no matter the action taken, coal ash will continue to be recycled and apparently will not be classified as hazardous. EPA explained in its own summary of the proposed rules that regulation under Subtitle C would reverse the 1993 and 2000 classification exemptions, but would not change the 2000 Regulatory Determination for beneficially used coal ash waste. However, EPA is clarifying this determination and seeking comment on potential refinements for certain beneficial uses. Both approaches focus on the storage facilities and only apply to the disposal of coal ash from electric generating units. EPA will require composite liners and groundwater monitoring at new dry ash landfills, while existing surface impoundments will have to be retrofitted with liners. Under the Subtitle C option, wet ash storage facilities would specifically be phased out and EPA thinks the new safety requirements under Subtitle D would also lead to the phase out of wet ash containers.2 EPA specifically mentioned Kingston, Tennessee and how the new regulations are being put in place to avoid accidents like the spill in December 2008. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson commented that she hopes the proposals will begin a national dialogue about coal ash regulation and disposal. It appears EPA wants safety without hindering beneficial use or too much regulation. Either way, both sides of the debate still have questions and time to advocate their position. More information about the EPA's proposed regulation can be found here. Click here for the EPA's unofficial pre-publication copy of the proposed rule for public reference. This document has not been published in the Federal Register and is not an official version of the final rule. The official rule will be available here as soon as it is published by the Federal Register Office. Click here to view a chart comparing the key differences between the EPA's Subtitle C and Subtitle D options. ________________________________ (1) 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976). (2) While Subtitle D would require coal ash ponds to be retrofitted with a composite liner, it would not “phase out” coal ash ponds. To continue to use the wet ash pond, a company would have to remove all the materials, put the lining in, and then return the wet coal ash to the impoundment. If pond owners elect not to line the existing ponds, Subtitle D requires the owner to discontinue usage of the coal ash pond and implement closure of the pond within five years. © 2010 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved. · Printer-friendly · Email this Article · Download PDF · ShareThis About The Author J. David Brittingham Partner J. David Brittingham is a Partner in the Product Liability and Toxic Tort Practice Groups. David's practice includes general litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on product liability, mass torts, toxic torts and commercial matters. He primarily represents businesses and manufacturing concerns regarding claims of a complex or severe nature. David's experience with complex litigation in both state and federal courts includes the management, discovery, resolution and/or trial of class actions, multi-district litigation, multi-party suits and claims of mass torts. He has managed... david.brittingham(a)dinslaw.com (513) 977-8455 www.dinslaw.com Contributors Thomas P. Doyle Associate Thomas P. Doyle is a member of the Litigation Department. His practice focuses on general litigation and includes product liability, medical malpractice, and mass tort litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Thomas clerked for the Honorable Judge AJ Wagner, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. thomas.doyle(a)dinslaw.com (513) 977-8551 www.dinslaw.com -- Samuel E. Flenner III Outreach Associate Environmental Integrity Project samf.environmentalintegrity(a)gmail.com 317.352.2339 c-317.850.0436 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fwd: Big Climate Majority - A Stanford Survey Shows
by Paul Wilson 13 Jun '10

13 Jun '10

incase any of you missed this. Byrd voted against the Murkowski resolution. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anne Ehrlich <aehrlich(a)stanford.edu> Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Big Climate Majority - A Stanford Survey Shows To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org June 8, 2010 > New York Times > > > The Climate Majority > > > > > By JON A. KROSNICK > > > Stanford, Calif. > > ON Thursday, the Senate will vote on a resolution proposed by Lisa > Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, that would < > http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/07/07climatewire-thursday-is-high-noon…>scuttle > the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to limit emissions of greenhouse > gases by American businesses. > > Passing the resolution might seem to be exactly what Americans want. After > all, national surveys released during the last eight months have been > interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate > change is real, human-caused and threatening to people. > > But a closer look at these polls and a new survey by my Political > Psychology Research Group show just the opposite: huge majorities of > Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result > of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop > it. > > In our survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National > Science Foundation, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were interviewed > by phone between June 1 and Monday. When respondents were asked if they > thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the > last 100 years, 74 percent answered affirmatively. And 75 percent of > respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any > warming that has occurred. > > For many issues, any such consensus about the existence of a problem > quickly falls apart when the conversation turns to carrying out specific > solutions that will be costly. But not so here. > > Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government > to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent > favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in > particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent — but 76 percent. > > Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity (78 percent) and gasoline (72 > percent) to reduce consumption. But 84 percent favored the federal > government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more > electricity from water, wind and solar power. > > And huge majorities favored government requiring, or offering tax breaks to > encourage, each of the following: manufacturing cars that use less gasoline > (81 percent); manufacturing appliances that use less electricity (80 > percent); and building homes and office buildings that require less energy > to heat and cool (80 percent). > > Thus, there is plenty of agreement about what people do and do not want > government to do. > > Our poll also indicated that some of the principal arguments against > remedial efforts have been failing to take hold. Only 18 percent of > respondents said they thought that policies to reduce global warming would > increase unemployment and only 20 percent said they thought such initiatives > would hurt the nation’s economy. Furthermore, just 14 percent said the > United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other > major industrial countries like China and India do so as well. > > Our findings might seem implausible in light of recent polls that purport > to show that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the very existence > of climate change. But in fact, those polls did not produce conflicting > evidence at all. > > Consider, for example, <http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf>the > most publicized question from a 2009 Pew Research Center poll: “From what > you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature > on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?” This > question measured perceptions of scientific evidence that the respondent has > read or heard about, not the respondents’ personal opinions about whether > the earth has been warming. Someone who has had no exposure to scientific > evidence or who perceives the evidence to be equivocal may nonetheless be > convinced that the earth has been heating up by, say, the early blossoming > of plants in his garden. > > Or consider a < > http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continu…>widely > publicized Gallup question: “Thinking about what is said in the news, in > your view, is the seriousness of global warming generally exaggerated, > generally correct or is it generally underestimated?” This question asked > about respondents’ perceptions of the news, not the respondents’ perception > of warming. A person who believes climate change has been happening might > also feel that news media coverage of it has been exaggerated. > > Questions in other polls that sought to tap respondents’ personal beliefs > about the existence and causes of warming violated two of the cardinal rules > of good survey question design: ask about only one thing at a time, and > choose language that makes it easy for respondents to understand and answer > each question. > > Imagine <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/07/rel18e.pdf>being > asked this, from a poll by CNN: “Which of the following statements comes > closest to your view of global warming: Global warming is a proven fact and > is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities like power > plants and factories; global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused > by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and > industrial facilities; or, global warming is a theory that has not yet been > proven.” > > Notice that the question didn’t even offer the opportunity for respondents > to say they believe global warming is definitely not happening — not the > sort of question that will provide the most valid measurements. > > When surveys other than ours have asked simple and direct questions, they > have produced results similar to ours. For example, in November, an ABC > News/Washington Post survey found that < > http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1096a7GlobalWarming.pdf>72 > percent of respondents said the earth has been heating up, and a December > poll by Ipsos/McClatchy found this proportion to be 70 percent. > > Our surveys did reveal a small recent decline in the proportion of people > who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 80 > percent in 2008 to 74 percent today. Statistical analysis of our data > revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather > changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate > scientists. > > In terms of average earth temperature, 2008 was the coldest year since > 2000. Scientists say that such year-to-year fluctuations are uninformative, > and people who trust scientists therefore ignore this information when > forming opinions about global warming’s existence. Citizens who do not trust > climate scientists, however, base their conclusions on their personal > observations of nature. These low-trust individuals were especially aware of > the recent decline in average world temperatures; they were the ones in our > survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007. > > This explanation is especially significant, because it suggests that the > small recent decline in the proportion of people who believe in global > warming is likely to be temporary. If the earth’s temperature begins to rise > again, these individuals may reverse course and rejoin the large majority > who still think warming is real. > > Growing public skepticism has, in recent months, been attributed to news > reports about < > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1>e-mail > messages hacked from the computer system at the University of East Anglia > in Britain (characterized as showing climate scientists colluding to silence > unconvinced colleagues) and by the discoveries of < > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html>alleged > flaws in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. > > Our new survey discredited this claim in multiple ways. First, we found no > decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists: 71 percent of > respondents said they trust these scientists a moderate amount, a lot or > completely, a figure that was 68 percent in 2008 and 70 percent in 2009. > Only 9 percent said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and > believed they indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted, and > only 13 percent of respondents said so about the I.P.C.C. reports’ alleged > flaws. > > Interestingly, Americans are not alone in having their views portrayed > inaccurately. A February BBC News survey asked Britons, “From what you know > and have heard, do you think that the earth’s climate is changing and global > warming is taking place?” < > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm>Seventy-five percent > of respondents answered affirmatively, down a somewhat improbable eight > percentage points from 83 percent in November. A BBC headline blared, > “Climate Skepticism on the Rise,” when it should have proclaimed that a huge > majority of Britons still share common ground with one another and with > Americans on this issue. > > GLOBAL warming has attracted what political scientists dub an “issue > public”: millions of Americans who are passionate about this subject and put > pressure on government to follow their wishes. For over a decade, this group > has been of typical issue-public size, about 15 percent of American adults. > > Although issue publics usually divide about equally on opposing sides — > think of abortion or immigration — 88 percent of the climate change issue > public in our survey believed that global warming has been happening; 88 > percent attributed responsibility for it to human action; 92 percent wanted > the federal government to limit the amount of greenhouse gases that > businesses can emit. Put simply, the people whose votes are most powerfully > shaped by this issue are sending a nearly unanimous signal to their elected > representatives. > > All this makes global warming a singular issue in American politics. Even > as we are told that Americans are about equally divided into red and blue, a > huge majority shares a common vision of climate change. This creates a > unique opportunity for elected representatives to satisfy a lot of voters. > > When senators vote on emissions limits on Thursday, there is one other > number they might want to keep in mind: 72 percent of Americans think that > most business leaders do not want the federal government to take steps to > stop global warming. A vote to eliminate greenhouse gas regulation is likely > to be perceived by the nation as a vote for industry, and against the will > of the people. > > Jon A. Krosnick is a professor of communication, political science and > psychology at Stanford. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: DEP Public Notice - County - Mercer - Applicant - Appalachian Power Co. ...
by Duane330＠aol.com 10 Jun '10

10 Jun '10

FYI -- coal ash disposal in trib of New River.......... See forwarded permit for review........................DN

1 0

job posting
by Jim Sconyers 07 Jun '10

07 Jun '10

<Can you help us get the word out about this job posting, please? Below and attached.> Hi folks - The West Virginia Sierra Club is looking to hire a Lobby and Outreach Organizer to work on shale (Marcellus) gas and related water issues in West Virginia. If you are interested, please apply. Or if you know someone who might be good, please pass the word on to them. Job Description and Help Wanted Ad below. Lobby and Outreach Organizer Position The West Virginia Sierra Club works to protect the environment in West Virginia. We are seeking an individual to promote better regulation and/or legislation for shale (Marcellus) gas drilling in WV. This is a contract job, equivalent to 3/4 time, with salary and expenses. Duration is July 1 - December 31, 2010. Responsibilities Represent the Club and the environment at legislative or agency meetings. Grassroots outreach to citizens, communities, and organizations. Ø Public education: prepare fact sheets, presentations to groups, newsletter articles, web content. Ø Meet with/present to community groups. Ø Media: generate letters, op-eds, radio/TV/newspaper articles and coverage. Qualifications Ø Self-starter with experience working independently and as part of a team. Ø Public speaking and presentation skills Ø Excellent writing skills Ø Concern for WV environmental issues in general. Knowledge of shale (Marcellus) gas and water issues is a plus. Requirements Ø Able to travel (mileage reimbursed). Ø Some weekend and evening work necessary. Ø Ability to work with boards, committees, and a wide range of people. Desired Ø Computer skills (email, web, Word, Excel, PowerPoint). Ø Prepare print material - flyers, pamphlets, fact sheets, etc. Ø Engage and activate individuals and groups. Questions? Contact Karen Grubb (304.367.4878, karen.grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu), or Jim Kotcon (304.293.8822, jkotcon(a)wvu.edu). To apply, send a letter of application outlining your interests and abilities, a resume, and names and contact info for 3 references to: karen.grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu All material must be submitted electronically. References must include email addresses. Application deadline is June 20, 2010. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd:Options for phasing out coal in ES&T (Free!)
by James Kotcon 05 Jun '10

05 Jun '10

These could be some very useful studies, especially for those who need technical data. Perhaps it could even be useful in CCS rule-making, etc. JBK >>> Al Sattler <alsattler(a)IGC.ORG> 6/3/2010 10:43 PM >>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es101320m Can the U.S. phase out coal’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030? A new paper by a leading group of scientists, engineers, and architects argues that the U.S. could eliminate CO2 emissions from coal in 20 years. -------------------------- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a Options for Near-Term Phaseout of CO2 Emissions from Coal Use in the United States Pushker A. Kharecha* ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#cor1 )† ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn1 ), Charles F. Kutscher‡ ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn2 ), James E. Hansen† ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn1 ) and Edward Mazria§ ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn3 ) -------------------------- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903306e Gigaton Problems Need Gigaton Solutions1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903306e#fn1 ) Achieving sustainability requires commanding the whole problem, not just iterative efforts that barely strike a moving target. ------------------------------ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903626u Is Carbon Capture and Storage Really Needed?1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903626u#fn1 ) If CO2 cannot be stored at profit, perhaps it is best to switch to low-carbon alternative energy post haste. ------------------------------ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903036u Why the Debate about Land Use Change Should Not Only Focus on Biofuels1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903036u#fn1 ) Extensive change of the landscape for energy production is not limited to farmland alteration. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd:Natural Gas/Gulf Oil Spill call on Monday (was: What are we doing?)
by James Kotcon 05 Jun '10

05 Jun '10

Who plans to be on this one? JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 6/4/2010 5:23 PM >>> Michael Brune, Club Executive Director, will be hosting a call at 5 pm Pacific/8 Eastern Monday June 7 for volunteers and staff to "talk about our natural gas campaign and policies and answer questions". Call 1 866-501-6174 — code 223-9223#. This call may be an opportune moment for the Club's grassroots to talk to Michael about the need not only for more Sierra Club militancy on the Gulf oil tragedy but also more specificity on how the Club proposes to "get off oil". And it's not just a matter of "getting off oil". It's getting off all fossil fuels as fast as possible and not wasting another generation of infrastructure and investment on the illusory but fatal temptation of so-called "transition fossil fuels" like natural gas. New NG capacity will continue carbon spewing and fossil-fuel dependency while competing with and slowing the massive transition to renewable power for which the Gulf catastrophe so cruelly demonstrates our need most dire. -- Ed M. - - - - - - - - - - On May 24, 2010, at 3:17 PM Joe Cook wrote: > Barb, Wayne and others, > > I agree that the Sierra Club appears to be missing in action at this > seminal moment for us to shine a light on this issue and engage our > membership to light a fire under and spray dispersant on Obama, his > administration and the Congress. Where is the net roots call to > action and marching feet on the ground in DC to stop the leak, do the > clean up and call a timeout on offshore drilling? Now is the time to > expose the dirty, greedy and inhumane fossil fuel industry and tout > the alternative -- clean, renewable energy. At the same time, the > Kerry-Liberman bill is a travesty in the face of the Gulf blowout and > should be exposed as such. > > Joe Cook > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Wayne Kenton > <waynekenton(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Barb, >> >> How do we get the Sierra Club leadership angry, how do we get them to >> respond, how do we get them to get a plan to engage their grassroots >> – are we not a grassroots group? Where is the national call to >> action conference call today? >> >> After two days of sending out emails like this I am asking everyone >> on this list – where is the red button to push! Where is our action >> team response? I want to know what is happening what we are doing >> and how grassroots is being empowered. >> >> I was sent this important web site to read up on what is happening in >> the Oil world, please read and digest. >> >> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6489#comments_top >> >> www.NRDC.org has Robert Redford on CNN commercials airing as I write >> this call for political leadership today over the Gulf Crisis, where >> is ours! You want to grow public support, then we need to get out >> there with a message and plan that people can support, if you don’t >> people we find a group that does support their interests and >> concerns. Redford is saying the same thing I have been saying, this >> is urgent and to lead Mr. Obama. >> >> Maybe we should be generating a list of actions the Sierra Club could >> be doing now, since nothing seems to be happening… >> >> Wayne >> >> PS. I am not on the leadership list server so some please tell what >> is happening there???? >> >> From: Chp & Grp Global Warming Energy Chairs >> [mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf >> Of Barbara McKasson >> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 11:46 AM >> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG >> Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Brune video >> >> We have been told that Micheal Brune, Carl Pope, Allison Chin and >> Robin Mann are responding to the oil spill situation. However, it >> seems they are forgetting that this is supposed to be a grassroots >> organization. I have not seen much on prompting grassroots leaders >> and members to respond to this - and I am a Sierra Club group >> chair!. Let's use the unique strength of Sierra Club as a grassroots >> organization. >> >> This is not the time to hold back!! We must push the Obama >> Administration to be more proactive on this. We need people calling >> Congress and the White House to step up the government response and >> to pressure BP to do more. Using toxic dispersants to hide the huge >> amount of oil that scientists say is gushing out daily is not a good >> solution, yet the Obama administration is allowing it to continue. >> It seems the Obama administration is trying to silence the scientists >> also. If dispersants are used, it should be a less toxic solution! >> We should be making A LOT OF NOISE about this. If we can't hold the >> Obama Administration accountable, who will? The federal government >> response so far has been underwhelming. >> >> Also, we cannot afford to be cowed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I >> have always been told that we should respond directly and quickly to >> every attack on the Sierra Club. It doesn't seem that this is being >> done this time! >> >> Barb McKasson, Chair >> >> Shawnee Group Sierra Club >> >> In a message dated 5/23/2010 8:32:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >> Dave.Hamilton(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG writes: >>> No matter how Mike came off in that particular interview, (Mathews >>> is always tough) he is anything but tepid in the way he is >>> responding or the way he is preparing the organization to address >>> the disaster over the long term. We have been putting together a >>> very aggressive policy package on oil savings, as well as >>> ypositioning the issue as the central driver and game changer for >>> what happens in Washington for the foreseeable future. >>> >>> DH >>> >>> -----Rodney Robinson <rodney(a)CAL.NET> wrote: ----- >>> >>> ======================= >>> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG >>> From: Rodney Robinson <rodney(a)CAL.NET> >>> Date: 05/23/2010 03:25AM >>> Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Brune video >>> ======================= >>> Chris Matthews actually says "get on this the stick Michael! You >>> don't >>> seem very excited about this." >>> and I would have to agree with Chris’ request. Get on the >>> stick. >>> Michael presents the Sierra Club as an entity to ignore. There is >>> no >>> fire in the belly. Where is the outrage. A month into this and this >>> is >>> the response we get from the Sierra Club. Shameful. >>> >>> I did not see, through the eyes of CBS News or any other source, >>> the >>> gulf coast chapter members or anyone else on the beaches Friday >>> scooping up the oil mess as it hit shore. Where are the BP execs to >>> be >>> found cleaning the beaches. >>> °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° >>> A friend just sent this to me. I missed the original 60 minute >>> broadcast and had intended to catch it in the eworld. >>> >>> Here it is in the event that you missed it or would want to pass >>> the >>> link to a friend. >>> >>> >>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25474.htm >>> >>> ***************************************** >>> And... You may want to subscribe to the newsletter below. >>> ***************************************** >>> >>> Government of the USA in Exile >>> Free Americans Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to >>> Breathe Free >>> Via <prez(a)usa-exile.org> >>> >>> May >>> 21, 2010 >>> >>> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/21/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1 >>> >>> Gulf Oil Spill Effects to Reach Arctic and Europe, >>> >>> Expert Says >>> >>> By the CNN Wire Staff >>> >>> May 21, 2010 -- Updated 1801 GMT (0201 HKT) >>> >>> Washington (CNN) -- The damaging effects of the massive oil spill >>> in >>> the Gulf of Mexico will be felt all the way to Europe and the >>> Arctic, >>> a top scientist told a congressional panel Friday. >>> >>> "This is not just a regional issue for the wildlife," said Carl >>> Safina, the president of the Blue Ocean Institute. Safina, who >>> recently returned from the Gulf Coast region, presented several >>> photographs, including one of an oil-covered bird. >>> >>> "There will be a nest empty in Newfoundland," Safina said, noting >>> common migratory patterns. Safina warned that multiple forms of >>> marine >>> life in the Atlantic Ocean "come into the Gulf to breed." >>> >>> Safina's briefing to representatives of the House Energy and >>> Commerce >>> Committee was scheduled as part of an ongoing effort to draw on a >>> broad range of expertise for cleanup efforts. >>> >>> "We have to use science to find solutions," said Rep. Ed Markey, D- >>> Massachusetts. Markey has been strongly critical of the current >>> cleanup effort, calling it ineffective. >>> >>> Meanwhile, another congressman, concerned about people who are >>> working >>> to clean up the spill, has asked the White House to set up >>> temporary >>> health care centers along the Gulf Coast to serve volunteers and >>> workers. >>> >>> Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Louisiana, envisions such clinics as >>> providing "medical checkups to people who have come in contact with >>> the oil and assist in monitoring the health effects of the oil leak >>> on >>> south Louisianians." >>> >>> He sent the request Wednesday to Health and Human Services >>> Secretary >>> Kathleen Sebelius. There was no immediate response from the agency. >>> >>> "Many residents and volunteers are being exposed to hazardous >>> materials on a daily basis, and some will have to travel hours to >>> get >>> treatment at the nearest health care facility. It is imperative >>> that >>> temporary health care clinics be established to provide basic >>> health >>> care services in this geographic area," he said. >>> >>> He has also asked Sebelius to "appoint a health care coordinator to >>> oversee and streamline the health care response." >>> >>> Melancon emphasized that BP should be responsible for such health >>> care >>> services in his state. The energy giant was operating the oil rig >>> that >>> exploded and sank in April, triggering the spill. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ------------------------------------------ >>> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10139730.stm >>> >>> US oil spill: BP 'recovering less oil' than >>> estimated >>> >>> BP has said the amount of oil recovered from a leaking Gulf of >>> Mexico >>> oil well on Thursday was less than half an earlier estimate. >>> >>> BP said it siphoned 2,200 barrels in the 24-hour period to midnight >>> on >>> Thursday, down from an estimate of 5,000 barrels earlier in the day. >>> >>> The US government has formed a team to develop a more precise >>> estimate >>> of the amount of oil gushing from the well. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ----------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> White House Covers Up Menacing Oil "Blob" >>> >>> by Wayne Madsen >>> >>> Global Research, May 21, 2010 >>> Oilprice.com >>> >>> In an exclusive for Oilprice.com, the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) has >>> learned from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. >>> Army >>> Corps of Engineers sources that U.S. Navy submarines deployed to >>> the >>> Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean off the Florida coast have >>> detected >>> what amounts to a frozen oil blob from the oil geyser at the >>> destroyed >>> Deep Horizon off-shore oil rig south of Louisiana. The Navy >>> submarines >>> have trained video cameras on the moving blob, which remains frozen >>> at >>> depths of between 3,000 to 4,000 feet. Because the oil blob is >>> heavier >>> than water, it remains frozen at current depths. >>> >>> FEMA and Corps of Engineers employees are upset that the White >>> House >>> and the Pentagon remain tight-lipped and in cover-up mode about the >>> images of the massive and fast-moving frozen coagulated oil blob >>> that >>> is being imaged by Navy submarines that are tracking its movement. >>> The >>> sources point out that BP and the White House conspired to withhold >>> videos from BP-contracted submersibles that showed the oil geyser >>> that >>> was spewing oil from the chasm underneath the datum of the Deep >>> Horizon at rates far exceeding originally reported amounts. We have >>> learned that it was largely WMR's scoop on the existence of the BP >>> videos that forced the company and its White House patrons to >>> finally >>> agree to the release of the video footage. >>> >>> The White House is officially stating that it does not know where >>> the >>> officially reported 10 miles long by 3 miles wide "plume" is >>> actually >>> located or in what direction it is heading. However, WMR's sources >>> claim the White House is getting real-time reports from Navy >>> submarines as to the blob's location. We have learned that the blob >>> is >>> transiting the Florida Straits between Florida and Cuba, propelled >>> by >>> the Gulf's Loop Current, and that parts of it that is encountering >>> warmer waters are breaking off into smaller tar balls that are now >>> washing ashore in the environmentally-sensitive Florida Keys and >>> Dry >>> Tortugas. >>> >>> Corps of Engineers and FEMA officials are also livid about the >>> cover- >>> up of the extent of the oil damage being promulgated by the >>> National >>> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its marine >>> research >>> vessel in the Gulf, RV Pelican. NOAA stands accused by the >>> aforementioned agencies of acting as a virtual public relations arm >>> for BP. NOAA is a component of the business-oriented Department of >>> Commerce. >>> >>> Similarly, the Coast Guard, which takes its orders from the >>> cover-up >>> operatives at the Homeland Security Department, is denying the tar >>> balls washing up on the Florida Keys are from the oil mass. WMR has >>> been told the Coast Guard is lying in order to protect the Obama >>> administration, which has thoroughly failed in its response to the >>> disaster. The White House's only concern is trying to limit >>> political >>> damage to its image in the electorally-important state of Florida >>> while the Pentagon has spent between $25 and $30 billion on oil >>> spill >>> operations in the Gulf and the Atlantic to date. >>> >>> WMR sources also report that the oil mass has resulted in dead >>> zones >>> in the Gulf of Mexico that have cut off oxygen and killed massive >>> numbers of marine creatures and plant life. Seafood wholesalers >>> from >>> the Gulf Coast to New Jersey and New York have been told that the >>> supply of shrimp, oysters, and other seafood from the Gulf is >>> severely >>> in short supply and that they can expect a possible total cut-off >>> as >>> the situation worsens. The shortage will also affect the supply of >>> seafood, especially shrimp, to national seafood restaurant chains >>> like >>> Red Lobster and Long John Silver's. >>> >>> There is also evidence that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean sank a >>> drill to a depth of 35,000 feet at the Deep Horizon site some six >>> months ago without the required permits from the federal >>> government. >>> WMR has learned from U.S. government sources that the drilling at >>> 35,000 feet caused a major catastrophic event that required the >>> firms' >>> oil rig personnel to quickly pull up the drill and close the drill >>> hole. >>> >>> However, the Deep Horizon re-sank the drill some six months after >>> the >>> unspecified "catastrophe," resulting in another, more destructive >>> chain of events following the explosion that destroyed the rig, >>> killing eleven workers. When the Deep Horizon blew up, WMR has been >>> told it also "blew down," cracking the the sub-seabed pipe that may >>> have been re-drilled to a depth of between 25,000 to 30,000 feet, >>> again, without a government permit. >>> >>> Government sources also report that BP is intent on recovering as >>> much >>> oil as possible from the undersea geyser rather than simply >>> plugging >>> and capping the well, which would then place it off-limits to >>> further >>> drilling. The Corps of Engineers reports that BP is playing a game >>> with Obama, convincing him of the feasibility of "shooting junk" >>> into >>> the subterranean pipe, which would stop up the pipe with a >>> manufactured chemical compound called "MUD." However, WMR has been >>> informed that BP actually intends to shoot cement into the pipe in >>> an >>> attempt to cap the well with the later intention of digging a >>> trench >>> for side drilling from the pipe to recover as much oil as possible. >>> The technology that would be employed by BP is the same technology >>> that was used by Kuwait to conduct slant drilling of Iraq's >>> Rumallah >>> oil field -- an event that helped trigger Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. >>> >>> Corps of Engineers and FEMA sources also give a failing grade to >>> both >>> Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who stands accused of >>> being woefully incompetent in handling the disaster, and Interior >>> Secretary Ken Salazar. Government sources say both secretaries >>> should >>> immediately step down or be fired. >>> >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/21-6 >>> Published on Friday, May 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org >>> >>> Boycott BP >>> >>> by Robert Weissman >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> Because BP must pay. >>> >>> Eleven oil workers are dead. One of the largest oil spills in U.S. >>> history continues to worsen. BP's oil gusher at the floor of the >>> Gulf >>> of Mexico may be 100 times worse than BP first estimated (and 20 >>> times >>> worse than the company presently claims). 100 times! >>> >>> BP's oil gusher is now threatening coastal lands in Louisiana and >>> is >>> almost certain to destroy fisheries and the livelihoods of people >>> who >>> fish and shrimp in the Gulf, or rely on the Gulf for tourism >>> business. >>> The giant plumes of oil deep underwater will exact an unknown toll >>> on >>> sea life. And the spreading oil may even wind up in currents that >>> eventually take it to the U.S. Eastern shores. >>> >>> BP CEO Tony Hayward is sanguine about the whole problem. The >>> Financial >>> Times quotes him saying, "I think the environmental impact of this >>> disaster is likely to have been very, very modest." >>> >>> A boycott will send a message to BP that its shoddy oversight of >>> this >>> project and its history of environmental and worker safety >>> violations >>> is unforgivable. Take the BP Boycott Pledge, and commit not to buy >>> gas >>> from BP for at least three months. Go here: www.beyondBP.org >>> >>> BP cares desperately about its public image. This is the company >>> that >>> has sought to rebrand itself as "Beyond Petroleum." BusinessWeek >>> estimates the BP brand as worth $3.9 billion -- the highest among >>> oil >>> companies. "Not even an Alaskan oil spill or an explosion at a >>> Texas >>> refinery has put a dent in BP's strong [brand] performance," said >>> BusinessWeek in 2006. This time must be different. A boycott will >>> express the organized consumer anger that BP so fears. >>> >>> This is a company that should fear the public's wrath, for the >>> Deepwater Horizon blowout was a preventable disaster. While much >>> remains unknown, there is mounting evidence that BP could have >>> averted >>> the catastrophe. BP made a conscious decision not to install a >>> $500,000 safety device that could have prevented the blowout. There >>> is >>> good reason to believe BP's contractors on the Deepwater Horizon >>> made >>> multiple mistakes leading up to the disaster, but it is ultimately >>> BP's job to make sure its contractors are exercising sufficient >>> care. >>> And Mike Williams, the chief electronics technician on the >>> Deepwater >>> Horizon, told 60 Minutes that BP pressured its contractors to skirt >>> other safety measures that might have prevented the disaster. >>> >>> All this from a company that made $14 billion in profits in 2009 -- >>> a >>> bad year. First quarter profits in 2010 were over $6 billion. >>> >>> After the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, Tony Hayward >>> reportedly >>> asked why bad things keep happening to BP. >>> >>> But this is not a case of bad things happening to good people. BP >>> has >>> one of the worst environmental and safety records of any oil >>> company >>> operating in the United States. BP has pled guilty in just the last >>> few years to two crimes and paid more than $730 million in fines, >>> penalties and settlements for environmental crimes, willful >>> disregard >>> for workplace safety and energy market manipulation. >>> >>> BP sometimes says it will pay for the harms caused by the spill, >>> but >>> at other times hedges what it may be willing to do. There will be >>> litigation and fines, and BP won't have the final say on what it >>> wants >>> to pay. In any case, cash compensation for economic harms caused -- >>> while necessary -- doesn't bring back destroyed ecosystems and does >>> little to mitigate the company's culpability for not preventing the >>> blowout in the first place. >>> >>> The only good that can come out of the BP disaster is if it forces >>> the >>> United States to fundamentally reorient energy policy. As a matter >>> of >>> simple common sense, the Obama administration should reverse its >>> new >>> policy and stop offshore drilling expansion. More fundamentally, >>> BP's >>> oil gusher is yet another reminder of the need for a massive shift >>> away from fossil fuels and to investments in efficiency and >>> renewable >>> energy. The disaster also emphasizes how crucial it is to hold Big >>> Oil >>> accountable. The BP boycott is a way to start. >>> >>> There are no "good" oil companies, but BP is a particularly bad and >>> irresponsible actor. Consumers should make it pay. Take the BP >>> Boycott >>> Pledge: . >>> >>> Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen. >>> >>> >>> On May 22, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Thomas Mathews wrote: >>> >>> > I watched the video, Fred. The last line is Chris Matthews >>> telling >>> > Brune to "get on this Michael! You don't seem very excited about >>> > this." >>> > >>> > And, in fact, Brune's comments are rather, shall we say, tepid. >>> He >>> > doesn't even respond substantively to Rush Limbaugh's attack on >>> > Sierra Club. The other guest, Joan Walsh from Salon.com, does a >>> much >>> > better job of defending Sierra Club than does Brune. >>> > >>> > And, of course, Brune does not go on the offensive against >>> Obama's >>> > handling of the oil spill. Matthews does though. Big time. >>> > >>> > Give Brune some time, I suppose. He's still new on the job. >>> > >>> > Tom Mathews >>> > Iowa Chapter >>> > = >>> > >>> ===================================================================== >>> = >>> > Please see: >>> > >>> > http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/adv_oilspill >>> > >>> > The Club has been responding since the first day. Our national >>> > leaders -- Mike Brune, Carl Pope, outgoing president Allison Chin >>> and >>> > incoming president Robin Mann, have been speaking continually in >>> > public and with the media, there is a national response group >>> working >>> > on the oil spill and our Gulf Coast chapters are fully >>> mobilizing. >>> > Here's >>> > a signup form: >>> > >>> > >>> http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer? >>> pagename=20100429VolunterGulfCoastOilSpill&autologin=true >>> > >>> > Fred >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

Fwd: coal to clean energy?
by Paul Wilson 04 Jun '10

04 Jun '10

please contact the intern if you have info. thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cramer, Virginia <virginia.cramer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM Subject: coal to clean energy? To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hi everyone, I'm passing along this note from a Club intern in MI. This information would clearly be great for all of us to have compiled so please send her anything you have that might be useful. She's at sierraclubintern(a)gmail.com. thanks, ginny Hello All. I am in the process of compiling a report of nationwide examples of how new alternative energy businesses erected out of the ashes of a fallen coal plant. One Michigan example is Manistee when a coal plant was denied and Mariah began developing the Windspire wind turbine. With great success and much needed job creation, this company continues to thrive today. Mariah donated the wind turnbine that currently powers the Michigan Govenor's own residence! I know there has to be several examples of this transition---or evolution to alternative energy and we want to collect those stories. Please feel free to repost far and wide and please send information and links to me, Stephanie at: sierraclubintern(a)gmail.com I would greatly appreciate any help you can offer! Have a great day! Stephanie Vollick Sierra Club Intern, Beyond Coal Royal Oak, MI Cell: 248-842-7443 -- Virginia Cramer Deputy Press Secretary Sierra Club tel: 804-225-9113 x 102 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

PSC on PATH- Procedural Order grants the Second Proposal to Toll the statutory due date, until 5/16/2011
by Frank Young 03 Jun '10

03 Jun '10

We expected this, but now it's official. Click on the blue type in the "description" below to read the order. ----- Original Message ----- From: WV Public Service Commission To: fyoung(a)mountain.net Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:00 PM Subject: [PSC Docket] Activity on PSC Case(s) on 06/03/2010 The Following Cases had activity on 06/03/2010. Subscription Name Case Number Case Name Description(click link to view document) E-mail notification 09-0770-E-CN PATH West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC; PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; PATH-WV Land Acquisition Company; and PATH-Allegheny Land Acquisition Company Commission Procedural Order granting the Second Proposal to Toll the statutory due date, until 5/16/2011; setting for Evidentiary Hearing beginning 1/10/2011; the Evidentiary Hearing ends on 1/25/2011;For details see Internet Hearing Information; granting the 9/22/2009 Protective Motion regarding the Confidential CEII Data and Confidential Forecast Data; Applicants submit, within 30 days, appropriate motions for protective treatment for all additional documents filed under seal; directing the Applicants to update time-sensitive information contained in the right-of-way information packets distributed by its right-of-way agents; denying the Rappaport/Haverty/WCIG/Wilson requests regarding the Applicants right-of-way agents and land acquisition activities; directing the Applicants to work closely with its right-of-way agents to assure that the agents are providing accurate and timely information to landowners, and are abiding by applicable state and federal rules and regulations; denying Ms. Bonhage-Hale's motion requesting that the Applicants provide a list of property owners along the route of the proposed transmission line; Applicants are not required to respond to the data requests filed by Earl and Delores Irons, Ryan Gaujot, and John W. Cobb; denying the Baker motion for clarification; granting, in part, the JCIG motion to compel and denying, in part, as described in the Discussion section of this Order; the JCIG motion for additional time to file prefiled testimony in denied as moot; denying the WCIG motion to compel as described in the Discussion of this Order; denying as moot the Howley motion in limine; Applicants file supplemental testimony on issues of electrical need and any other issues requiring supplementation by Noon on 7/8/2010; Staff and Intervenors propound discovery on supplemental testimony filed 7/8/2010 due by Noon on 10/29/2010; Staff's and Intervenors prepared direct testimony and rebuttal to the direct testimony of Applicants due by Noon on 11/18/2010; deadline for propounding discovery in response to testimony due 11/19//2010 is due by Noon on 11/30/2010; Applicant's rebuttal testimony to the direct testimony for Staff and Intervenors, and for Staff and Intervenor rebuttal testimony to the direct testimony of one another due by Noon on 12/17/2010; deadline for propounding discovery in response to the rebuttal testimony due 12/17/2010 is due by Noon on 12/28/2010; Written opening statements due by Noon on 1/6/2011; Initial briefs and proposed orders may be filed until Noon on 2/22/2011; Reply Briefs may be filed until 3/10/2011; etc. This is an automated message. Do not respond to this message. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia does not accept electronic filings, you will receive a hard copy in the mail. If you wish to respond to the enclosed document, you may do so in writing. Please send your response to the Executive Secretary at the address below. Please add docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us to your address book to ensure delivery of this notice. About this Notice: You were sent this email at fyoung(a)mountain.net because you have subscribed to this particular case and or case type, etc. If you do not wish to receive further messages for this case(s), please go to manage your subscriptions. Please add docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us to your address book to ensure delivery of this notice. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at: Public Service Commission Of West Virginia P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323 304-340-0300 or Toll Free 1-800-344-5113 Fax: 304-340-0325

1 0

Fw: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy
by Jim Sconyers 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 12:43:22 AM Subject: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy Chris Paine blog circulated May 28 by Jim Magavern: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy So what would all the nuclear largesse mean in practice if the K-L bill as written becomes law, and perhaps 12-24 new nuclear power plants are constructed over the next fifteen years in response to the incentives the bill creates? American taxpayers and consumers will have to pay through the nose for the electricity from these plants, which is likely to cost - depending on the project ownership and finance structure-anywhere from 17-34 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) (California Energy Commission, December 2009) when it enters the grid around 2018, instead of buying end-use efficiency "negawatts" today at less than 5 cents per kilowatt hour, industrial waste heat cogeneration today at less than 9 cents per kWh, wind at less than 11.5 cents per kWh, and a wide variety of other renewable sources at less than 17 cents per kilowatt hour, with the expectation of further price declines. In a recent analysis from DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), for example, big box commercial rooftop PV solar is expected to decline from about 11 - 15 cents/kWh (Phoenix versus Kansas City) today to 4.5 - 6 cents per KWh in 2015. Not only will new-nuclear cost more than these other cleaner sources, but the effective carbon displacement arrives 5-7 years later than the other technologies, further raising the overall cost of meeting the GHG reduction targets. The harder, farther, and earlier we push on energy efficiency in a climate bill, the fewer costly nuclear, coal CCS or other "low-carbon" generating plants we'll have to build later on to meet the GHG reduction targets. So there is actually a triple-barreled economic benefit from deferring widespread deployment of the most costly decarbonization pathways (nuclear, coal CCS, renewables in less-favorable locations) until we absolutely need them to stay on track with meeting our reduction targets: (1) lower electricity costs; (2) earlier GHG reductions; and (3) less required future investment in low-carbon central station power plants that have other serious environmental drawbacks. This strategy not only frees up funding for massive early investments in more cost-effective energy efficiency, but it also allows more time for technology innovation to reduce future nuclear (and coal CCS) costs and environmental impacts. The same holds true for currently costly, land-intensive combinations of remotely located large-scale renewables and new high-voltage transmission lines. Rapidly evolving technology and plummeting manufacturing costs may enable a higher proportion of clean energy to come from equally or more cost-effective distributed-generation mounted along highway embankments and atop buildings and parking lots, lessening the burden imposed by some large-scale renewable deployments on the natural environment. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC