- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Fwd: Edison Electric Institute: Report documents coal decline
by Paul Wilson 31 Jan '08

31 Jan '08

Allegheny Power is one of the companies listed in the data here in this report. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alice McKeown <Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 30, 2008 11:18 PM Subject: Edison Electric Institute: Report documents coal decline To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org The Edison Electric Institute, an association of US shareholder-owned electric companies, recently released a new report documenting power plant construction for the third quarter of 2007. Among the notable highlights: - To date, 82% of the canceled projects in 2007 were coal plants - In the third quarter, these companies announced plans to build the same amount of capacity as these abandoned coal plans all without relying on coal plants. These facts along with useful charts and information on transmission line and nuclear plant proposals can be found in the full report at: http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/finance_and_accounting/finance/research_… Many thanks, Alice ________________________________ Alice McKeown Sierra Club National Coal Campaign tel: 202.675.6271 fax: 202.547.6009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubsribe 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 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: 304-279-6975

1 0

Coal power plants point person needed
by Barbara Fallon 30 Jan '08

30 Jan '08

Committee, Paul Wilson is on the National Coal Campaign Committee. He needs a point person from our energy committee who will keep track of current and new/proposed coal fired power plants. You do not have to be an expert on the coal issues, you just have to be a contact person for this national committee. If anyone is interested plese let me know. If you have any questions please contact Paul Wilson (pjgrunt(a)lycos.com.) Paul needs to know asap..by Friday!!! Barbara ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

1 0

Fwd: State of the Union "preview" story
by Paul Wilson 24 Jan '08

24 Jan '08

Feed ideas to Rob. Also get in the habit of thinking what stories to pitch to Rob on Energy issues on a continuing basis. We are paying over $1700 a year for this service so it is imperative that folks pitch stories to Rob as Sierra Club members/issues. thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public NewsService Web Site <wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org> Date: Jan 23, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: State of the Union "preview" story To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com Hi all--Rob Ferrett here with the West Virginia News Service. Monday night is the State of the Union address. I'm looking for people to comment for a story I'll do for Monday morning -- along the lines of, "what does the state of the union look like from a West Virginia perspective?" If you'd like to share a couple thoughts on what you think the top challenges are facing the country, what the top federal priority should be, or something along those lines, please send me an email...I'll work in as many people as I can fit, on a range of subjects. Thanks! Rob Ferrett West Virginia News Service 800-317-6705 --- 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. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] MTR on Diane Rehm Show on NPR
by Paul Wilson 24 Jan '08

24 Jan '08

This show is starting now on WAMU.org if you don't get this show on your local NPR stations. Also, the show has an archives section so you can listen to old shows at your leisure on the internet. best, Paul -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] [fom] Third World Country
by Regina Hendrix 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

Lorelie, this makes me feel a little better. However, I'd sure like to have him take some photos of the sick people in Mingo. Regina Lorelie Scarbro wrote: > In Sept. of 2006 I went on a flyover of MTR sites with Paul on > Southwings. He is very supportive of our work. By the way, the home > he built in PAX is powered by solar. Lorelei Scarbro > > On Jan 23, 2008 12:06 PM, Bob Gates <photonzx(a)ntelos.net > <mailto:photonzx@ntelos.net>> wrote: > > Paul Corbit Brown was a speaker at the OSM Buffer Zone hearings > last fall, > so we do not need to question his sentiments. I am not sure I > remember MTR > photographs in an exhibit he had at WVSU a couple of years ago. > He lived > with and photographed American Indians for some time, and now > travels the > world. If he were to have pictures in southern West Virginia it > would most > likely be of poor people living in trailers. While he is > adamantly opposed > to MTR, he is a people person and Paul's photographs are often > close-up > portraits. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Regina Hendrix" <regina1936(a)verizon.net > <mailto:regina1936@verizon.net>> > To: "All of FOM list" <fom(a)lists.riseup.net > <mailto:fom@lists.riseup.net>>; > <mountainjustice(a)lists.riseup.net > <mailto:mountainjustice@lists.riseup.net>>; <ec(a)osenergy.org > <mailto:ec@osenergy.org>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:37 PM > Subject: [fom] Third World Country > > > > Pasted in below is a notice I received from the Cultural Center > about an > > activist photographer who is traveling the world to document > tragedies in > > Third World countries. No where in this notice is MTR mentioned. > > > > What do you want to bet there are no photos of our local Third > World which > > is being blasted away. I'm going over there to take a look. We > need to get > > him to photograph MTR, but then they wouldn't display his work > in the > > Governor's back yard, would they? > > > > Regina > > > > * Contact: * > > > > Jacqueline A. Proctor > > > > Deputy Commissioner/Communications Manager > > > > Phone: 304.558.0220, ext. 120 > > > > E-mail: jacqueline.proctor(a)wvculture.org > <mailto:jacqueline.proctor@wvculture.org> > > > > * For Immediate Release: * Jan. 22, 2008 > > > > * Social activist photographer to be interviewed * > > > > * on "Inside the Artist's Studio" on Feb. 1 at the **Cultural** > **Center* > > > > The West Virginia Division of Culture and History has opened a new > > exhibition, /Photographs by Paul Corbit Brown/, in the wings off > the Great > > Hall of the Cultural Center, Capitol Complex, Charleston. > Visitors are > > invited to come view the show through Feb. 29, and meet the > artist after a > > live interview and question and answer session in the Norman L. > Fagan West > > Virginia State Theater on Friday, Feb. 1, at 7 p.m. A reception > will be > > held in the Great Hall after the interview. The exhibition, > interview and > > reception are free and open to the public. > > > > Brown was born in the small coal camp of Kilsyth in southern West > > Virginia. He has been taking photographs since he was 12 years > old. A > > social activist, his work has led him to travel throughout the > United > > States, Mexico, Jamaica, Kenya, Russia, Israel, Laos, Thailand, > Rwanda and > > most recently, Indonesia. > > > > Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, co-director of the University of > Minnesota's Human > > Rights Center says of him, "Paul Corbit Brown is an amazing > photographer > > and a passionate individual. We must allow ourselves to stand in > front of > > his photographs and stare into the eyes of those around the > world affected > > by social and human injustices." > > > > In the 35 photographs on display, visitors can see images of street > > children singing for food or money, and people living under > bridges who > > collect plastic bottles to sell or trade for food in Jakarta, > Indonesia. > > In Kingston, Jamaica, we see the lives of some 8,000 people who live > > beside the garbage dump in Riverton City. Kibera, Kenya, the second > > largest slum in the world with a population larger than one million, > > provides stark images of poverty and homelessness. > > > > Brown has taken photographs showing an Israeli soldier sharing > his lunch > > with a Palestinian boy, olive harvests, a picture taken at the > aftermath > > of a suicide bus bombing and the desert in Jordan. His most > recent ongoing > > project is to document the long-range effects of the 1994 > genocide in > > Rwanda, and the resiliency of the people there struggling to > overcome the > > past as they forge a new future. He says, "I began interviewing and > > photographing people from all walks of life in order to come to > understand > > the origins of the genocide, how it affected them, how it > continues to > > affect them, and how they are working to overcome these effects > through > > faith-based reconciliation programs, government regulations and > > reconciliation programs, and the role of non-governmental > organizations in > > the healing/rebuilding process." Many of his images are of the > estimated > > 1.5-million children left homeless and parentless as a result of the > > genocide. AIDS also orphans children at the astounding rate of > four per > > minute. One photo shows Zura, a witchdoctor who saved 150 lives > during the > > genocide and eventually received a presidential medal for her > courage. > > > > When not traveling, Brown can be found in the solar-powered home he > > designed and built in Fayette County. He supports himself > through his work > > with numerous Human Rights organizations as well as freelance > work for > > countless publications and the sale of his prints. Brown has had > > significant exhibitions in Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Md.; > Columbus, > > Ohio; Minneapolis, Minn.; and a number of galleries in West > Virginia. More > > of his photographs can be seen on his website at > www.paulcorbitbrown.com <http://www.paulcorbitbrown.com>. > > > > Jacqueline Proctor , deputy commissioner of the Division, will > interview > > Brown, and open up the floor to a question and answer session. > Images of > > Brown's work will be shown during the interview. > > > > For more information about the exhibition or the interview, contact > > Proctor at (304) 558-0220, ext. 120. > > > > The West Virginia Division of Culture and History, an agency of > the West > > Virginia Department of Education and the Arts, brings together > the state's > > past, present and future through programs and services in the > areas of > > archives and history, the arts, historic preservation and > museums. Its > > administrative offices are located at the Cultural Center in the > State > > Capitol Complex in Charleston, which also houses the state > archives and > > state museum. The Cultural Center is West Virginia's official > showcase for > > the arts. The agency also operates a network of museums and > historic sites > > across the state. For more information about the Division's > programs, > > visit www.wvculture.org <http://www.wvculture.org>. The Division > of Culture and History is an Equal > > Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. > > > > * - 30 - * > > > > * Media Note: *Paul Corbit Brown is currently shooting > photographs and > > teaching photography to young students in Jakarta, Indonesia, > where it is > > 12 hours ahead of our Eastern Standard Time. He can be reached > at 011 62 > > 8131 814 2621 or by e-mail at pcbphoto(a)yahoo.com > <mailto:pcbphoto@yahoo.com> until Jan. 24. From Jan. > > 26 on, he can be reached at the same e-mail address or at (202) > 841-0222. > > *Photos are available at our website www.wvculture.org > <http://www.wvculture.org>, attached to this > > press release.* > > > > > >

1 0

Fwd: information needed: liquid coal
by Paul Wilson 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

Need some response asap, so if you have any info pls fwd to me. thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Date: Jan 15, 2008 12:26 PM Subject: Fwd: information needed: liquid coal Per Ginny's email below. Are there CTL plants on the drawing board in your states? I think there are but I need the name/location if you can find it for me in the next few days. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 15, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: information needed: liquid coal To: bruce_nilles(a)prodigy.net, sarah.hodgdon(a)earthlink.net, baumling(a)aol.com, pjgrunt(a)gmail.com, Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org, Jesse.Simons(a)sierraclub.org, Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org Hi all, I'm working on a story idea about the latest wave of coal plant proposals-- liquid coal plants. There are at least 10 officially on the drawing board now, and many more that we know of that have not yet begun the process. I need to pull together a list of all of the plants to have handy for reporters, along with a few key fights that we will want to flag. So, here is the list of plants that I have so far. These are taken from our coal plant tracker. ND- American Lignite Energy OH- Ohio River MT- Malmstrom air force base MT- Roundup WV- Logan WV- Rentech NY- Scriba PA- Schuykill WY- Medicine Bow MS- Belwood Are there others that we know of that are not in our tracker? ones that have not formally begun the process yet? Verena/Paul- are there any plants that the volunteers are working on that aren't on this list? any places where we have great stories/spokespeople for our fight on the ground? Are there any of these plants in particular that you want me to flag, any fights of national significance? I would love to have this list done and local spokespeople settled by the end of January, earlier if possible. Thanks in advance for your help, ginny ____________ Virginia Cramer Media Coordinator Sierra Club tel: 202.675.6279 fax: 202.547.6009 -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975 -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Third World Country
by Regina Hendrix 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

Pasted in below is a notice I received from the Cultural Center about an activist photographer who is traveling the world to document tragedies in Third World countries. No where in this notice is MTR mentioned. What do you want to bet there are no photos of our local Third World which is being blasted away. I'm going over there to take a look. We need to get him to photograph MTR, but then they wouldn't display his work in the Governor's back yard, would they? Regina * Contact: * Jacqueline A. Proctor Deputy Commissioner/Communications Manager Phone: 304.558.0220, ext. 120 E-mail: jacqueline.proctor(a)wvculture.org * For Immediate Release: * Jan. 22, 2008 * Social activist photographer to be interviewed * * on “Inside the Artist’s Studio” on Feb. 1 at the **Cultural** **Center* The West Virginia Division of Culture and History has opened a new exhibition, /Photographs by Paul Corbit Brown/, in the wings off the Great Hall of the Cultural Center, Capitol Complex, Charleston. Visitors are invited to come view the show through Feb. 29, and meet the artist after a live interview and question and answer session in the Norman L. Fagan West Virginia State Theater on Friday, Feb. 1, at 7 p.m. A reception will be held in the Great Hall after the interview. The exhibition, interview and reception are free and open to the public. Brown was born in the small coal camp of Kilsyth in southern West Virginia. He has been taking photographs since he was 12 years old. A social activist, his work has led him to travel throughout the United States, Mexico, Jamaica, Kenya, Russia, Israel, Laos, Thailand, Rwanda and most recently, Indonesia. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, co-director of the University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Center says of him, “Paul Corbit Brown is an amazing photographer and a passionate individual. We must allow ourselves to stand in front of his photographs and stare into the eyes of those around the world affected by social and human injustices.” In the 35 photographs on display, visitors can see images of street children singing for food or money, and people living under bridges who collect plastic bottles to sell or trade for food in Jakarta, Indonesia. In Kingston, Jamaica, we see the lives of some 8,000 people who live beside the garbage dump in Riverton City. Kibera, Kenya, the second largest slum in the world with a population larger than one million, provides stark images of poverty and homelessness. Brown has taken photographs showing an Israeli soldier sharing his lunch with a Palestinian boy, olive harvests, a picture taken at the aftermath of a suicide bus bombing and the desert in Jordan. His most recent ongoing project is to document the long-range effects of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and the resiliency of the people there struggling to overcome the past as they forge a new future. He says, “I began interviewing and photographing people from all walks of life in order to come to understand the origins of the genocide, how it affected them, how it continues to affect them, and how they are working to overcome these effects through faith-based reconciliation programs, government regulations and reconciliation programs, and the role of non-governmental organizations in the healing/rebuilding process.” Many of his images are of the estimated 1.5-million children left homeless and parentless as a result of the genocide. AIDS also orphans children at the astounding rate of four per minute. One photo shows Zura, a witchdoctor who saved 150 lives during the genocide and eventually received a presidential medal for her courage. When not traveling, Brown can be found in the solar-powered home he designed and built in Fayette County. He supports himself through his work with numerous Human Rights organizations as well as freelance work for countless publications and the sale of his prints. Brown has had significant exhibitions in Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Md.; Columbus, Ohio; Minneapolis, Minn.; and a number of galleries in West Virginia. More of his photographs can be seen on his website at www.paulcorbitbrown.com. Jacqueline Proctor , deputy commissioner of the Division, will interview Brown, and open up the floor to a question and answer session. Images of Brown’s work will be shown during the interview. For more information about the exhibition or the interview, contact Proctor at (304) 558-0220, ext. 120. The West Virginia Division of Culture and History, an agency of the West Virginia Department of Education and the Arts, brings together the state’s past, present and future through programs and services in the areas of archives and history, the arts, historic preservation and museums. Its administrative offices are located at the Cultural Center in the State Capitol Complex in Charleston, which also houses the state archives and state museum. The Cultural Center is West Virginia’s official showcase for the arts. The agency also operates a network of museums and historic sites across the state. For more information about the Division’s programs, visit www.wvculture.org. The Division of Culture and History is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. * - 30 - * * Media Note: *Paul Corbit Brown is currently shooting photographs and teaching photography to young students in Jakarta, Indonesia, where it is 12 hours ahead of our Eastern Standard Time. He can be reached at 011 62 8131 814 2621 or by e-mail at pcbphoto(a)yahoo.com until Jan. 24. From Jan. 26 on, he can be reached at the same e-mail address or at (202) 841-0222. *Photos are available at our website www.wvculture.org, attached to this press release.*

