EC November 2007

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

8 participants
33 discussions

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! … [View More]

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 … [View More]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 [View Less]

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 … [View More]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 [View Less]

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 … [View More]

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 … [View More]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 [View Less]

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 … [View More]

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 … [View More]

1 0

(no subject)
by Duane330＠aol.com 25 Nov '07

25 Nov '07

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT HEARINGS On March 30, 2007, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company (TrAILCo) filed an application for a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Public Service Commission of West Virginia for the construction and operation of the West Virginia segments of a 500 kV electric transmission line and related facilities in Monongalia, Preston, Tucker, Grant, Hardy and Hampshire Counties. By Commission Order issued on October 24, 2007, the Commission … [View More]

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] Waxman to Introduce Coal Moratorium]
by Regina Hendrix 23 Nov '07

23 Nov '07

Wanted to be sure you saw this. Regina

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC November 2007