2 1

Fwd: MD cutting energy use
by James Kotcon 21 Jan '08

21 Jan '08

>>> Paula Carrell <Paula.Carrell(a)sierraclub.org> 1/17/2008 4:32 PM >>> 4. Strong Action Urged To Cut MD Energy Use Washington Post January 14, 2008 By Lisa Rein Maryland should force utilities to take aggressive steps to cut energy consumption, and the state should create a multimillion-dollar fund to give homeowners an array of incentives to use less power, Gov. Martin O'Malley's top energy advisers will recommend today. The blueprint, to be released by the Maryland Energy Administration, will offer 20 proposals to help O'Malley (D) deliver on his ambitious pledge to reduce the state's energy consumption by 15 percent in seven years and stave off rolling blackouts that experts predict could occur in three years. The report recommends that the state encourage the fledgling solar and wind energy industries to invest in the region and help Maryland more than double its use of renewable power. The 85-page "Strategic Electricity Plan," a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, acknowledges that no silver bullet exists to roll back the record electric rate increases that hit Maryland customers last year after deregulation fully took effect. And there is no way to quickly generate new power to meet growing demand, the report says. Demand jumped almost 16 percent between 1999 and 2005, while the supply grew 1.9 percent. "The plan should be viewed as 'silver buckshot' -- a series of measures to promote affordable, reliable and clean energy for Maryland," the report says. Malcolm Woolf, the state's energy administrator, said that "we have ignored energy issues in the state" since the General Assembly agreed in 1999 to bring competition into the electricity market. He called the strategic plan an "opening salvo in a larger effort to take control of Maryland's energy's future." Electricity prices rose for millions of residential customers last spring when rate caps came off, and the competition between providers that lawmakers hoped for has not materialized. Maryland residents pay among the highest electricity rates on the East Coast. With population growth and ever-larger, gadget-rich houses expected to increase energy demand by 17 percent between 2005 and 2016 and no major new transmission lines on the horizon, the state soon could be dangerously short on power, state regulators have predicted. The recommendations to be released today are expected to become the centerpiece of a wide-reaching package of energy legislation O'Malley will present to the General Assembly this month. The governor might decide to implement some of the proposals this year and leave others for next year, said O'Malley's spokesman, Rick Abbruzzese. To increase the supply of power, energy officials are recommending that the General Assembly approve a bill to force utilities to contract long-term with power generators, a change already under review by the state Public Service Commission, which regulates the power industry. Officials also want to establish a state fund to promote conservation programs and attract renewable energy companies. Money would come from an auction this summer of permits for carbon emissions. The auction will be held by a consortium of New England and mid-Atlantic states set up to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired plants. Energy officials estimate the auction could generate from $40 million to more than $100 million for Maryland. The fund would help homeowners, particularly low-income customers, pay for furnaces, air conditioners and other appliances that use energy more efficiently but are more expensive than traditional models. It also could offer a system of incentives to encourage consumers to buy energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs and install high-tech devices that shut down washing machines, dishwashers and air conditioners when demand for electricity soars on hot summer days. These "smart meters" also tell homeowners electricity prices a day in advance, giving the customers a chance to pay lower rates if they can move usage to off-peak times. State regulators are already reviewing conservation plans submitted by Pepco and Baltimore Gas and Electric. The utilities would be allowed to pass on the costs to consumers, but "the idea is that, eventually, everyone will pay less because of these investments in conservation," Woolf said. Robert L. Gould, vice president for corporate communication for Constellation Energy Group, the parent company of Baltimore Gas and Electric, said the company "looks forward to a continued thoughtful and constructive dialogue with the O'Malley administration and the legislature." Maryland has mandated that 9.5 percent of the state's energy will come from renewable sources by 2022, an aggressive goal when the legislature agreed to it. But energy advisers who have looked at the experience of other states say Maryland could increase the share to 20 percent.

1 0

Fwd: Re: 2008 Smallish State Program c(3) Grants Available
by James Kotcon 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

Any ideas? JBK >>> Cyrus Reed <reed_c(a)grandecom.net> 1/17/2008 3:46 PM >>> --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paula -- can you give us a deadline on the two grant categories? On Jan 17, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Paula Carrell wrote: > --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- > ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fredsters: > > Once again this year, the State Program has a modest pot of c(3) > funds available to chapters for Public Education work related to > our priority campaigns At The State Govt Level -- Energy/Global > Warming, Lands/Habitat Protection (particularly if you can make a > connection between a particular lands protection goal and global > warming), Water Quality/Supply Protection. > > There are two basic Grant Types: > > I. Education Project Grants: > There's not enough in the kitty to hire additional staff, but small > grants of, say, $2,000, $5,000 or maybe a bit more are available > for a piece of existing staff time or for materials or for a public > education event . . . designed to help your chapter educate and > energize the public behind progress in one of these three issue > areas in your state. > > The work you propose has to meet some basic organizing tenets: > > + It is designed to reach beyond our members and base supporters > into the community of people who share our values but are not, > without our urging, engaged in civic life. > + It builds face-to-face/one-on-one connections between Club people > and this broader public around the issue at hand. It strives to > build lasting community connections that will sustain our positions > by informing and empowering people to secure meaningful > environmental victories. > > II. Regional Chapter Staff Meetings > Most of you have heard about the regular 2-day/2-night "Southern > Caucus" meeting held annually in early June. At the meeting, the > southeastern states lobby corps members gather to share information > and strategize on their priority issues as they are playing out in > the unique southern political climate. > I continue to be entirely open to others among you organizing > similar regional gatherings to focus on particular issue/s and the > unique qualities of how the issue is playing out and might best be > addressed in your region. If you have an idea -- and have > convinced several of your neighboring state colleagues to join with > you -- pitch me on your meeting proposal. > These must be low-budget affairs -- inexpensive location, meals/ > drinks covered by the participants, travel covered by the grant. > Summer months timing tends to make the most sense, although I'm > open to other ideas. > > > For Both Types of Grants: > If you think you've got a fundable need and idea, here's what you > should tell me about it, as concisely *and specifically* as possible: > > 1. Your ultimate goal -- specific policy you seek to address or > enact or rule or permit decision you seek to influence. > > 2. Your timeline. > > 3. The specific activities/event or product/materials you are > asking us to fund OR, for the meeting option, a proposed agenda focus > > 4. The specific audience you are targeting (define & justify > geographically or demographically or politically or all three) OR, > for the meeting option, a list of states that wish/need to > participate. > > 5. A proposed budget. > If you can outline it in two pages, all the better. > > Remember, these are c(3) funds. BE CREATIVE. > > Questions to me if you want to test your idea before bothering to > write it up. > paula - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - To unsubsribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS- > FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv > Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/ > lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to: LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CONS-FRED

1 0

Fwd: Wash Post: Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign
by Paul Wilson 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bruce Nilles <bruce.nilles(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 18, 2008 12:27 AM Subject: Wash Post: Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org "We welcome a vigorous debate about our energy future and solving global warming. Unfortunately ABEC is spending millions of dollars on misinformation about our energy choices . . . instead of engaging in a real debate about the true costs of coal and clean energy alternatives," said Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sierra+Club?tid=informline>'s national coal campaign. * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR200801170… * *Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign* Steven Mufson<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/steven+mufson/> Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 18, 2008; Page D01 A group backed by the coal industry and its utility allies is waging a $35 million campaign in primary and caucus states to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change. The group, called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, has spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in Iowa<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iowa?tid=informline>, Nevada<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Nevada?tid=informline>and South Carolina<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/South+Carolina?tid=informli…>. One its television ads shows a power cord being plugged into a lump of coal, which it calls "an American resource that will help us with vital energy security" and "the fuel that powers our way of life." The ads note that half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants. The group has also deployed teams on the campaign trail; about 50 people, many of them paid, walked around as human billboards and handed out leaflets outside Tuesday's Democratic debate in Nevada with questions for voters to ask the candidates. "In Iowa, there is a saying that you don't get to be president unless you go through Iowa. We'd like to say that you don't get to be president unless you understand how complicated this issue is," Joe Lucas, the group's executive director, said Wednesday night during a stopover en route from Nevada to South Carolina. The group's message -- that coal-fired power plants can be clean, and that more of them are needed to meet the growing demand for electricity -- comes when opposition to new coal plants is mounting because they generate greenhouse gases. In Kansas<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Kansas?tid=informline>, where a state agency rejected a permit for two proposed coal plants, opinion polls show that roughly two out of three people opposed the plants. That sentiment, plus soaring construction costs and uncertainty about federal climate change legislation, last year prompted U.S. companies to abandon or postpone plans to build dozens of new coal plants. The coal mining industry is fighting back. It increased the budget of the National Mining Association, the industry's main lobbying group, by 20 percent this year, to $19.7 million. Last September, the industry also boosted the budget of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices more than fourfold. The roster of backers includes 28 companies and trade associations such as Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Duke Energy<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Duke+Energy+Corporation?tid…>, Southern Co. and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/National+Rural+Electric+Coo…>. The controversy over coal has been especially heated in Nevada, where environmental groups and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000146/>, who represents the state, have opposed construction of three new coal-fired power plants. "They're all dirty," Reid said last fall. He urged utilities to rely on energy efficiency and solar and wind power. (Last year, according to a report issued yesterday by the American Wind Energy Association<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/American+Wind+Energy+Associ…>, wind made up 30 percent of all new electricity generating capacity.) On Tuesday night, the issue came up during the debate among the three leading Democratic presidential candidates. Former senator John Edwards<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Edwards+%28Politician%…>said, "I believe we need a moratorium on the building of any more coal-fired power plants unless and until we have the ability to capture and sequester the carbon in the ground." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/>( N.Y.) said, "I have said we should not be siting any more coal-powered plants unless they can have the most modern, clean technology. And I want big demonstration projects to figure out how we would capture and sequester carbon." Sen. Barack Obama<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/>(Ill.) did not commit himself on coal plants but said Americans had to make their buildings, lighting and appliances "more efficient." "Yes, we do need to be more energy efficient," Lucas said. "But even as we become more efficient, we're plugging more things into the wall." The ads being run by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices talk about "clean coal." New power plants are cleaner than they used to be because they must meet more stringent federal regulations limiting such pollutants as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. But climate change is linked to carbon dioxide emissions, which are not yet regulated; those emissions have dropped more modestly as plants have become more efficient. The group's newspaper ads avoid that distinction. They say that today's carbon-fired plants are "70 percent cleaner based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced." That does not refer to carbon dioxide. New coal-plant technologies that might capture carbon dioxide and store, or sequester, it underground are expensive, experimental and not in commercial use. But Lucas says carbon capture and storage "is no longer a pipe dream. It's nearing a point where it's real." Many environmentalists argue that until that time, the United States should focus on renewable energy such as solar and wind. Coal advocates say those energy sources cannot be relied on 24 hours a day and, so far, the energy they produce cannot be easily stored. ABEC's ads, produced by the same firm that made "what happens here stays here" ads to promote Las Vegas<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Las+Vegas?tid=informline>to tourists, also talk about "affordable" energy. The group says in a TV ad that the price of coal is one-third that of other fuels. But coal prices have risen, albeit not as much as oil. And environmentalists and economists argue that the price of coal does not include substantial environmental costs. "We welcome a vigorous debate about our energy future and solving global warming. Unfortunately ABEC is spending millions of dollars on misinformation about our energy choices . . . instead of engaging in a real debate about the true costs of coal and clean energy alternatives," said Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sierra+Club?tid=informline>'s national coal campaign. Environmentalists are also worried that the ads aired by ABEC so far are just the beginning of what could be a much bigger offensive once Congress gets down to work on a climate change bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman <http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000304/>(I-Conn.) and John W. Warner <http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000154/>(R-Va.). An ad targeting that bill is currently being shown on video monitors at the baggage carousels at Dulles International Airport<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Washington+Dulles+Internati…>. In 1993, an ad campaign by the health-care industry featuring a fictional couple named Harry and Louise helped torpedo the Clinton administration's health-care proposal. Now, some supporters of the Lieberman-Warner bill fear that the coal industry may use a similar strategy to kill legislation aimed at slowing climate change by stressing potential consumer costs and not the societal benefits. "Big coal may launch a 'Harry and Louise'-style disinformation campaign to sink global warming solutions in Congress," said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Center+for+American+Progres…>. One of the coal industry group's radio ads hints at those themes. A woman asks: "How can we become less dependent on foreign resources? What fuels will keep power bills reasonable and be environmentally responsible?" A man responds, "We have many questions for our candidates, and coal has to be part of the discussion." Lucas is working on that. Last year, he wrote letters that appeared in a dozen newspapers. On Tuesday, he appeared on Nevada public radio. On Wednesday, the group's views were quoted approvingly in an editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Las+Vegas+Review-Journal?ti…>. "We're getting the message out," Lucas said. Bruce Nilles, Director National Coal Campaign Sierra Club 122 West Washington Ave, Suite 830 Madison, WI 53703 p:608.257.4994 f: 608.257.3513 c:608.712.9725 e: bruce.nilles(a)sierraclub.org w: www.sierraclub.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubsribe 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: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: let's work on our message strategy
by Paul Wilson 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

FYI, club talking points on Coal. regards, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ginny Cramer <Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 17, 2008 5:40 PM Subject: Re: let's work on our message strategy To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org These talking points on coal were agreed to several months ago and are the authorized talking points for speaking on the record. These can also be found on our coal page on Clubhouse. - Ginny ____________ Virginia Cramer Associate Press Secretary Sierra Club tel: 202.675.6279 fax: 202.547.6009 *Lay of the Land* Since the first coal-fired power plant in the U.S. started generating electricity more than 100 years ago, we have been wedded to coal power. Today coal-fired power plants provide almost half of our nation's power- and almost 40 percent of the United States' annual carbon dioxide emissions, making them a major contributor to global warming. Scientists tell us that we need to reduce our global warming emissions 80% by 2050- a doable 2% a year- to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. Yet as recently as May, there were plans on the drawing board to construct as many as 150 new coal-fired power plants, all emitting as much global warming pollution as old plants- and all on a frenzied timeline in hope of escaping carbon regulations that will soon cause the cost of coal to jump dramatically. Months later, global warming and America's energy sector are shaping the legislative and political debate, affecting capital markets and influencing business and investor decisions. Many of the proposed plants have been blocked by court action and public and political pressure, and Citigroup downgraded the financial outlook for coal stocks in 2008 based on "grim" future earnings. At the same time the green business movement has taken off, with the marketplace topping more than $228 billion in the United States. Renewable energy stocks are becoming hot commodities. For example shares of the Danish company, Vesta Wind Systems—the world's largest maker of wind turbines—have doubled in the past year and their profits have jumped five-fold in the last quarter. Venture capitalists are calling green energy the biggest financial opportunity since the post Civil War era, when industrial energy first emerged. *General* -Instead of rushing to build new coal-fired power plants*, *we need to slow down. We owe it to our children to consider smarter, cleaner, healthier options for meeting our energy needs rather than locking ourselves into using a polluting, backward technology for the next 50 years that triggers childhood asthma and makes global warming much worse. -Before we commit to building new plants, we should start by solving the problems we already have. And that means cleaning up those old dirty plants that are the worst contributors to global warming, smog, acid rain, and respiratory problems. -Any new coal-fired power plants that are built should be as clean, safe, technologically advanced and efficient as possible. -Coal should be mined responsibly and burned cleanly. Coal projects must not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. *The True Costs of Coal* -Using coal costs us progress on combating global warming. The coal industry is deceiving the American public, hiding the fact that the overwhelming majority of the new plants they are in such a rush to build will use the same kind of technology that creates the global warming problem we're trying to solve now. The carbon these proposed new power plants will add to the atmosphere will cancel out steps states, businesses and other countries are taking now to curb global warming. -The true costs of coal begin long before it's burned and releases global warming pollution into our air. Digging for coal destroys our mountains and landscapes with destructive mining practices and jeopardizes communities' drinking water, health and safety. -Coal is not cheap and costs are rising fast- costs of new coal plants have skyrocketed 40-100% in the past year. Not only does each coal plant cost upwards of a billion dollars, there are innumerable other costs to society associated with asthma attacks, lung cancer, homes devastated by mining, and wildlife habitat destroyed. *"Clean" Coal Technologies* -There is no such thing as "clean" coal. Instead of tying ourselves to the past and investing in new technologies to minimize the impact of dirty coal, we should invest in technologies that further the energy solutions of the future. -Though gasification projects can release less air pollution than pulverized coal, they are still far from being a "clean" energy source. While it may be the case that retrofitting an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle coal plant for capturing carbon dioxide emissions may be easier in the future, whether or not we can store millions of tons of carbon underground forever is completely untested. Until carbon capture and storage technologies are better developed, the carbon dioxide emissions will be much the same as any other coal plant. -We don't have to choose between the "bad" and the "less-bad" options. We do have better, cheaper, cleaner options. -Coal sequestration is theoretical at best, never having been demonstrated with anything approaching the emissions of a coal-fired power plant. -The development of liquid coal for widespread use will require billions of dollars in investments to artificially create a new industry that will only worsen our global warming problem. -Liquid coal creates almost double the CO2 emissions per gallon as regular gasoline. -Replacing a mere 10% of our fuel with liquid coal will force an over 40% increase in coal mining, increasing the already devastating effects of mining on communities across the country. *Alternatives* - The simplest, most effective way to meet our growing energy needs is to increase our use of efficiency. By increasing efficiency we can dramatically reduce the amount of energy needed-- making new coal plants unnecessary and saving consumers, businesses, and industry money. -The best efficiency programs today can provide energy at less than half the cost of wholesale power. -The amount of energy we waste is equal to the amount of energy that could be generated from our supply of coal. Using energy that we now waste could meet our needs without tapping into our coal reserve. -We can expand our energy choices beyond the limited, unhealthy options of the past. There are alternatives to coal that can meet our energy needs and save us money while boosting the economy, improving public health and combating global warming. (*The Sierra Club has outlined how to achieve this with its new global warming strategy*) -Coal is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. We need to wean ourselves from our reliance on a limited supply of fossil fuels if we truly want a clean, healthy, and secure energy future. -Diverting investments away from new coal and into clean energy is good for the environment and the economy. Renewable energy generates 40% more jobs per dollar invested than coal and the cost of meeting our energy needs through efficiency is as little as half the cost of new coal-fired power plants. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: NYT: Motion Ties W. Virginia Justice to Coal Executive
by Paul Wilson 15 Jan '08

15 Jan '08

Spread it around if you have not done so as yet. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alice McKeown <Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 15, 2008 10:19 AM Subject: NYT: Motion Ties W. Virginia Justice to Coal Executive To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org For additional information visit http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2008011427 Motion Ties W. Virginia Justice to Coal Executive NYTimes By ADAM LIPTAK Published: January 15, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/15court.html?hp A justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court and a powerful coal-company executive met in Monte Carlo in the summer of 2006, sharing several meals even as the executive's companies were appealing a $50 million jury verdict against them to the court. A little more than a year later, the justice, Elliott E. Maynard, voted with the majority in a 3-to-2 decision in favor of the coal companies. Justice Maynard, who is now West Virginia's chief justice, and Don L. Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy, were "vacationing together," according to a motion seeking Justice Maynard's disqualification, which was filed on Monday. A spokesman for Massey Energy disputed that characterization. "Both Blankenship and Justice Maynard were separately vacationing in the Monte Carlo area," said the spokesman, Jeff Gillenwater. "They were not vacationing together. They did meet occasionally for meals — lunches and dinners." The motion included photographs showing the men together. The time stamps on the photographs, apparently taken by someone who had joined the men during their time together, indicated that they met on July 3, 4 and 5, 2006. Asked whether it was a coincidence that the two men found themselves in Monte Carlo at the same time, Mr. Gillenwater said, "That is a coincidence, I think, and it's my understanding they were not staying in the same location." Justice Maynard stayed in Nice, France, Mr. Gillenwater said, and Mr. Blankenship in nearby Monte Carlo. The motion asked Chief Justice Maynard to disqualify himself from the case and to withdraw his vote in favor of the coal companies. The state's canons of judicial ethics say that judges must disqualify themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." They add that judges should disclose any information they believe the parties or their lawyers "might consider relevant to the question of their disqualification." Chief Justice Maynard did not disclose the meetings in Monte Carlo, and he did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Ten of the photographs attached to the motion were filed under seal. They showed, the motion said, "two females apparently traveling with them as companions." The men are single. The case itself was brought by mining companies that said they had been driven out of business by fraud committed by Massey. "Make no mistake," Justice Larry V. Starcher wrote in his dissent in November. "A West Virginia jury heard from all the witnesses for both sides, and decided that Mr. Don Blankenship directed an illegal scheme to break" the companies. Mr. Blankenship and his companies have attracted attention for labor disputes, workplace injuries and what environmentalists call a highly destructive form of mining called mountaintop removal that involves using explosives to blow off the tops of mountains to reach coal seams. Hugh M. Caperton, the owner and president of Harman Development Corporation, a mining company that Massey was said to have driven out of business, said he was angry when he learned about the photographs, and doubly so when he saw the dates time-stamped on them. "That's when all the miners take their families to Myrtle Beach and Pigeon Forge, if they can, if they can afford to," Mr. Caperton said, referring to vacation spots in South Carolina and Tennessee. "They go camping at the river while the chief justice and Don Blankenship are smiling and frolicking on the French Riviera." Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University School of Law, said Chief Justice Maynard should not have socialized with Mr. Blankenship and should now disqualify himself from the case. Federal judges in Manhattan, Professor Gillers said, will not even have lunch with old friends while they have cases pending in their court. In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court refused to disqualify himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, although the two had gone on a duck hunting trip together. Justice Scalia reasoned that disqualification was not required because Mr. Cheney had been sued in his official capacity. On the other hand, Justice Scalia wrote, "friendship is a ground for recusal of a justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue." Mr. Blankenship was not named individually in Mr. Caperton's suit. But he was a central figure in it, and his compensation includes shares and stock options. "The monetary effect on Blankenship is potentially enormous," Professor Gillers said, referring to the November decision. Bruce E. Stanley, a lawyer with Reed Smith in Pittsburgh who represents Mr. Caperton, said he viewed the filing as "an opportunity for the court to get its house in order." D. C. Offutt Jr., a lawyer for Massey in West Virginia, said the only question was whether Chief Justice Maynard could be fair and impartial. "That's his decision to make," Mr. Offutt said, "and he has always taken the position that he can." -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: FW: FINAL Mid-Atlantic NIETC press release
by James Kotcon 12 Jan '08

12 Jan '08

I saw it, but I am in Charleston for PSC hearings. It would be great if we sent it to WV news media, perhaps with a quote for a "Local" perspective. "Here in West Virginia, the NIETC Corridor designation would force local ratepayers to absorb the cost of trasmission line proposals like the Allegheny Energy TrAIL project, which scars the state's environment, gouges the ratepayers, and yet provides no benefit to West Virginia consumers" said Jim Kotcon a consultant for the West Virginia Chapter's Energy Committee. "The US Department of Energy has refused to do a complete Environmental Impact Study to fully disclose the adverse impacts of their proposal, and that is a serious procedural flaw that reduces the ability of local citizens to protect their property and the environment." JBK >>> "Paul Wilson" <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> 01/11/08 10:40 AM >>> Have you all seen this? have a good weekend, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Wilson <pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com> Date: Jan 10, 2008 7:16 PM Subject: Fwd: FW: FINAL Mid-Atlantic NIETC press release To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Here is the press release issued today announcing our legal challenge to the DOE's NIETC corridor designation. Our East Coast corridor suit actually gets filed on next Monday. Glen Glen Besa, Regional Director Sierra Club Appalachian Region (DC, DE, GA, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 422 East Franklin Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 O-804-225-9113 x 104 F-804-225-9114 C-804-387-6001 glen.besa(a)sierraclub.org ________________________________ From: Aislinn Maestas [mailto:maestas@nwf.org] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:05 PM To: Jimdougherty(a)aol.com; 'Sherri Evans-Stanton'; ramsay(a)catskillmountainkeeper.org; Wes Gillingham; dmyers(a)civilwar.org; Michael Leone; 'Andrew Loza'; Erica Ringewald; 'Ed Boito'; mattkenna(a)gmail.com; oliver.bass(a)natlands.org; SANDREA(a)NPCA.ORG; Bryan Faehner; Randy Sargent; cmiller(a)pecva.org; ldart(a)pecva.org; rlazaro(a)pecva.org; aferster(a)railtrails.org; Erin.Chalmers(a)sierraclub.org; glen.besa(a)sierraclub.org; Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org Cc: Amy Atwood; 'Megan Anderson' Subject: FINAL Mid-Atlantic NIETC press release Please use this version for distribution. -- Paul Wilson Chapter Chair WV Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414 (H) 304-725-4360 -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: FW: FINAL Mid-Atlantic NIETC press release
by Paul Wilson 11 Jan '08

11 Jan '08

Have you all seen this? have a good weekend, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Wilson <pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com> Date: Jan 10, 2008 7:16 PM Subject: Fwd: FW: FINAL Mid-Atlantic NIETC press release To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Here is the press release issued today announcing our legal challenge to the DOE's NIETC corridor designation. Our East Coast corridor suit actually gets filed on next Monday. Glen Glen Besa, Regional Director Sierra Club Appalachian Region (DC, DE, GA, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 422 East Franklin Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 O-804-225-9113 x 104 F-804-225-9114 C-804-387-6001 glen.besa(a)sierraclub.org ________________________________ From: Aislinn Maestas [mailto:maestas@nwf.org] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:05 PM To: Jimdougherty(a)aol.com; 'Sherri Evans-Stanton'; ramsay(a)catskillmountainkeeper.org; Wes Gillingham; dmyers(a)civilwar.org; Michael Leone; 'Andrew Loza'; Erica Ringewald; 'Ed Boito'; mattkenna(a)gmail.com; oliver.bass(a)natlands.org; SANDREA(a)NPCA.ORG; Bryan Faehner; Randy Sargent; cmiller(a)pecva.org; ldart(a)pecva.org; rlazaro(a)pecva.org; aferster(a)railtrails.org; Erin.Chalmers(a)sierraclub.org; glen.besa(a)sierraclub.org; Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org Cc: Amy Atwood; 'Megan Anderson' Subject: FINAL Mid-Atlantic NIETC press release Please use this version for distribution. -- Paul Wilson Chapter Chair WV Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414 (H) 304-725-4360 -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: Environment Colorado's report on Green Jobs
by Paul Wilson 10 Jan '08

10 Jan '08

seems a similar report on the WV economy would be useful. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alice McKeown <Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 10, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: Environment Colorado's report on Green Jobs To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Below please find the report on jobs that Nancy LaPlaca mentioned on last night's coal activist call. Best wishes, Alice ________________________________ Alice McKeown Sierra Club National Coal Campaign tel: 202.675.6271 fax: 202.547.6009 ----- Forwarded by Alice McKeown/Sierraclub on 01/10/2008 03:17 PM ----- Here's the study I mentioned re: green jobs. Link below will take you to page where PDF can be downloaded. I believe EC (Environment Colorado) is doing similar studies in its "sister" states, i.e. Enviro Ohio, Enviro California etc. Report available for download: http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/en… Executive Summary Developing Colorado's renewable energy resources will yield better results for Coloradans than building more coal- or gas-fired power plants. By investing in renewable energy to meet our electricity needs, we can create jobs, stabilize energy prices, and reduce the long-term economic and environmental risk from global warming pollution. In this report, we use an economic model to evaluate the net impacts of expanding Colorado's commitment to clean and renewable energy by extending the renewable energy standard established under Amendment 37 to 20 percent by 2020 for investor-owned utilities, plus expanding it to include Colorado's cooperative electricity companies and eligible municipal utilities with a target of 10 percent by 2020. Renewable energy improves Colorado's economy and environment, and should form a central part of Colorado's electricity system. Renewable energy creates jobs. Expanding Colorado's renewable energy standard would create a net increase of 4,100 person-years of employment through 2020. It would also increase total wages paid to workers in the state by a net cumulative total of $570 million. That's approximately four times the positive employment impact and twice the wage impact of Amendment 37. Renewable energy creates economic growth. Expanding Colorado's renewable energy standard would increase Colorado's share of gross domestic product (GDP) by a net of $1.9 billion through 2020. The increase in GDP under an expanded standard would be almost twice as large as under Amendment 37. Renewable energy benefits Colorado's rural areas. Landowners can lease land for wind farms, creating an additional income stream. An expanded renewable energy standard would supplement landowner income with cumulative total lease payments of $50 million through 2020 (60 percent more than under Amendment 37). According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind energy provides 10 times more local tax revenue than a coal-fired power plant in Colorado (on an energy-equivalent basis). Expanding Colorado's renewable energy standard would generate $400 million in property taxes (total through 2020) to fund education and other local government services, mainly in rural areas of the state (70 percent more than under Amendment 37). Renewable energy prevents pollution and conserves water. An expanded renewable energy standard would reduce soot, smog, mercury and global warming pollution from Colorado's electricity sector in the year 2020 by approximately 11 percent (compared to business as usual). In that year, the expanded renewable energy program would be 2.3 times as effective at preventing pollution as Amendment 37 alone. An expanded renewable energy standard would save a cumulative total of 18 billion gallons of water through 2020, water that otherwise would be used for steam and cooling in coal- or gas-fired plants. That amount of water (almost twice as large as under Amendment 37) could completely fill Cherry Creek Reservoir more than twice. Renewable energy keeps more of Colorado's energy dollars in the local economy compared to coal- and gas-fired power plants. The National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that a Colorado wind farm has more than three times the direct economic impact of an equivalent coalfired power plant, and more than twice the impact of a gas-fired plant. The NREL study calculates that wind farms keep more than twice as much money in Colorado for construction and operation and maintenance as a coal plant, and more than three times as much as a gas plant. Colorado has more than enough renewable energy resources to make a new energy future a reality. Colorado has excellent wind energy resources, with an estimated technical potential more than 10 times greater than the state's entire electricity needs in 2006. Solar photovoltaic panels occupying just 0.15 percent of Colorado's land area could generate nearly twice as much electricity as the state used in 2006. Colorado also has the potential to use agricultural wastes and switchgrass for energy, with the potential to generate up to 8 percent of the state's electricity needs. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] [MVCAC] Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation
by James Kotcon 10 Jan '08

10 Jan '08

I am not sure a lot of action by the Committee is needed. The legal team will be responding formally during the hearings. My testimony has already included the position that any "free" electricity for landowners must come from the TrAILCo stockholders, not from the ratepayers, which means we are already in opposition to this settlement. However, letters to the editor, or calls to legislators expressing this position would be worhtwhile. I think that Delegates Beach and Shook and Senators Prezioso and Oliverio could use some citizen input on this settlement. JBK >>> Barbara Fallon <brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com> 01/09/08 8:41 AM >>> How does the Sierra Club go on record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. Barbara ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: freesource(a)cheat.org; wreger(a)hsc.wvu.edu Cc: Duane330(a)aol.com; mvcac(a)cheat.org; william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; ec(a)osenergy.org; pjhunt(a)xemaps.com; brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 5:40:11 PM Subject: Re: [MVCAC] Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation While Byron Harris is the new Consumer Advocate, Billy Jack has stayed on as attorney for this case and was the one who signed the settlement. A copy with his signature is available on the PSC's TrAILCo case web page. JBK >>> Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org> 01/08/08 2:18 PM >>> According to the Dominion Post the new PSC Consumer Advocate is Byron Harris. Are we sure that it was Bill Jack Gregg who was in support of this sell-out? This is clearly a desperation move by Trailco. I oppose this agreement. -Jonathan Bill Reger-Nash wrote: > Duane et al, > > I concur that we oppose this agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. What was he thinking!!!! What does Billy Jack Gregg think about this? In his former life, we could count on Billy Jack for a balanced and insightful perspective. > > Again, the ecology of the state is sold out for a few shekels to select stakeholders all the while the rest of us bear the brunt of the ill effects in perpetuity. > > Bill > > WV Walks - 30 minutes or more daily > Feel the power of half an hour! > > Bill Reger-Nash, Ed.D > Professor of Community Medicine > West Virginia University School of Medicine > Morgantown WV 26506-9190 > Phone: 304/293-0763 > Fax: 304/293-6685 > > Dept. web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed > BRN's web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/wreger/ > > > > > >>>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 1/8/2008 1:21 PM >>> >>>> > RE: Forwarded message from Jim Kotcon. > > > 1. I make a motion that the Energy Committee of the Sierra Club of West > Virginia > go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer > Advocate and the TrAILCo. > > 2. I make a motion that the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition go on-record in > opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate > and the TrAILCo. > > Notes: > > 1. This Agreement is a front page story in the Morgantown Dominion Post > today. This Agreement was posted yesterday on the web site of the Public > Service Commission and is attached to this forwarded message; or, it can be > found under Case 07-0508 at _www.psc.state.wv.us_ > (http://www.psc.state.wv.us) > > 2. It is particularly disturbing that the offer of free electricity will be > available > only to a select group of people, not all those that are affected by the Line. > And, from an overall point-of-view, the cost of this free electricity will be > charged back to the customers of Allegheny Energy in West Virginia, as > I understand it. > > 3. Herbicides could still be used, just not sprayed from aircraft. > > 4. This Agreement reflects an arbitrary decision by the Consumer > Advocate, without consideration of whether it is fully supported > by the affected citizens, or the people of the State who will > need to pay the the proposed Line. > > Duane Nichols, Member. > > > > > > > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 > > > > _______________________________________________ > MVCAC mailing list > MVCAC(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Fwd: CTL in WV
by Paul Wilson 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

fyi, I think we knew this was coming but I am surprised Manchin is talking about 5 CTL plants. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jan 9, 2008 11:43 AM Subject: CTL in WV Tuesday January 8, 2008 http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/200801080203 Manchin to tout coal-to-liquid plants in address Developers already looking for sites for five proposed facilities by Jake Stump Daily Mail Capitol Reporter West Virginia's energy independence could bank on the development of five coal-to-liquid plants, which Gov. Joe Manchin hopes the state can accommodate by 2030. Such an initiative serves as the cornerstone of the governor's new state energy report designed to free West Virginia from reliance on foreign oil imports. The governor is likely to tout the plan during his annual State of the State speech, which will be Wednesday evening at the state Capitol. The five plants would ideally produce 20,000 barrels of liquid coal each per day. In the process, state coal production would increase by 15 percent, according to the report. Developers have already been scouring sites in West Virginia for these fuel plants. Colorado-based Rentech Inc. had pledged to build a $1 billion coal-to-liquid plant in Mingo County by 2012. "Realizing as a nation how we're facing real energy security challenges, the feeling is that coal is a way to resolve those issues," said Jeff Herholdt, director of the state Division of Energy. Herholdt said 60 percent of the state's oil products come from imported sources, accounting for 1.4 billion gallons of petroleum product yearly. The development of five coal-to-liquid plants would make up for that amount if they collectively produce 100,000 barrels a day. The state would likely replace oil with liquid fuel derived from coal, the report reads. To liquefy coal, it must be fired up to 1,000 degrees and mixed with water. The gas created from that turns into fuel that can be used in cars and jets. The coal-to-liquid process, however, can be quite costly and intensive. The average price of building a plant is estimated at $4 billion, according to a Washington Post article. The state's report says only half of that, $2 billion, is needed to construct a 20,000-barrel-a-day coal-to-liquid plant. Each plant would require roughly 4 million tons of coal a year. On the national scale, experts believe the process would require vast amounts of water and 120 million tons of coal each year just to wean the United States off of 1 million barrel of crude oil a day. The governor's report, however, states, "While our conventional oil and gas reserves could be materially depleted in decades, our nation's coal reserves are plentiful." Another factor in reaching the governor's goal depends on the private sector's willingness to start up a project in the state. Though the state is encouraging development of coal-to-liquid plants, private companies would be largely responsible for funding such projects. "It's a decision that industry would have to make in making that investment and locating here," Herholdt said. In December 2006, Rentech Inc. and the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority announced a joint development agreement to build a plant that would employ up to 400 full-time workers. The plant would convert synthesis gas, a combination of hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced from coal, into 3 million to 9 million barrels of clean-burning transportation fuel annually. Construction is expected to take three years. Rentech and the redevelopment authority are cooperating in developing, financing and owning the plant. Herholdt noted that Vancouver, Wash.-based Baard Energy is another company that could possibly build in West Virginia. Baard Energy has already announced plans for a $5 billion coal-to-liquids plant in Wellsville, Ohio, near Hancock County. That plant would burn 70 percent coal and 30 percent biomass. The company has stated it would capture and sequester 85 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions underground. In addition to the vast amounts of water and coal needed for a successful coal-to-liquid plant, a site would also need to be set on flat land, Herholdt said. There are also environmental concerns to consider, he said. "The environmental side of the issue has caused the slowing down of these technologies," Herholdt said. Citing studies from groups such as the Idaho National Laboratory, Herholdt said that rendering coal-to-liquid fuel has about the same environmental impact as producing standard petroleum. Several critics of this technology remain concerned. They contend that liquid coal fuels generate twice the carbon dioxide of petroleum fuels. Environmentalists have said Manchin's energy plan would do little to reduce the release of greenhouse gases or to discourage mountaintop removal mining methods. Last year, coal production in West Virginia was 148 million tons. A 15 percent increase would bring that number to around 170 million tons. According to the state report, West Virginia ranks 9th per capita in total energy consumption. Gas consumption is 2.3 million gallons per day; distillate fuel is 1.6 million gallons; liquefied petroleum gas is only 0.2 and jet fuel is .03. Contact writer Jake Stump at jakest...(a)dailymail.com or 348-4842. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] [MVCAC] Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation
by Barbara Fallon 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

How does the Sierra Club go on record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. Barbara ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: freesource(a)cheat.org; wreger(a)hsc.wvu.edu Cc: Duane330(a)aol.com; mvcac(a)cheat.org; william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; ec(a)osenergy.org; pjhunt(a)xemaps.com; brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 5:40:11 PM Subject: Re: [MVCAC] Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation While Byron Harris is the new Consumer Advocate, Billy Jack has stayed on as attorney for this case and was the one who signed the settlement. A copy with his signature is available on the PSC's TrAILCo case web page. JBK >>> Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org> 01/08/08 2:18 PM >>> According to the Dominion Post the new PSC Consumer Advocate is Byron Harris. Are we sure that it was Bill Jack Gregg who was in support of this sell-out? This is clearly a desperation move by Trailco. I oppose this agreement. -Jonathan Bill Reger-Nash wrote: > Duane et al, > > I concur that we oppose this agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. What was he thinking!!!! What does Billy Jack Gregg think about this? In his former life, we could count on Billy Jack for a balanced and insightful perspective. > > Again, the ecology of the state is sold out for a few shekels to select stakeholders all the while the rest of us bear the brunt of the ill effects in perpetuity. > > Bill > > WV Walks - 30 minutes or more daily > Feel the power of half an hour! > > Bill Reger-Nash, Ed.D > Professor of Community Medicine > West Virginia University School of Medicine > Morgantown WV 26506-9190 > Phone: 304/293-0763 > Fax: 304/293-6685 > > Dept. web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed > BRN's web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/wreger/ > > > > > >>>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 1/8/2008 1:21 PM >>> >>>> > RE: Forwarded message from Jim Kotcon. > > > 1. I make a motion that the Energy Committee of the Sierra Club of West > Virginia > go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer > Advocate and the TrAILCo. > > 2. I make a motion that the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition go on-record in > opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate > and the TrAILCo. > > Notes: > > 1. This Agreement is a front page story in the Morgantown Dominion Post > today. This Agreement was posted yesterday on the web site of the Public > Service Commission and is attached to this forwarded message; or, it can be > found under Case 07-0508 at _www.psc.state.wv.us_ > (http://www.psc.state.wv.us) > > 2. It is particularly disturbing that the offer of free electricity will be > available > only to a select group of people, not all those that are affected by the Line. > And, from an overall point-of-view, the cost of this free electricity will be > charged back to the customers of Allegheny Energy in West Virginia, as > I understand it. > > 3. Herbicides could still be used, just not sprayed from aircraft. > > 4. This Agreement reflects an arbitrary decision by the Consumer > Advocate, without consideration of whether it is fully supported > by the affected citizens, or the people of the State who will > need to pay the the proposed Line. > > Duane Nichols, Member. > > > > > > > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 > > > > _______________________________________________ > MVCAC mailing list > MVCAC(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Re: [EC] [MVCAC] Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation
by James Kotcon 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

While Byron Harris is the new Consumer Advocate, Billy Jack has stayed on as attorney for this case and was the one who signed the settlement. A copy with his signature is available on the PSC's TrAILCo case web page. JBK >>> Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org> 01/08/08 2:18 PM >>> According to the Dominion Post the new PSC Consumer Advocate is Byron Harris. Are we sure that it was Bill Jack Gregg who was in support of this sell-out? This is clearly a desperation move by Trailco. I oppose this agreement. -Jonathan Bill Reger-Nash wrote: > Duane et al, > > I concur that we oppose this agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. What was he thinking!!!! What does Billy Jack Gregg think about this? In his former life, we could count on Billy Jack for a balanced and insightful perspective. > > Again, the ecology of the state is sold out for a few shekels to select stakeholders all the while the rest of us bear the brunt of the ill effects in perpetuity. > > Bill > > WV Walks - 30 minutes or more daily > Feel the power of half an hour! > > Bill Reger-Nash, Ed.D > Professor of Community Medicine > West Virginia University School of Medicine > Morgantown WV 26506-9190 > Phone: 304/293-0763 > Fax: 304/293-6685 > > Dept. web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed > BRN's web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/wreger/ > > > > > >>>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 1/8/2008 1:21 PM >>> >>>> > RE: Forwarded message from Jim Kotcon. > > > 1. I make a motion that the Energy Committee of the Sierra Club of West > Virginia > go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer > Advocate and the TrAILCo. > > 2. I make a motion that the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition go on-record in > opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate > and the TrAILCo. > > Notes: > > 1. This Agreement is a front page story in the Morgantown Dominion Post > today. This Agreement was posted yesterday on the web site of the Public > Service Commission and is attached to this forwarded message; or, it can be > found under Case 07-0508 at _www.psc.state.wv.us_ > (http://www.psc.state.wv.us) > > 2. It is particularly disturbing that the offer of free electricity will be > available > only to a select group of people, not all those that are affected by the Line. > And, from an overall point-of-view, the cost of this free electricity will be > charged back to the customers of Allegheny Energy in West Virginia, as > I understand it. > > 3. Herbicides could still be used, just not sprayed from aircraft. > > 4. This Agreement reflects an arbitrary decision by the Consumer > Advocate, without consideration of whether it is fully supported > by the affected citizens, or the people of the State who will > need to pay the the proposed Line. > > Duane Nichols, Member. > > > > > > > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 > > > > _______________________________________________ > MVCAC mailing list > MVCAC(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac >

1 0

Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation
by Duane330＠aol.com 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

RE: Forwarded message from Jim Kotcon. 1. I make a motion that the Energy Committee of the Sierra Club of West Virginia go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. 2. I make a motion that the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. Notes: 1. This Agreement is a front page story in the Morgantown Dominion Post today. This Agreement was posted yesterday on the web site of the Public Service Commission and is attached to this forwarded message; or, it can be found under Case 07-0508 at _www.psc.state.wv.us_ (http://www.psc.state.wv.us) 2. It is particularly disturbing that the offer of free electricity will be available only to a select group of people, not all those that are affected by the Line. And, from an overall point-of-view, the cost of this free electricity will be charged back to the customers of Allegheny Energy in West Virginia, as I understand it. 3. Herbicides could still be used, just not sprayed from aircraft. 4. This Agreement reflects an arbitrary decision by the Consumer Advocate, without consideration of whether it is fully supported by the affected citizens, or the people of the State who will need to pay the the proposed Line. Duane Nichols, Member. **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

5 6

Re: [EC] Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation
by Barbara Fallon 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

I second the motion for the Sierra Club ----- Original Message ---- From: "Duane330(a)aol.com" <Duane330(a)aol.com> To: ec(a)osenergy.org; mvcac(a)cheat.org Cc: wwonderlin(a)hsc.wvu.edu; pjhunt(a)xemaps.com; brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com; william.depaulo(a)gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 1:21:52 PM Subject: Fwd: CAD & TrAILCo Joint Stipulation RE: Forwarded message from Jim Kotcon. 1. I make a motion that the Energy Committee of the Sierra Club of West Virginia go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. 2. I make a motion that the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate and the TrAILCo. Notes: 1. This Agreement is a front page story in the Morgantown Dominion Post today. This Agreement was posted yesterday on the web site of the Public Service Commission and is attached to this forwarded message; or, it can be found under Case 07-0508 at www.psc.state.wv.us 2. It is particularly disturbing that the offer of free electricity will be available only to a select group of people, not all those that are affected by the Line. And, from an overall point-of-view, the cost of this free electricity will be charged back to the customers of Allegheny Energy in West Virginia, as I understand it. 3. Herbicides could still be used, just not sprayed from aircraft. 4. This Agreement reflects an arbitrary decision by the Consumer Advocate, without consideration of whether it is fully supported by the affected citizens, or the people of the State who will need to pay the the proposed Line. Duane Nichols, Member. Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. -----Inline Message Follows----- I think we just got blind-sided by the Consumer Advocates Division. Billy Jack Gregg has signed a tentative agreement with TrAILCo in which he agrees not to oppose the Need for TrAILCo's line, agrees to the locaiton of certain portions of the line (although not the Grafton Area Route), agrees that TrAILCo is a public utility, and further agreed to support TrAILCo's requests for recovery of costs of payment of a Transmission Credit before FERC. In return, TrAILCo agrees to provide landowners with up to 12,000 kWh of electricity per year, and agrees to certain restrictions on herbicide use in the corridor. There is a section that I am not entirely clear on. Apparently the cost of this electricity is to be considered part of the "fair market value" for the rights of way. I am not clear as to whether this means that the paymnt for the property is reduced proportionately, or if this only means that the electricity is an "add on" to the property value. In either case, we the ratepayers will get gouged to pay the electric bills of the landowners, and I think we will also get gouged for an extra 14 % for the "incentivized rate of return" under the NIETC. JBK -----Inline Attachment Follows----- I think we just got blind-sided by the Consumer Advocates Division. Billy Jack Gregg has signed a tentative agreement with TrAILCo in which he agrees not to oppose the Need for TrAILCo's line, agrees to the locaiton of certain portions of the line (although not the Grafton Area Route), agrees that TrAILCo is a public utility, and further agreed to support TrAILCo's requests for recovery of costs of payment of a Transmission Credit before FERC. In return, TrAILCo agrees to provide landowners with up to 12,000 kWh of electricity per year, and agrees to certain restrictions on herbicide use in the corridor. There is a section that I am not entirely clear on. Apparently the cost of this electricity is to be considered part of the "fair market value" for the rights of way. I am not clear as to whether this means that the paymnt for the property is reduced proportionately, or if this only means that the electricity is an "add on" to the property value. In either case, we the ratepayers will get gouged to pay the electric bills of the landowners, and I think we will also get gouged for an extra 14 % for the "incentivized rate of return" under the NIETC. JBK ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

[Fwd: Fw: Todays discussion on FutureGen Coal plant (Ticket# 12182007S53540001:AR0003)]
by Regina Hendrix 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

FYI. Mark is a Sierra Club member from Philadelphia. Regina

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals
by Barbara Fallon 19 Dec '07

19 Dec '07

I am on this... ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> To: WV Chapter Energy Committee <EC(a)osenergy.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:06:26 AM Subject: [EC] Fwd: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals fyi, paul probably need to look at TRAILco work in 2008, and whatever else you can think of... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Hamilton <Dave.Hamilton(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 17, 2007 9:34 AM Subject: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals To: CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org The Smart Energy Solutions Conservation Initiative Committee is pleased to request letters of interest for funding 2008 projects. Please look carefully at the enclosed guidelines and deadlines. Please email or call Katie McLoughlin if you have any questions or problems. Any letter of interest that is desired to be in the running for the 1st round of Committee consideration needs to be emailed to Katie McLoughlin ( katie.mcloughlin(a)sierraclub.org) by January 3, 2008. While this is a short time line, please note that, like last year, we ARE NOT looking for full proposals at this time. We are looking for a broad picture of what you want to do, and a ballpark budget figure -- not a budget that breaks out every dollar. We know there are a lot of great ideas out there and look forward to seeing them soon. Thanks, Dave Hamilton Director, Global Warming and Energy Programs Sierra Club 408 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 202-548-6595 -- direct (See attached file: 2008 SES RFP.doc) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Fwd: Anyone know if Sierra Club is working on coalbed methane extraction in WV?
by Paul Wilson 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

Anyone of the Energy Committee know of anyone working on this in WV?? thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 18, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Anyone know if Sierra Club is working on coalbed methane extraction in WV? To: Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org, bruce_nilles(a)prodigy.net, Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org, pjgrunt(a)gmail.com Partnerships received an inquiry and I would like to connect them directly with the right person. Alternatively, anyone know of an expert on coalbed methane extraction? Thanks, Alice ________________________________ Alice McKeown Sierra Club National Coal Campaign tel: 202.675.6271 fax: 202.547.6009 -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals
by Paul Wilson 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

fyi, paul probably need to look at TRAILco work in 2008, and whatever else you can think of... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Hamilton <Dave.Hamilton(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 17, 2007 9:34 AM Subject: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals To: CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org The Smart Energy Solutions Conservation Initiative Committee is pleased to request letters of interest for funding 2008 projects. Please look carefully at the enclosed guidelines and deadlines. Please email or call Katie McLoughlin if you have any questions or problems. Any letter of interest that is desired to be in the running for the 1st round of Committee consideration needs to be emailed to Katie McLoughlin (katie.mcloughlin(a)sierraclub.org) by January 3, 2008. While this is a short time line, please note that, like last year, we ARE NOT looking for full proposals at this time. We are looking for a broad picture of what you want to do, and a ballpark budget figure -- not a budget that breaks out every dollar. We know there are a lot of great ideas out there and look forward to seeing them soon. Thanks, Dave Hamilton Director, Global Warming and Energy Programs Sierra Club 408 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 202-548-6595 -- direct (See attached file: 2008 SES RFP.doc) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

AEP IGCC Plant in Mason County
by James Kotcon 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Evidentiary hearings are underway for AEP's proposed IGCC plant in Mason County. The Chapter has not yet, to my knowledge, filed any comments on this facility. The major issue being debated is the cost of the facility, as it is considerably more expensive than any plant ever built by AEP, and AEP is asking the ratepayers to pay for it. The issue is difficult because IGCC plants have much lower emissions of SO2 and PM than pulverized coal boilers like Longview or Western Greenbrier. In addition, AEP has argued that the plant is needed to replace plants scheduled for shut-down in the recent settlement with Sierra Club, et al. And an IGCC plant would make Carbon Capture and Sequestration easier than retrofitting an old plant. In the Longview case, I argued that IGCC should be used, so I am hesitant to now say that is not good enough. At the same time, nothing actually commits AEP to shutting down old plants, so this facility may become an "add-on", rather than a replacement and net reduction of, air pollution emissions. Just to make matters even more complicated, the Clean Air Task Force recently filed comments to the PSC in support of the plant. These are usually the guys who oppose coal-fired power plants, but here they are in West Virginia. So what should we do next? JBK P.S. I think we may want to take a position commending AEP for their innovation but say "Not Good Enough" We need to do better. In particular, I think that AEP stockholders are assuming that we ratepayers will be paying all the carbon costs, and we should ask the PSC to condition the plant on AEP's stockholders assuming that risk. If they think coal is going to be profitable for the next 50 years, let them pay for it, not us.

3 2

Fwd: Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs (fwd)
by Paul Wilson 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Not a real pressing issue, but some on the committee may want to look this over. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Heimann <heimann(a)theworld.com> Date: Dec 11, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs (fwd) To: CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hello Everyone, Steve Crowley, who heads the Smart Energy Solutions CIC, asked me to forward this message on CFL lightbulbs to the Chapter Chairs list. He is inviting comments from all chapters on a proposed guidance on the distribution of CFLs and other environmentally preferred lightbulbs. You can see the draft document at the Clubhouse URL Steve mentions below, and send any comments either to the comments area there or to Eric Uram (see e-mail address below). Thanks, and have a wonderful set of holidays! Regards, David Heimann Massachusetts Chapter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:59:01 -0500 From: Stephen Crowley <scrow(a)sover.net> Reply-To: Energy Forum <CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG> To: CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs To all, An ad hoc working group of representatives from the Sierra Club Global Warming & Energy, Smart Energy Solutions, Zero Waste, and Toxics committees has developed Guidelines for Selecting and Distributing Environmentally Preferable Light Bulbs. The purpose of the Guidelines is to help Sierra Club chapters, groups and members increase net environmental benefits when they select and distribute CFLs and other energy-efficient light bulbs in their communities. The Guidelines seek to balance and advance the Sierra Club's goals of climate protection, toxics reduction and zero waste, and to support the Club's policies of encouraging conservation of both energy and materials. The Guidance is posted for your review at http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/conservation/policy/cfl-guidance.aspx Comments on this guidance document may be posted and reviewed at http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/comment/cfl/, or emailed directly to Eric Uram at <Eric.Uram(a)Headwater.US>. The deadline for comments is Thursday, January 10, 2008. Please forward this to all potentially interested individuals and entities. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG For help in managing your subscription, or questions/comments about the Energy Forum, contact Ned.Ford(a)Sierraclub.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off the CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-FORUM list, send email to LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-FORUM -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: Third newsletter submission
by Duane330＠aol.com 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Third submission from...........Duane **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

1 0

Fwd: Sierra Club newsletter
by Duane330＠aol.com 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

First Newsletter submission from............Duane **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

1 0

Second newsletter submission
by duane330＠aol.com 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Sally. Here is the second submission. Duane ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

1 0

PSC Staff oppose TrailCo
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

I found out this evening at a Monongalia Clear Air Coalition meeting that there was a WV Public Radio broadcast this morning announcing that the PSC Staff opposes the TrailCo Power Line after their study: You can listen to broadcast here: http://wvpubcast.org/audio/news/1211wvm1.mp3 -Jonathan

1 0

FW: [CH] Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs
by Grubb, Karen 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

-----Original Message----- From: Sierra Club Chapter and RCC Conservation Chairs [mailto:CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Stephen Crowley Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:03 PM To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [CH] Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs To all, An ad hoc working group of representatives from the Sierra Club Global Warming & Energy, Smart Energy Solutions, Zero Waste, and Toxics committees has developed Guidelines for Selecting and Distributing Environmentally Preferable Light Bulbs. The purpose of the Guidelines is to help Sierra Club chapters, groups and members increase net environmental benefits when they select and distribute CFLs and other energy-efficient light bulbs in their communities. The Guidelines seek to balance and advance the Sierra Club's goals of climate protection, toxics reduction and zero waste, and to support the Club's policies of encouraging conservation of both energy and materials. The Guidance is posted for your review at http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/conservation/policy/cfl-guidance.aspx Comments on this guidance document may be posted and reviewed at http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/comment/cfl/, or emailed directly to Eric Uram at <Eric.Uram(a)Headwater.US>. The deadline for comments is Thursday, January 10, 2008. Please forward this to all potentially interested individuals and entities. __________________________________________________________ To remove yourself from this list, send the following message to LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG (No subject is required): SIGNOFF CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS

1 0

Fwd: Final WVNS usage report for Proposed Power Line Could “Zap” WV With More Pollution
by Paul Wilson 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

Here is the Usage Report from WV Public News Service. Good quote from Jim. This is what we want to see next year when we are paying for this on our nickel. I fed them another story on private land disturbance/abuse from an Allegheny powerline ROW and that will air with quotes from the Landowner and Duane Nichols. best,paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org> Date: Dec 11, 2007 1:25 PM Subject: Final WVNS usage report for Proposed Power Line Could "Zap" WV With More Pollutio To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com Dear West Virginia News Service supporters, Attached is the usage report for a story related to Global Warming/Air Quality that was aired on 11/26/2007. As you will see from the attached report, the story entitled Proposed Power Line Could "Zap" WV With More Pollution was aired by at least 29 stations. Plus 18 stations took both soundbites and ran at least two versions of the story. These numbers are conservative since we know stories are commonly run 3-4 times on each station during the course of a day As always, keep sending story ideas to our producer: Rob Ferrett WVNS Executive Producer Toll Free: 800-317-6705 Local: Fax: 540.301.0801 wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org The banner or story summary for this story is: Kingwood, WV – Today (MONDAY) is the last public hearing for a proposed power line that would carry electricity from West Virginia coal plants to East Coast customers. James Kotcon (COAT-son) with the Sierra Club in West Virginia says the state would get all of the pollution, and few of the benefits. --- 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. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: Opinion Article by Manchin
by James Kotcon 08 Dec '07

08 Dec '07

Attached is the Weekly column from Gov. Manchin for Dec. 7, 2007. We really need to call him on the hypocrisy, because as he is callling for "Clean Coal", the WV Development Office last month provided over $60 million in bonding for dirty old ratholes like Longview and Western Greenbrier. Is his call for "Clean Coal" simply a smokescreen to keep just building more coal plants, no matter what? (DUH!) Can more expensive Clean Coal plants compete if they have to compete with subsidized old dirty technologies? Will the inductry see any incentive to build with better technologies if the State not only permits, but subsidizes old dirty technology? If you want to see where someones' priorities truly lie, "Follow the Money!" JBK

1 0

Fwd: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS: approval
by Paul Wilson 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sierra Club LISTSERV Server (14.5) <LISTSERV(a)lists.sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 7, 2007 5:27 PM Subject: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS: approval required (056AA8EE) To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> This message was originally submitted by Andy.Bessler(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG to the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG. You can approve it using the "OK" mechanism (click on the link below), ignore it, or repost an edited copy. The message will expire automatically and you do not need to do anything if you just want to discard it. Please refer to the list owner's guide if you are not familiar with the "OK" mechanism; these instructions are being kept purposefully short for your convenience in processing large numbers of messages. To APPROVE the message: http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?OK=056AA8EE&L=COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALER… ELECTRICITY: Carbon capture would double coal plants' water consumption -- report (12/07/2007) Katherine Ling, Greenwire reporter Power plants' consumption of water will nearly double by 2030 if coal-burning generators must install carbon-capture technology to combat global warming, the Energy Department said yesterday. Carbon capture would increase power plants' water consumption by about 2 billion gallons per day, a 90 percent increase over current rates, the report by DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory says. The additional water would be used to create steam to drive turbines that generate electricity and capture the carbon gas, the lab says. Otherwise, withdrawals of cooling water from power plants is expected to decline by 3.5 percent over the next two decades. Power plants are the second largest U.S. water users behind agriculture, but plants don't consume all of the water they withdraw. Most is used for cooling and is released back into water bodies. A typical 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant uses more than 12 million gallons per hour of water for cooling the steam, the report noted. Nuclear power plants use more, and natural gas plants use less. Water bodies are being strained by drought and population growth in many regions. A few power plant proposals have been rejected or put in doubt because of water concerns in Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota and Wisconsin (Greenwire, Oct. 4). The report drew its averages from five different case studies involving different portfolios of once-through, wet recirculating, dry and hybrid cooling mechanisms. Each type of cooling system uses a different amount of water but also has a different amount of energy efficiency. Regional differences Power plants' water usage also varies by region, the report said. The Northeast is expected to withdraw 42 percent more freshwater, while the Rocky Mountain and Southwest desert region will see a 24 percent decline. While the report concludes the whole nation will increase consumption, some states will be hit harder. California and Florida will see a more than 250 percent increase in consumption -- New York more than 350 percent, the report said. State officials are aware of the issue. An NETL poll of officials in 33 states found 58 percent of them saw water availability as a concern. Another 12 percent said water resources had recently become "more critical." . Click here to view the report. ****************** see: www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/NETL_Water_Paper_Final_Oct. 2005.pdf and www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/IEP_Power_Plant_Water_R&D_F inal_1.pdf Andy Bessler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

FW: [energy activists] We won!!!! energy bill passes House 235-181
by Grubb, Karen 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

We should thank Rahall and Mollohan. ________________________________ From: Allison.Forbes(a)sierraclub.org [mailto:Allison.Forbes@sierraclub.org] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:06 PM To: Allison.Forbes(a)sierraclub.org Subject: [energy activists] We won!!!! energy bill passes House 235-181 Yes, we won again in the House! This time, the House passed not only a renewable electricity standard, energy efficiency standards and a great tax package, but they voted to raise fuel economy standards!!! A historic achievement. Congrats to everyone. Our press release is attached. Media materials and record of votes to follow... and on to the Senate :) FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 1140 (Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined) H R 6 YEA-AND-NAY 6-Dec-2007 3:31 PM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments with Amendments BILL TITLE: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act Yeas <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml#Y> Nays <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml#N> PRES NV <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml#NV> Democratic 221 7 5 Republican 14 174 11 Independent TOTALS 235 181 16 ---- YEAS 235 --- Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Baldwin Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bono Boswell Boucher Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Castle Castor Chandler Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis, Lincoln DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly Doyle Edwards Ellison Ellsworth Emanuel Engel Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Gerlach Giffords Gillibrand Gonzalez Gordon Green, Al Grijalva Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Hayes Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind Kirk Klein (FL) Kucinich LaHood Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McIntyre McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Ramstad Rangel Reichert Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shays Shea-Porter Sherman Shuler Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Space Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tanner Tauscher Taylor Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Tsongas Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walden (OR) Walz (MN) Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth ---- NAYS 181 --- Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachmann Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Boozman Boren Boustany Boyd (FL) Brady (TX) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Chabot Coble Conaway Crenshaw Culberson Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Tom Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Ehlers Emerson English (PA) Everett Fallin Ferguson Flake Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Graves Green, Gene Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Hobson Hoekstra Hulshof Hunter Inglis (SC) Issa Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jordan Keller King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) Lamborn Lampson Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall McCarthy (CA) McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McKeon McMorris Rodgers Melancon Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Pearce Pence Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Regula Rehberg Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Roskam Royce Ryan (WI) Sali Saxton Schmidt Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (NE) Smith (TX) Souder Stearns Sullivan Tancredo Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walberg Walsh (NY) Wamp Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (FL) ---- NOT VOTING 16 --- Baird Carson Cole (OK) Cubin Feeney Gilchrest Granger Gutierrez Hooley Jindal Lucas Miller, Gary Nunes Ortiz Paul Young (AK) Allison Forbes National Conservation Organizer Sierra Club Global Warming and Energy Program (202) 548-6583

1 0

Fwd: CATO: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power.
by James Kotcon 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

Enjoy. JBK From: Eric Epstein <ericepstein(a)comcast.net> Date: December 6, 2007 5:10:40 PM EST To: Eric Epstein <ericepstein(a)comcast.net> Subject: CATO: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power. Hooked on Subsidies by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren This article appeared Forbes on November 26, 2007. Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power. When it comes to politics, we don't often find ourselves in agreement with Bonnie Raitt or Graham Nash. But now that they are campaigning against new nuclear plants, they're our friends. Raitt, Nash, the Indigo Girls and other vocal rockers are attacking a provision in pending Senate legislation that would award what they call "massively expensive loan guarantees--potentially a virtual blank check from taxpayers" for nuclear power plant construction. Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Peter Van Doren is also editor of Cato's Regulation magazine. Even without the new legislation there's plenty of federal money being doled out. In September NRG Energy, an energy wholesaler in Princeton, N.J., applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a two-reactor nuclear plant near Bay City, Tex. The NRC is expecting 19 similar applications in the next 18 months. If approved, they will be eligible for loan guarantees under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero. A cold-blooded examination of the industry's numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone's tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively). Nuclear energy investments are riskier than investments in coal- or gas-fired electricity. High upfront costs and long construction times mean investors have to wait years to get their money back. The problem here is not just the cost per watt, several times that of a gas plant, but the fact that nuclear plants are big. Result: The upfront capital investment can be 10 to 15 times as great as for a small gas-fired turbine. What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear's economic problems? Absolutely nothing. A nuclear plant's costs are not only higher but more uncertain. Investors have to worry that completion will take place late--or never (witness the abandonment of the reactor at Shoreham, N.Y.). Accordingly, nuclear power would have to be substantially cheaper than coal- or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market. So why does NRG want to build a nuclear plant in Texas? Two factors are in play. First, the license costs a relatively small amount compared with the cost of construction. Second, the federal government would guarantee up to 100% of the $6.5 billion to $8.5 billion NRG might borrow from capital markets (as long as it doesn't exceed 80% of the project cost). Without such guarantees no investor would lend significant amounts of capital to NRG. How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors. The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal. What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear's economic problems? Absolutely nothing. There is no more to the right-wing case for nuclear subsidies than there is to the left-wing case for solar subsidies. If the permitting process is broken, then by all means fix it. If plant safety regulations are excessive, then by all means reform them. If greenhouse gas emissions prove to be a problem, then impose a reasonable carbon tax across the board. But once those tasks are complete, the role for government ends. We like nuclear power as much as anyone else on the right. But friends don't let friends get hooked on subsidies. We're glad to see Raitt and her rocker compadres agree.

1 0

Fwd: Fw: PacifiCorp drops plans for new coal plants
by Paul Wilson 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

fyi, some good comments on the strategy of future carbon taxes. paul ----- Forwarded by Pat Gallagher/Sierraclub on 12/06/2007 03:07 PM ----- The NW Energy Coalition Energy Matters Update Vol. 4, No. 8 - December 6, 2007 PacifiCorp drops coal plant plans! Western clean-energy advocates score major victory PacifiCorp, the Northwest's largest utility, has abandoned plans to build two new pulverized coal plants. The company's decision, delivered to both the Oregon and Utah utility commissions, is the product of years of efforts by NW Energy Coalition staff, member organizations and other allies. Advocates and customers should applaud PacifiCorp's turnaround. It can be extremely difficult for a large utility to change direction, especially when it's owned by Warren Buffett's coal-heavy Mid-American Corp. The decision took some courage and illustrates the company's openness to the evidence presented by its customers, regulators and advocates. Background In its 2004 and 2007 long-term plans for securing adequate power resources (called integrated resource plans or IRPs) and its 2006-7 requests for bids to provide power, PacifiCorp called for construction of up to seven new pulverized coal plants. As reported in previous issues of The Transformer (Oct. 29, 2007, and Nov. 19, 2007), the six-state utility's coal plans were stopped short in Oregon, where the spirited opposition from consumer and clean-energy advocates was strongly supported by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) and its staff. The OPUC is the state agency that reviews long-term plans and rate requests from investor-owned utilities in Oregon. Repeatedly rejected by Oregon regulators, the utility evidently did some serious rethinking. In a letter to the Utah Public Service Commission (PDF file) and in a filing before the Oregon PUC (PDF file), the company this week announced that conventional coal plants "are no longer viable options …." PacifiCorp cites several reasons for its decision, including: 1. Potential federal regulation of carbon emissions. The company expects Congress to "enact some restriction upon carbon emissions," but can't predict the cost of complying with as-yet unknown regulations. That means development of a proposed Wyoming coal plant (Bridger 5), "is no longer a viable option for 2014." 2. Public and regulatory commissions' climate-change concerns. PacifiCorp notes that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners recently passed its first resolution acknowledging the inevitability of climate-change legislation. "Within the last few months," the company writes, "most of the planned coal plants in the United States have been cancelled, denied permits, or been involved in protracted litigation." That means that in addition to the proposed Wyoming coal plant (and its alternative incarnation as a coal-gasification plant), PacifiCorp will cease to pursue another planned coal plant in Utah. PacifiCorp isn't excluding new coal plants from its 20-year considerations. But for its near-term (10-year) planning, the company says it cannot determine "whether new coal generation ownership will satisfy the least cost, least risk standards that would enable us to consider it as a viable option" (Utah Docket No. 05-035-47, Notice of Withdrawal, p. 3]. In other words, PacifiCorp acknowledged just what we've been saying all along: Looming regulation of carbon to address global warming makes coal a very risky investment for utilities and especially their customers who would bear the steeply increased costs and environmental impacts. What now? PacifiCorp agreed to modify its 2007 long-term resource plan for Oregon along the lines proposed by the Coalition and other clean-energy advocates, which included removing the coal plants and acquiring more conservation. In addition, in future resource planning, the company agreed to: Better analyze how conservation will reduce risks and costs Consider building coal-gasification (IGCC) plants that capture their carbon emissions Evaluate shorter-term resource purchases to keep its options open Consider the impact of forced early retirements of existing coal plants, or the need to retrofit them to capture CO2 Design a plan that meets Oregon's new CO2 emissions goals Include the estimated future costs of carbon emissions when figuring the price of its market transactions PacifiCorp's decision represents a monumental shift in American energy priorities. Throughout the United States, regulators, legislatures, consumers and advocates are repelling coal plants and winning new investments in clean energy. Credit for this great victory goes to all our partners and allies in Oregon -- Citizens' Utility Board, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, Renewable Northwest Project, Oregon Department of Energy, OPUC commissioners and staff – and our allies in Utah, including Western Resource Advocates. The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of more than 100 environmental, civic and human service organizations, progressive utilities and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and British Columbia. We promote development of renewable energy and energy conservation, consumer protection, low-income energy assistance, and fish and wildlife restoration on the Columbia and Snake rivers. www.nwenergy.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TimeoutforCoal" group. To post to this group, send email to timeoutforcoal(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to timeoutforcoal-unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/timeoutforcoal?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- You are subscribed to this list as rcavanagh(a)nrdc.org. Click here to unsubscribe, or send email to unsubscribe.219510.178909149.4643214875594844173-rcavanagh_nrdc.org(a)en.groundspring.org . Our postal address is 811 1st Ave, #305 Seattle, Washington 98104 United States Phone: (206) 621-0094 Email: nwec(a)nwenergy.org Web: www.nwenergy.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] YES!]
by Regina Hendrix 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

I wanted to be sure you saw this.

1 0

FOR THE WORLD'S LARGEST BIRTHDAY CAKE, AN UNLIMITED SUPPLY OF BAKING SODA....
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

Power Plant CO2 + Sodium Hydroxide = Baking Soda [image: Skyonic_logo]<http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized…>The Skyonic <http://skyonic.com/index.php> SkyMine™ process mineraizes CO2 as sodium carbonate (baking soda) for long-term storage as land or mine fill. It is a post-combustion carbon capture and sequestration technology that works with any large-scale stationary CO2 emitter (e.g.- fossil fueled power plants). The process removes heavy metals and acid gasses as well as carbon dioxide from conditioned at-temperature flue gas. Sodium hydroxide, which is produced on site as a part of the SkyMine™ process is used to react with the CO2 to produce the sodium carbonate. The heat to drive the process is captured from the heat in the flue gas. The reaction to produce sodium hydroxide also produces hydrogen and chlorine as byproducts. These chemicals are also "green"; they are produced at low energy and without emitting CO2. >From a CNET report<http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-622012…> : (According to Joe Jones, inventor and founder of the company), because the system captures metals and acid gases, it can replace the $400 million scrubbers that power plants currently have to install. Skyonic's system will probably cost about the same amount as a scrubber. Although the capital budget will be equal, power plant owners will get a salable byproduct and avoid carbon taxes, which may be imposed in the future. A 500-megawatt power plant will produce approximately 338,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Multiply that weight by 1.9 and you get the number of tons of baking soda that the plant will produce. Skyonic claims that since the technology can be retrofitted to existing facilities or designed into new ones, it addresses both the current problem of climate change, and the future demand for cleaner energy to support development. They also claim that a SkyMine™ plant can be operated at a profit, because the hydrogen produced (as well as the chlorine and bicarbonates) have commercial value. SkyMine™ began as an idea scribbled on a cocktail napkin and experiments conducted in the garage. The inventor of the SkyMine™ process, Joe Jones, founded Skyonic in 2005. Skyonic also filed a technology-defining method patent on the SkyMine™ process in 2005. Skyonic performed research and laboratory-scale testing on the process at Southwest Research Institute in 2005 and 2006, and began field testing the process at a coal-burning power plant in Texas later that year. Currently, Skyonic is performing pilot-scale demonstration plant work at Luminant Energy's Big Brown Steam Electric Station in Fairfield, Texas, in real-world conditions. In the second quarter of 2005 the company raised $1.25M from about 10 investors in a Series A preferred stock offering. In 2006 the company concluded a Series B preferred stock offering, raising $3M from 5 investors. One of those investors was TXU Corp (now Energy Future Holdings Corp <http://www.energyfutureholdings.com/about/companies.php>, a private company). The agreement with and investment in Skyonic helped fund an extensive field-test of the technology at Luminant Energy (the generating division of Energy Future Holdings) Big Brown Steam Electric Station to further develop and evaluate Skyonic's SkyMine™ process. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

WSJ: Emission Caps Hit Snags
by duane330＠aol.com 04 Dec '07

04 Dec '07

Kyoto's Caps on Emissions Hit Snag in Marketplace U.N. Mulls How to Fix Pollution-Credit System; 'Expecting Too Much' By JEFFREY BALL. Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2007; Page A1 The Kyoto Protocol was supposed to harness market forces to solve global warming. It slapped caps on greenhouse-gas emissions and set up a complex market for companies to trade permits to pollute. But it hasn't yet ignited the green-energy revolution its architects were expecting. The cap-and-trade system has brought about useful projects targeting a few especially potent greenhouse gases. It hasn't, however, forced the industrialized world to meaningfully curb what scientists say is the biggest problem of all -- the growing consumption of fossil fuels. Today, diplomats at a big United Nations global-warming conference in Bali, Indonesia, will begin looking for a fix as they open debate on a new global-warming agreement. Also this week, a Senate committee in Washington is scheduled to debate a proposed cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases in the U.S., which opted not to ratify the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty requires the industrialized countries that ratified it to reduce their overall emissions by 5% from 1990 levels. The caps, which expire in 2012, will not go into effect until next year. But participating nations have spent several years scrambling to get ready. The European Union has already instituted caps on its member nations. This has fueled a nascent carbon-permit trading system: Countries and companies that can't meet the new requirements can buy emissions permits from others that can. Trading in permits hit $30 billion last year, according to the World Bank. Yet problems with the system loom large. The world's two biggest energy users, the U.S. and China, aren't subject to emissions caps. Countries that face the caps have been reluctant to push their industries too hard. And industry itself has proved adept at fulfilling its obligations without cutting down much on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. It is doing this largely by funding projects in the developing world that destroy potent but uncommon greenhouse gases. "What has happened is, markets work as markets will do, to find the lowest-cost alternative," says Michael Zammit Cutajar, a Maltese diplomat who during the Kyoto talks was head of the U.N. body that gave birth to the carbon market. The cap-and-trade system was "a brilliant idea," he says, but implementing it has exposed the "tension between the market approach and the sustainable approach." The big question now is how to structure a carbon-trading system that's palatable to the U.S. and to developing countries such as China. The U.S. and China together account for about 40% of emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel combustion, which scientists say is the most common source of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions. That alone dwarfs the 28% share from the countries that did sign up for Kyoto caps, among them Canada, Japan and the nations of the EU, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. The politicians face a dilemma: They want emissions constraints to be tough enough to matter, but loose enough to persuade the U.S. and China to play greater roles. European nations have expressed a willingness to cut emissions deeply, but only if the U.S. does too. The U.S. and China are calling on one another to play ball. The broader question is whether a cap-and-trade system targeting industry is enough to meaningfully curb greenhouse gases. Some favor the introduction of carbon-emission taxes, such as an added tax on gasoline, saying that would push consumers to trim their energy use. Others say even blunter tools are needed, such as tougher government rules on the energy-efficiency of cars and buildings. Industry long has resisted such steps. The current carbon-trading system is producing modest environmental benefits. In Europe and Japan, where the Kyoto emissions caps are set to kick in next year, some companies have begun changing their operations as the effective cost of burning fossil fuel rises. If governments toughen emission caps in coming years, as is expected, the cost will rise further. But progress has been much slower than Kyoto's architects hoped for. Japan's emissions are rising, Canada has backed away from its target, and the EU says it will meet its goal only if member nations get tougher. Scientists say far bigger cuts than those called for in the treaty are needed. But global energy use is expected to rise by 50% by 2030. The U.S. pioneered the concept of harnessing markets to solve environmental problems. In 1995, it imposed a cap-and-trade program to curb power-plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, a pollutant that causes acid rain. Under that program, the federal government gives power plants yearly allocations of permits to emit sulfur dioxide. Power plants that are over the limit have a choice: cut their emissions or buy pollution permits from plants that don't need their entire allocations. The system has reduced U.S. sulfur-dioxide emissions from power plants by about 40% from 1990 levels. It's widely viewed as an environmental and economic success. In the talks leading to the Kyoto treaty, the U.S. argued successfully for using the cap-and-trade model to fight greenhouse gases. But because global warming involves many countries and many gases, solving the problem is far more complicated than addressing acid rain. The Kyoto treaty sets emissions limits for industrialized countries and for the EU, which decided itself how to divide the burden among member countries. Developing nations face no caps. Diplomats decided that it wasn't fair to burden their economies right away with pollution controls, given that the industrialized world had faced no restrictions during decades of growth. It's up to each participating nation to determine which companies to slap restrictions on. After a government sets an emissions limit for a company, it gives that company just enough permits to cover it. Companies that reduce emissions below their caps can sell excess credits to companies that don't have enough. Each company must decide how much to cut emissions and how many permits to buy from others. The EU's cap-and-trade system has been in effect since 2005. It's a dry run for the Kyoto treaty's emissions caps, which go into effect next year and run through 2012. Holcim Ltd., a Swiss cement maker, faces caps. In 2005 and 2006, it didn't need all its permits, so it sold a total of about one million of them for an average of about €11, or about $16, apiece, says Bruno Vanderborght, Holcim's vice president for environmental strategy. This year, Holcim increased cement production and needed to buy about 100,000 permits. Mr. Vanderborght says the company has improved its energy efficiency "slightly" and is looking to improve further. It has also been buying permits from another source: developing nations. The treaty includes a unique mechanism for involving the developing world in the process. Carbon-reduction projects in developing nations generate emissions permits, or credits, which can be sold to companies in industrialized nations facing emissions caps. In effect, these companies can fulfill some of their emission-reduction obligations by financing pollution-control projects in the developing world. The troubles with the system began even before it went into effect. In 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution urging President Clinton not to embrace the Kyoto treaty, and soon after President Bush took office in 2001, he announced he wouldn't support emissions caps because they would be too costly for the economy. That made it tougher for the EU to force stringent emissions caps on its industry. Tough caps would make it harder for European companies to compete against American ones. In 2005, when Europe introduced its first round of caps, it kept them soft. As an added shock absorber, governments and companies began looking hard in the developing world for cheap emissions credits. Kyoto's architects now say they didn't anticipate how the projects in the developing world would suppress efforts to cut back on fossil-fuel use. Under the treaty, projects targeting more potent gases generate more credits than projects targeting carbon dioxide. The treaty covers six kinds of greenhouse gases. At one end of the spectrum is carbon dioxide. It accounts for 77% of all man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, the U.N. says, but it's also the weakest. At the other end is HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of a common refrigerant. Every ton of it is 11,700 times as damaging to the atmosphere as a ton of carbon dioxide, according to the U.N. But despite its high potency, the gas accounts for less than 1% of the effect of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, the U.N. says. Under the Kyoto trading system, each credit represents one "carbon-dioxide-equivalent" ton of avoided emissions. So a project that eliminates one ton of carbon-dioxide emissions generates one sellable credit. A project that gets rid of one ton of HFC-23 emissions generates 11,700. Installing machinery on a refrigerant plant to incinerate HFC-23 is cheap. According to the World Bank, generating one carbon credit through an HFC-23 project typically costs less than $1. Generating a credit from a renewable-energy project -- erecting a wind turbine or a solar panel -- can cost $5 to $10, the World Bank says. Such credits currently sell for as much as €17, or about $25. So the economic incentives to undertake HFC-23 projects have far exceeded those for fossil-fuel reduction projects. During the Kyoto talks, there wasn't much discussion about whether such disparities might focus too much activity on eliminating gases that aren't a big part of the overall problem, according to Mr. Cutajar, the Maltese diplomat who headed the U.N. body. The provision that allows industrialized countries to obtain credits in the developing world was "an add-on" late in the talks, he notes. "The general impression was that low-carbon development was about clean energy," Mr. Cutajar says. "It sounded good. It smelled good. It was only later that the details got worked out." Between 2002, when credits generated in developing countries began trading, and the end of last year, HFC-23 projects accounted for 46% of all developing-world credits traded -- by far the biggest chunk of that market, according to the World Bank. All told, at least 70% of developing-world credits traded during that market's first five years came from projects targeting gases other than carbon dioxide, the World Bank says. At present, most eligible plants that emit HFC-23 have been signed up for carbon-credit projects. As a result, projects targeting less-potent gases are getting more funding. One such gas is methane. It's emitted when animal dung decomposes on farms and when trash rots at landfills. Ton for ton, it's 21 times more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, the U.N. says. That's provided an incentive for two types of popular carbon-credit projects: putting tarps over animal-waste lagoons, and putting pipes in landfills to tap and burn off the methane. Burning methane produces less-potent carbon dioxide. Programs to reduce the burning of fossil fuels -- a far bigger environmental problem -- accounted for less than one-third of the developing-world credits traded between 2002 and last year, the World Bank says. But they have begun getting more attention. The trading system has given birth to an industry of middlemen who arrange projects in developing countries to produce credits. Natsource LLC, a New York-based asset-management firm, manages a roughly $700 million investment fund through which companies, including many Japanese and European utilities, buy carbon credits. Most come from projects targeting the potent but ancillary gases such as HFC-23 and nitrous oxide, a byproduct of nylon production. "Of course the market is going to do the cheaper thing first," says Jack Cogen, Natsource's chief executive officer. "That's what markets do." The World Bank has put together some of the biggest emissions-reduction projects. Karan Capoor, a senior financial specialist at the World Bank, says "it's expecting too much" to think the Kyoto treaty could significantly curb fossil-fuel consumption without long-term caps and the participation of big countries such as the U.S. Some investors in the carbon market cite another reason for the scarcity of clean-energy projects: a panel of U.N.-sanctioned officials who meet periodically in Bonn, Germany, and decide which proposed carbon-reduction projects will get to sell credits. The panel approves only environmental projects it determines wouldn't happen without the sale of the credits. Clearing that bar can be difficult for clean-energy projects. Those related to potent gases such as HFC-23 and methane have an easier time, because they rarely make economic sense without the carbon-credit revenue. U.N. officials say that to keep the system honest, it's important not to subsidize projects that would happen anyway. In 2006, the European Commission, the EU's governing body, reported that the European industry ended 2005 with more permits than it needed to meet caps under the EU's system. That caused the price of European credits to plummet. The commission now is pressuring member governments to tighten their emissions caps, which has pushed prices back up. Eight countries have sued or threatened to sue, arguing the commission is being too stringent. At the U.N. conference in Bali, the price issue is likely to color debate over whether to award carbon credits to projects that preserve forests, which consume carbon dioxide. Kyoto's architects authorized credits for planting new trees. But they declined to allow credits for preserving existing trees. They worried, among other things, that nations might seek credits to preserve trees they have no intention of destroying. Heavily forested nations such as Indonesia and Brazil want to reverse that decision. On Capitol Hill, companies anticipating a U.S. carbon cap are gunning to make it as loose as possible. Duke Energy Corp., the nation's third-biggest coal burner, is one. In October, Duke joined the heads of other big emitters in writing to the head of a Senate committee on the environment. Their letter declared it "critically important" for any cap-and-trade system to set an upper limit on the market price of a carbon permit. That ceiling would rise over time. A system without price controls might force utilities to switch to fuels that are cleaner but costlier than coal. "While a lot of people started down the road romanticizing" the use of emissions caps to fight global warming, says Duke's chief executive, James Rogers, in an interview, they're "now coming to grips with the cold reality of the economics." ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=ao…

1 0

FW: DOE Issues Orders Granting Requests for Rehearing for Report and Orders Designating NIETCs
by Grubb, Karen 04 Dec '07

04 Dec '07

-----Original Message----- From: nietcwebmaster(a)anl.gov [mailto:nietcwebmaster@anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:08 AM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: DOE Issues Orders Granting Requests for Rehearing for Report and Orders Designating NIETCs ************************************************************ National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors ************************************************************ DOE Issues Orders Granting Requests for Rehearing The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued orders granting rehearings for the Report and Orders designating the Mid-Atlantic Area National Transmission Corridor (Docket No. 2007-OE-01) and the Southwest Area National Transmission Corridor (Docket No. 2007-OE-02). The orders are available on the "Applications for Rehearing" page on the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and Congestion Study Web site at http://nietc.anl.gov/index.cfm For More Information ******************** For more information about the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and Congestion Study, visit the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and Congestion Study Web site at (http://nietc.anl.gov/index.cfm), or contact us at: nietcwebmaster(a)anl.gov Forward This Message ******************** Please forward this message to any party you feel may be interested in the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and Congestion Study. _________________CONTACTS/SUBSCRIPTIONS_____________________ FEEDBACK -------- To submit feedback, contact the webmaster at nietcwebmaster(a)anl.gov PRIVACY POLICY -------------- Our online privacy policy is at: http://www.energy.gov/privacy.htm SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE --------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe to the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and Congestion Study e-mail service, visit: http://nietc.anl.gov/email/index.cfm If the above URL is not enabled as a link, please copy it into your browser window to access our E-Mail Services Page. ************************************************************ You are currently subscribed as: kgrubb(a)fairmontstate.edu ************************************************************

1 0

Conference call today
by Barbara Fallon 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

The Energy committee needs to have a conference call regarding the TrAIL project and in particular we need to make some decisions about payment to expert witnesses. Here is the information about the conference call number and code. Please call in at 4:30 today. Number 866.501.6174 Conference Code: 1005700 Thank you... Barbara ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

Fwd: Dynegy plant article from Georgia
by Paul Wilson 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Baumling(a)aol.com> Date: Nov 29, 2007 9:18 PM Subject: Dynegy plant article To: Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org, bruce.nilles(a)sierraclub.org, Jesse.Simons(a)sierraclub.org, sarah.hodgdon(a)earthlink.net, Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org, Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org, pjgrunt(a)gmail.com *"They said the Sierra Club fights coal plants around the country, and uses permit issues to do so."* ** This article is about the Early County, GA LSPower/Dynegy coal burner: http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/11/29/coal_1130.h… Coal power plant's permit in the crosshairs Environmental groups say planned facility will be too polluting By MARGARET NEWKIRK <mnewkirk(a)ajc.com> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 11/29/07 Did the state drop the ball when it gave a permit to Georgia's first planned new coal power plant in years? An administrative law judge will answer that question in the next few weeks, after nearly a month of arguments that ended Thursday. If allowed to go forward, the 1,200-megawatt plant would sit on the Chattahoochee River in Early County, near the Florida border. Owned by Houston-based Dynegy<http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/11/29/coal_1130.h…>Inc., the plant would be a merchant, meaning it will have to find utilities or other large power users to buy its power. Its capacity is roughly the same as one of the two new nuclear units Georgia Power wants to add to its Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta. A group of Early County residents, as well as most of the state's environmental community, has been fighting the plant for more than two years, on a number of fronts. What brought them to Atlanta in recent weeks was the plant's environmental permit. They want the plant's permit from the state Environmental Protection Division tossed out. The Early County plant will be built with more air pollution controls than any new coal plant in the state. But it won't be as clean burning as it could and should be, according to the Sierra Club, Friends of the Chattahoochee and Greenlaw, the environmental law firm representing them. Federal law requires new plants to have controls that achieve the "maximum degree of reduction" in pollution, attorney George Hays told Administrative Law Judge Stephanie Howells. "This is not the maximum degree of reduction." Hays said the state Environmental Protection Division relied too heavily on the company's claims and data in drafting the permit. And he said that permit is not as strict as those at other coal plants in development around the country. He noted that the scrubbers planned for the new plant are less effective than those Georgia Power is now installing on its old ones. Scrubbers remove acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide and mercury from coal smoke. The EPD is allowing Dynegy to use so-called dry scrubbers at the plant, instead of the more expensive wet scrubbers. Wet scrubbers remove more sulfur dioxide. Lawyers for the state said they opted against wet scrubbers because of water supply issues. Wet scrubbers use more water. They also attacked the credibility of the Sierra Club's expert witness, saying the witness was a Sierra Club member and donor and that her science was biased. They said the EPD permits were reasonable — and that opponents would have attacked it in any case. They said the Sierra Club fights coal plants around the country, and uses permit issues to do so. They said Friends of the Chattahoochee didn't want a coal plant in the neighborhood, period. Bobby McLendon, chairman of the river protection group, agreed with that, at least in part. He said during a court break that he had a number of issues with the plant in addition to the permit, including the fact that it will have a 20-year exemption from local taxes. His wife, Jane, said local doctors were opposed to the plant, and that she didn't buy claims that the plant would help economic development. "We need something," she said. "It's a poverty situation." But she said a coal plant is not the answer. "We don't need this." ------------------------------ Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products<http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001>and top money wasters<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop000…>of 2007. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: in the news: NRDC got nearly $500K to promote CCS on behalf of industry
by Paul Wilson 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Nov 29, 2007 5:28 PM Not sure if this so damning or not. BUT the bloggers are eating up and they aren't pleased and have been grilling the NRDC comms director. Also involved: Izaak Walton League, CATF. http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/dirty-hands-and-clean-coal/ The Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, which earned its reputation as a shadow government by watchdogging EPA, now shares EPA's giddy optimism toward carbon sequestration. In a *letter*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/nrdc_defends_carbon_sequestration.070501.pdf>to a California legislator, NRDC's George Peridas asserts that carbon sequestration can be "perfectly safe." And NRDC lawyer David Hawkins was *quoted*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_epa_to_regulate_carbon_sequestration.0710…>recently saying carbon sequestration can be carried out with "very very small risks." NRDC has a $437,500 *grant*<http://www.joycefdn.org/GrantList/GrantDetails.aspx?grantId=29414>from the Joyce Foundation to promote carbon sequestration on industry's behalf. *INSIGHTS: Carbon Sequestration* *By Peter Montague* *NEW BRUNSWICK, New Jersey*, November 19, 2007 (ENS) - In response to a relentless stream of bad news about global warming, a cluster of major industries has formed a loose partnership with big environmental groups, prestigious universities, philanthropic foundations, and the U.S. federal government - all promoting a technical quick-fix for global warming called carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is a plan to capture and bury as much as 10 trillion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide deep in the ground, hoping it will stay there forever. Though the plan has not yet received any substantial publicity, it is very far along. The purpose of the plan is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas. Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, which is thought to be contributing to global warming. *Nevada Power's Reid Gardner coal-fired power plant has a higher emission rate of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than any other power plant in the United States. **(Photo courtesy **DCNR* <http://dcnr.nv.gov/>*) * A carbon sequestration program would capture the gas, turn it into a liquid, transport it through a network of pipelines, and pump it into the ground, intending for it to stay buried forever. >From an industrial perspective, carbon sequestration seems like a winning strategy. If it succeeded in reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, it would allow coal and oil firms to retain and even expand their market share in the energy business throughout the 21st century, eliminating the need for substantial innovation. Carbon sequestration would also greatly reduce the incentive for Congress to invest in renewable energy, which competes with coal and oil. Furthermore, carbon sequestration might deflect the accusation that the coal and oil corporations bear responsibility, and perhaps even legal liability, for the major consequences of global warming - more and bigger hurricanes, droughts, floods, and fires, for example. Finally, if the carbon sequestration plan were to fail, with grievous consequences for human civilization, failure would occur decades or centuries into the future when the current generation of decisionmakers, researchers, philanthropists, and environmental advocates could no longer be held accountable. For all these reasons, coal, oil, mining, and automobile corporations, plus electric utilities, are eager to get carbon sequestration going. To accomplish their goal, the coal and oil firms are being helped by researchers at *Princeton*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/princeton_cmi_6th_annual_report.070201.pdf>and *Stanford* <http://gcep.stanford.edu/research/geoengineering.html>universities, and by the *Joyce Foundation* <http://www.joycefdn.org/News/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=55>in Chicago, which is underwriting a campaign by environmental advocates on behalf of industry's plan. Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, the Izaak Walton League, the Clean Air Task Force, the Michigan Environmental Council, and others have received substantial grants to advocate for carbon sequestration. Finally, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Stephen Johnson recently endorsed industry's plan. All the pieces are now in place and an aggressive campaign is under way to persuade state and federal legislators to endorse large-scale carbon sequestration. *What's at stake?* After trillions of tons of carbon dioxide have been buried in the deep earth, if even a tiny proportion of it leaks back out into the atmosphere, the planet could heat rapidly and civilization as we know it could be disrupted. Quite plausibly the surface of the Earth could become uninhabitable for humans. Thus, one way or another, the future of humanity is at stake in the decision whether to endorse carbon sequestration or to develop the many renewable energy technologies that are available to *eliminate our dependence* <http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_ieer_roadmap.070822.htm>on carbon-based fuels. *Major benefits for the coal industry* To one degree or another, carbon sequestration will benefit all of the industries involved, allowing them to continue business as usual, removing the need for substantial innovation, and reducing competition from renewable fuels. However, it is the coal industry that will benefit the most. One could argue that, without carbon sequestration, the *coal industry*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_coal_news.070920.htm>itself cannot survive. Once large-scale carbon sequestration has begun, the coal industry will be free to unleash an enormous new enterprise turning coal into liquid fuels. The technology for coal-to-liquids, or CTL, was fully developed decades ago. CTL was devised by German chemists in the 1920s, and the Nazis could not have pursued World War II without it. *A front loader piles coal at Niagara Mohawk's Dunkirk steam station in New York. **(Photo by David Parsons courtesy **NREL* <http://www.nrel.gov/>*) * Unfortunately, coal-to-liquids is an exceptionally dirty technology that produces twice as much carbon dioxide per gallon of fuel, compared to petroleum. Carbon sequestration would bury that extra carbon dioxide in the ground, thus solving the coal industry's biggest problem, making coal-to-liquids feasible, and assuring a future for the coal industry itself. You have, perhaps, heard the phrase clean coal. This contradictory term was coined by carbon sequestration advocates as a public relations ploy. In clean coal, the word clean is narrowly defined to mean coal that contributes less carbon to the atmosphere in the short term, compared to typical coal combustion. In actual fact there is nothing clean about clean coal. Even if large-scale carbon sequestration begins, the mining and burning of clean coal will continue to *destroy* <http://www.mountainjusticesummer.org/facts/steps.php>hundreds of mountains in Appalachia, and will continue to pollute the Midwestern and Eastern states with millions of tons of deadly fine and ultrafine particles of soot, plus nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, mercury, dioxins, radioactive particles, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and so on. Large tonnages of coal bottom ash will still be buried each year in shallow pits overlying aquifers, creating a perpetual and growing threat to drinking water supplies. In the Midwest and West, large tracts of land, and large amounts of scarce water, would still be contaminated or otherwise made unavailable for alternative uses. In sum, clean coal is an advertising slogan without substance. Furthermore, if even a small proportion of the sequestered carbon from clean coal ever leaks out of the ground, the planet could experience runaway global warming. *The danger of tiny leaks* It is important to distinguish between carbon dioxide and carbon itself. Carbon is an element, one of the 92 naturally-occurring building blocks of the universe. Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound made up of one carbon atom attached to two oxygen atoms - CO2. By weight, carbon dioxide is 27 percent carbon; in other words, one ton of elemental carbon will create 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas thought to be contributing to global warming. As humans burn fuels containing carbon such as coal, oil and natural gas - carbon in the fuel combines with oxygen in the air to create CO2. In the air, CO2 acts like the glass roof on a greenhouse - it lets in sunlight, which is converted into heat energy as it strikes the Earth. When the heat energy radiates back into the sky, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a mirror, reflecting heat back down to earth, warming the planet just as a glass roof warms a greenhouse. Global warming from this greenhouse effect was first described by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Before the industrial revolution, there were 580 billion tonnes of carbon in Earth's atmosphere. Today there are 750 billion tonnes - an increase of 170 billion tonnes, or 29 percent, since about 1750. Because humans burn roughly two percent more coal, oil and natural gas each year - thus doubling total use every 35 years - the carbon buildup in the atmosphere is accelerating. Presently humans are emitting about eight billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, not all of which is retained there. Unfortunately, emissions of eight billion tonnes per year are sufficient to worsen a global warming problem. The amount of carbon held in underground supplies of coal, oil and natural gas is very large. By a conservative *estimate*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/carbon_cycle.000601.pdf>, worldwide there are 3,510 billion tonnes of carbon remaining underground in coal; 230 billion tonnes of carbon in oil; and another 140 billion tonnes of carbon in natural gas plus 250 billion tonnes in peat, for a total of 4,130 billion tonnes of carbon held in fossil fuels globally. If 25 percent of this were burned and the carbon sequestered, leakage of only 0.8 percentof the total per year would exceed the current annual human contribution to atmospheric carbon (eight billion tonnes). And of course the oil and coal companies plan to burn far more than 25 percent of what remains in the ground. Their goal is to burn 100 percent of it. If they managed to burn 75 percent of remaining fuels, then annual leakage of 0.26 percent of the total would exceed the current eight billion tonne annual human contribution to atmospheric carbon. This could eventually lead to runaway global warming, plausibly rendering the Earth uninhabitable for humans. It is now widely believed that humans must cut their carbon emissions 80 percent by the year 2050 to avert runaway global warming. Actually, some now calculate that more than an 80 percentcut is needed - but for the sake of argument, let's accept the lower 80 percent estimate at face value. An 80 percent reduction from eight billion tonnes would allow humans to emit only 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon annually to avert runaway global warming. If we accept this estimate of the carbon reduction needed - cutting 80 percentfrom current levels - then the allowable leakage must be reduced accordingly: - if 25 percentof remaining fossil carbon is sequestered, any leakage above 0.16 percent (about one-sixth of one percent) of the total per year could eventually result in runaway global warming; - if 75 percent of remaining fossil carbon is sequestered, then leakage greater than 0.05 percent (one-twentieth of one percent) of the total per year could eventually produce runaway global warming. Can humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the ground with complete confidence that 0.05 percentof it will not leak out each year? Never leak out? The leakage could begin at any time in the far distant future because the danger would lie buried forever, waiting to escape, a perpetual threat. The short-term secondary effects of a carbon sequestration program are also worth considering. Once large-scale carbon sequestration begins, it will be exceedingly difficult to stop. As soon as sequestration begins, the coal and oil corporations, and the environmental groups and universities advocating on their behalf, will assert that "carbon sequestration has been successfully demonstrated." Indeed, the environmental advocates are making such *claims*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/nrdc_defends_carbon_sequestration.070501.pdf>already, based on a very short history of pumping small amounts of carbon dioxide into oil wells to force more oil to the surface. *University of Texas geologists had workers drill a well more than 5,700 feet underground in which to inject carbon dioxide. **(Photo courtesy **U. Texas* <http://www.utexas.edu/research/projects/frio.html>*) * Thirty-five million tons of CO2 are being pumped into depleted oil wells in Texas each year, to force oil to the surface. Thirty-five million is 0.00035percent of ten trillion. Scaling up a 35 megaton operation by a factor of 285,000 is not a trivial problem but this is not mentioned by industry's advocates who are trying to persuade legislators to endorse large-scale carbon sequestration. How can anyone "demonstrate" that leakage will never occur in the future? Such a demonstration cannot be made. Furthermore, once the U.S. government begins to repeat the environmentalists' false claim that carbon sequestration has been "successfully demonstrated," why would China not adopt it? And India, countries in Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union - why wouldn't they adopt it? If we claim a right to threaten the future of humanity, don't others have an equal right to assert such a claim? But can other countries devote the same resources we can devote to siting, engineering and geologic studies? Will they all be able to monitor for leaks far into the future, essentially forever? For that matter, will the U.S. have that capability? Humans have no experience creating institutions with a duty of perpetual vigilance. If the carbon sequestration advocates can get their program started, it seems likely that Congress will declare the global warming problem solved and carbon sequestration will be employed until all the recoverable fossil fuels in the ground have been used up. If carbon sequestration advocates can get their program going, the U.S. will have little further incentive to invest in renewable sources of energy - and so we stand to lose a unique opportunity to rebuild the U.S. economy on a sustainable basis and revive America's standing as an industrial leader in the world. Carbon sequestration, once it gets started, will allow 19th century energy technologies to dominate the U.S. throughout most of the 21st century. In sum, to evade liability, to relieve pressure for innovation, to stifle competition, and to make a great deal of money, the proponents of carbon sequestration are betting the future of humans on an untestable technology - permanent underground storage - an act of hubris unparalleled in the annals of our species. *Minds already made up* But, you may ask, "Doesn't the U.S. have the strongest environmental protection laws in the world? Surely a vigilant Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, will ask hard questions, and protect us from the bias of industry's hired experts?" Last month EPA chief Stephen Johnson announced that EPA "will" issue regulations covering carbon sequestration. However, as he was announcing EPA's intention, Mr. Johnson issued a ringing endorsement of carbon sequestration as the silver bullet to fix the nation's environmental and economic problems. "By harnessing the power of geological sequestration technology, we are entering a new age of clean energy where we can be both good stewards of the Earth, and good stewards of the American economy," Mr. Johnson said Clearly, Mr. Johnson's mind is already made up. The Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, which earned its reputation as a shadow government by watchdogging EPA, now shares EPA's giddy optimism toward carbon sequestration. In a *letter*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/nrdc_defends_carbon_sequestration.070501.pdf>to a California legislator, NRDC's George Peridas asserts that carbon sequestration can be "perfectly safe." And NRDC lawyer David Hawkins was *quoted*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_epa_to_regulate_carbon_sequestration.0710…>recently saying carbon sequestration can be carried out with "very very small risks." NRDC has a $437,500 *grant*<http://www.joycefdn.org/GrantList/GrantDetails.aspx?grantId=29414>from the Joyce Foundation to promote carbon sequestration on industry's behalf. Clearly, these "experts" have their minds made up. But many common sense questions remain: - Given that there are many good *alternatives*<http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_ieer_roadmap.070822.htm>, why would humans accept even a "very very small" risk of making their only home uninhabitable? - And, given that the stakes are exceptionally high, shouldn't we approach this with a little humility and ask, "What if the experts are wrong? What if they are fallible and haven't thought of everything? - What if their understanding is imperfect?" After all, geology has never been a predictive science, and humans have no experience burying lethal hazards in the ground expecting them to remain there in perpetuity. - Since everyone alive today - and all their children and their children's children far into the future - could be affected, shouldn't we have a vigorous international debate on the wisdom of carbon sequestration versus alternative ways of powering human economies? Don't we have an obligation to develop a very broad international consensus before proceeding - especially among the nations most likely to be harmed if carbon sequestration fails? - And finally, given the exceedingly high stakes, the irreversible nature of carbon sequestration, and the substantial and irreducible uncertainties involved, isn't this a decision that cries out for application of the precautionary principle? * {Peter Montague is director of Environmental Research Foundation in New Brunswick, N.J., and editor of two ERF newsletters, **Rachel's Environment & Health News* <http://www.rachel.org/>*, which is available free in English and Spanish, and **Rachel's Precaution Reporter* <http://www.precaution.org/>* which is available free in English. This article of opinion was originally published in Rachel's Environment & Health News.} * Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2007. All rights reserved. ----------------- Josh Dorner Associate Press Secretary Sierra Club tel 202.675.2384 cel 202.679.7570 -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: Coal updates email for Club Coal/Energy volunteers
by Paul Wilson 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

I would appreciate if any of you could forward to your coal/energy activists. thanks, paul w. (WV & National Coal Campaign) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Nov 29, 2007 12:19 PM Subject: Coal updates email to be forwarded to the volunteer listservs Dear Coal Activists, Below please find a copy of our new National Coal Report, which the national coal team is going to create and update every other week. The report is meant to help volunteers, organizers, donors, staff, and other stakeholders stay in tune with the entire campaign throughout the country. Ben Avery, one of our staff members in San Francisco, will be putting together the report every other week and would welcome any updates you write about your local issues. Please take a look at the "Campaign Trail" section to see what these updates should look like. We do not want a year in review, or a series of articles. We do want brief but technical updates on the most recent events and major developments. Ben Avery will be looking for a good range of issues and localities to report on. Direct any questions you have on reporting directly to Ben at ben.avery(a)sierraclub.org. The latest report will be coming out this Friday, and you can start sending in updates to Ben for the next report immediately. We will be sending reminders about submitting stories as well as the final copies of these reports to the new coal alerts listserv. If you received a copy of this email directly from me, then you do not need to take any action to continue receiving these as your email will be migrated to the listserv when it is fully functioning. However, if you received this email through a forward or other list, or if you know of anyone else who would like to receive these emails directly, please have them email me at alice.mckeown(a)sierraclub.org to sign up for the listserv. Many thanks for all of the amazing work you are doing on the ground. Best wishes, Alice ________________________________ Alice McKeown Sierra Club National Coal Campaign tel: 202.675.6271 fax: 202.547.6009 (See attached file: Nov 15 Report.PDF) -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Conference call
by Barbara Fallon 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

Karen and I would like to have a conference call in order to get an update on TrAIL and to make some decisions about payment to expert witnesses. I suggest Friday (tomorrow 11/30) at 4:30. Who can join me? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

Fwd: Fw: WA: Power-plant plan rejected; fails to meet emissions law
by Paul Wilson 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Nov 29, 2007 11:36 AM Subject: Fw: WA: Power-plant plan rejected; fails to meet emissions law To: Jesse.Simons(a)sierraclub.org, sarah.hodgdon(a)earthlink.net, pjgrunt(a)gmail.com, Baumling(a)aol.com, Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org, Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org fyi, paul http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004039453_powerplant28m.ht… Power-plant plan rejected; fails to meet emissions law By Warren Cornwall Seattle Times environment reporter New power plants built to light Washington must limit their greenhouse-gas pollution, according to a ruling Tuesday that affirms a new direction for the state's pursuit of electricity. In a critical first test of a new state law meant to block construction of power plants that spew climate-changing gases, a state panel soundly rejected plans for a 793-megawatt plant in Kalama, Cowlitz County, that would be fueled by coal or oil-refinery waste. The decision by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which oversees power-plant permits, is a blow for Energy Northwest, the coalition of 20 Washington public utilities that wants to build the plant. It's also among a string of recent setbacks for new polluting power plants nationwide — including ones in Florida, Kansas and Texas — as concerns rise about climate change. "Burning coal for energy is a 19th-century answer to the problems that we have in front of us," said attorney Jan Hasselman, of Earthjustice, which represented environmental groups in challenging the Energy Northwest plan for Kalama. "We think that it is time to move on." The state energy-facility council's strongly worded and unanimous ruling sided with the environmental groups and several state agencies. They all had argued that Energy Northwest essentially was trying to skirt a new state law. That law, passed in the spring, requires new power plants to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, to the same levels of a high-efficiency, natural-gas power plant. Any plant puffing out more than that — such as a coal-fired plant — must capture the extra and find a way to store it permanently. Energy Northwest claimed that the current state of technology limits its ability to store the greenhouse gases, so it promised that if it could build the plant, it would come up with a more detailed plan in the future. But the energy council said sharply that Energy Northwest's approach "misses the mark by a wide margin." It said Energy Northwest was basically asking the council to overturn the new state law, which it can't do. Simply having "a plan to make a plan" wasn't adequate, the council said. The council halted any further consideration of the application to build the plant. Energy Northwest spokesman Gary Miller on Tuesday said the group needs time to review the decision before deciding on its next step. The group's leaders have previously said a requirement to capture the gases, called sequestration, could thwart the project. Kim Schmanke, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Ecology, said the agency would work with Energy Northwest to find a solution. Ecology was among the opponents to the Energy Northwest plan for the project, as was the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Meanwhile, the ruling could give a boost to a separate effort to build a coal-fueled power plant along the Columbia River near Wallula, Walla Walla County, in Eastern Washington. Promoters of that project, led by United Power of Gig Harbor, say it would be able to store much of its greenhouse gases in basalt rocks beneath the site. Tests are planned to determine whether that's really so. The state energy council hasn't yet considered whether that plant would meet the new state law. Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or wcornwall(a)seattletimes.com ___________________________ Lauren Trevisan Program Assistant Sierra Club Environmental Law and Environmental Justice Programs 408 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 tel: 202.675.6278 fax: 202.547.6009 lauren.trevisan(a)sierraclub.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Who are TrAILCo's Investors?
by James Kotcon 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

One of the questions that came out of last night's conference call is "Who are the investors" in these transmission line projects. Apparently the investors in the New York line include 20+ "secret" investors, and the utility will not release their names. In our case, TrAILCo is wholly-owned subsidiary of Allegheny Energy, but Allegheny formed TrAILCo is an effort to encourage investors at a more favorable interest rate than Allegheny could get on their own. So who are the investors? As Deep Throat said during Watergate, "Follow the money!" Do these investors have an agenda independent of Allegheny? (Of course they do.) Do they have any assurances if the line does not get built, or if it is underutilized, or if Allegheny goes bankrupt, that protects their investment and will ratepayers have to cough up more money? Allegheny will likely argue that this is confidential business information, but I think we need to see where TrAILCo is getting their money. JBK

1 0

FW: [CH] Reminder: Energy Corridors Call Tomorrow (Monday, Nov 26)
by Grubb, Karen 25 Nov '07

25 Nov '07

________________________________ From: Sierra Club Chapter and RCC Conservation Chairs [mailto:CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Jill Workman Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:37 PM To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [CH] Reminder: Energy Corridors Call Tomorrow (Monday, Nov 26) Please remember tomorrow's call on energy transmission/corridors. The original email posting is below. Please forward this message as appropriate. Jill ________________ America's Wild Legacy Conservation Initiative Committee (AWL) has been tasked with implementation of the Stop Destructive Energy Development on Public Lands issue of national concern. Energy transmission/corridors posses a huge threat to public lands and their proliferation has helped feed our national hunger for increasing amounts of energy regardless of its origin or ecological or human ramifications. As a solutions driven organization, Sierra Club has the duty to proactively step forward with answers to siting, corridor and energy development questions. Please join us for a conference call to help frame Sierra Club's work on this important issue and to create a project team of leaders to oversee the implementation of our goals. Participation in the call commits you to nothing other than sharing your ideas and expertise as we jointly seek to define the problems we face and possible solutions. Call information: Monday, November 26, 2007 5 PM Pacific/8 PM Eastern 866-501-6174 8960000# Please feel free to share this invitation with other public lands and/or energy activists in the Sierra Club who are interested in energy transmission issues. My apologies for cross postings. Best ~ Jill Jill M. Workman Chair, America's Wild Legacy CIC Home: 503/654-8670 Cell: 503/421-3635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubsribe from the CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC