EC August 2007

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

12 participants
25 discussions

Re: [EC] TRAIL - NOTICE OF STATUS HEARING ON 9-14-07, EVIDENTIARY HRG 11-28-07 & 12-7-07
by Barbara Fallon 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

How do we get enough money to pay an expert witness by mid-September? I am working with national now re:foundation money, and personal donars. We have some leads, but the time will not be for September. I also know that we can do a targeted audience fund raising campaign, but we won't get close to our targeted amount of money. Thoughts? ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: Esq. William V. DePaulo <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>; EC(a)osenergy.org Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:45:50 PM Subject: Re: [EC] TRAIL - NOTICE OF STATUS HEARING ON 9-14-07, EVIDENTIARY HRG 11-28-07 & 12-7-07 A realistic schedule would be to expect to have expert testimony 4-6 weeks in advance of the evidentiary hearings, with rebuttal testimony due 2-4 weeks before the hearings. So we need to have an expert identified by mid September if that [person is to get a month to prepare and be ready by late November. Sooner would be better. JBK >>> "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> 8/22/2007 11:58 AM >>> I HAVE ATTACHED A NOTICE OF HEARING OF A STATUS CONFERENCE FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2007. ADDITIONALLY, IN THIS NOTICE THE PSC SETS EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS FOR 11-28 AND 12-7. FINALLY, THE PSC NOTES THAT IT WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN A NUMBER OF COUNTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED LINE. THIS EFFECTIVELY SETS THE DEADLINE FOR US TO GET TESTIMONY FROM AN EXPERT. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON OUR POSSIBLE EXPERTS WITH THE 11-28 AND 12-7 DATES IN MIND. OUR TESTIMONY WOULD NEED TO BE ON FILE IN ADVANCE OF THOSE DATES. I WILL ADVISE AS TO THE SPECIFIC DATE IT IS DUE. BILL -- 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 _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

2 1

TRAIL - NOTICE OF STATUS HEARING ON 9-14-07, EVIDENTIARY HRG 11-28-07 & 12-7-07
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

I HAVE ATTACHED A NOTICE OF HEARING OF A STATUS CONFERENCE FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2007. ADDITIONALLY, IN THIS NOTICE THE PSC SETS EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS FOR 11-28 AND 12-7. FINALLY, THE PSC NOTES THAT IT WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN A NUMBER OF COUNTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED LINE. THIS EFFECTIVELY SETS THE DEADLINE FOR US TO GET TESTIMONY FROM AN EXPERT. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON OUR POSSIBLE EXPERTS WITH THE 11-28 AND 12-7 DATES IN MIND. OUR TESTIMONY WOULD NEED TO BE ON FILE IN ADVANCE OF THOSE DATES. I WILL ADVISE AS TO THE SPECIFIC DATE IT IS DUE. BILL -- 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

2 1

GLOBAL WARMING STRATEGIES
by Allan Tweddle 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

Vivian Can you give me Mel Tyree's contact info...e-mail & phone. It's long overdue that he and I get together to talk global warming education strategies. I thought that op-ed in today's Gazette was right on, and the one I have been drafting would be a excellent follow on. Allan Allan Tweddle Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum Sir Henry Royce, 1924

1 0

Fwd: Re: FRED Weekly -- understanding legislatures, E-Efficiency & $, Amory Lovins, liquid coal
by James Kotcon 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

Here are three articles from the Club's State Government Programs list serve. They are long, but this is important info on the CTL and TrAILCo battles we are currently fighting. Which of these can we use? JBK >2. Efficiency, decoupling and the next step >3. Energy -- It's the economics, stupid. >4. Liquid Coal > > > >2. Powering Down >Can utilities make money on energy efficiency? >Governing Magazine for August, 2007 >By CHRISTOPHER SWOPE > > Saving electricity has never been a big priority in North Carolina. Power >is cheap and plentiful, as it is across much of the South. These days, >however, rising demand â€” what they call â€œloadâ€ in the electricity business >â€” is catching up with supply. For the first time in two decades, the state >needs a massive new workhorse of a power plant, whatâ€™s known as a baseload >plant. Actually, according to Duke Energy, the stateâ€™s largest utility, >North Carolina needs two of them. > For an investor-owned utility such as Duke, planning a pair of huge power >plants is just another turn in a familiar cycle: grow demand, build supply, >sell more power, generate more profit. Itâ€™s a cycle geared for growing >load, not shrinking it. Itâ€™s a cycle that rewards Duke when consumers use >more power. Itâ€™s a cycle that encourages burning dirty coal, as Duke >proposed with its two plants, since coal is so cheap. And itâ€™s a cycle that >regulators in North Carolina, as in most states, acquiesced to for most of >the past century. > Not anymore. When Dukeâ€™s plan for the two coal plants went before the >North Carolina Utilities Commission early this year, the regulators pushed >back. Go ahead and build one coal plant, commissioners told Duke. As for >the rest of the demand, Duke could make it up through energy efficiency. >That wasnâ€™t all. Duke would have to spend 1 percent of its annual revenues >â€” about $35 million â€” on helping its customers save electricity by buying >energy-efficient appliances and lights and through other measures. For a >state that had taken its energy abundance for granted, this was a >staggering mandate. > What happened next was even more unusual. Duke went back to state >regulators with an entirely new pitch. The problem with energy-saving >programs, Duke said, is that utilities donâ€™t make money on them. In fact, >utilities lose money because they donâ€™t sell as much of their product. Duke >proposed to turn that equation around through a radical new regulatory >approach it calls â€œsave-a-watt.â€ The idea is pretty simple: Let the utility >earn profits by helping customers conserve power, just as it does by >selling them more power. In fact, as Duke proposes it, energy efficiency >might even become one of the companyâ€™s most profitable lines of business. >Duke CEO Jim Rogers says heâ€™ll propose a version of the same idea in >Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina, the other states where Duke >does business. > As North Carolina regulators mull Dukeâ€™s plan this summer, theyâ€™ll have a >lot to consider. Critics accuse Duke of trying to greenwash its way to >windfall profits. But many environmentalists, including some who are still >fighting Dukeâ€™s right to build any coal plants at all, find the premise >behind save-a-watt encouraging. The nation canâ€™t get serious about >conserving energy and fighting global warming, they say, until utilities >see dollar signs in it. Utilities have always run modest efficiency >programs, â€œbut they donâ€™t usually put their heart into them,â€ says Michael >Shore, the Southeast air quality manager for Environmental Defense. â€œIf >efficiency is too successful, it goes against their business model. We need >to develop models so that the utilities can make money through promoting >energy efficiency.â€ > >LIP SERVICE > Whether or not North Carolina regulators accept the save-a-watt approach, >itâ€™s clear that states and utilities alike are fast changing their views >toward energy efficiency. Not since the energy crisis in the 1970s have >states pushed utilities to save electricity with so much zeal. Big new >initiatives are underway in California, Minnesota and New York â€” perennial >leaders when it comes to efficiency. Now, however, states that enjoy cheap >power, including Arkansas, Idaho and North Carolina, are pinching as well. >For all the headlines about the nuisances of coal and the distant hope of >wind, solar and biofuels, what states are coming to see is that the easiest >solution to their problems with energy is simply to use less of it. > â€ If you actively engage in energy efficiency, you can push out the date >when youâ€™ll need new generating resources,â€ says Marsha Smith, a utilities >regulator in Idaho. Smithâ€™s state enjoys the nationâ€™s cheapest power, but >is nevertheless asking utilities to ramp up their efficiency efforts. >â€œWhether youâ€™re a low-cost state or a high-cost state, the further you can >push that out, the better off youâ€™ll be.â€ > Thatâ€™s always been the case, of course. But efficiency is back on the >agenda only because several forces collided at roughly the same time. For >one, high fuel costs are driving up the price of electricity. According to >the Energy Information Administration, average rates across the country >have increased by 19 percent over the past three years. Rate pain is >especially acute in states that deregulated their power markets. When price >caps came off last year, rates in Maryland increased 70 percent and rates >in Delaware increased 60 percent. The flip side of these high power prices >is that investing in efficiency now seems cheap by comparison. > Another factor is the huge and growing expense of building power plants. >In North Carolina, Duke believed as recently as two years ago that it could >build the two coal plants it wanted for $1 billion each. Now, thanks to the >rising cost of building materials, Duke expects the bill for just the one >plant it got approved to come in around $1.8 billion. That cost would >translate directly into higher rates for customers. With eye-popping >figures such as this on the table, states are beginning to see that the >least expensive power plant is the one that never has to be built at all. > Finally, concern over climate change is also fueling the efficiency push. >Across the country, utilities have proposed building 150 coal-burning power >plants. Coal plants are cleaner and more efficient than they used to be, >but coal nevertheless remains a leading source of carbon dioxide. Itâ€™s hard >to see todayâ€™s coal boom as a moment of truth when the plant proposals come >up one by one before the 50 state utility commissions. But a moment of >truth is exactly what this is. If states allow all of these coal plants >now, theyâ€™ll be stuck with them and their greenhouse gases for two >generations. On the other hand, if they can reduce demand for electricity, >they just might prevent many of those coal plants from needing to be built >in the first place. > The good news is that thereâ€™s a lot of low-hanging fruit, as far as >policies for reducing energy demand go. States can adopt efficiency >standards for appliances, electronics and boilers that go beyond the >federal governmentâ€™s minimum standards. They can upgrade their building >codes and provide tax breaks or expedited permitting for green buildings. >They can use tax breaks to help customers make smarter appliance purchases, >trade in clunky old freezers or weatherize their homes. And they can lead >by example, by improving energy performance within government buildings. At >this micro-level, there are literally hundreds of ways to power down, and >many have been shown to work when there is sustained effort put into it. > The problem with demand-side efficiency programs, however, is that states >typically ask the electric companies to run them. Thereâ€™s a certain logic >to that â€” utilities already maintain ties to customers. But utilities also >have a built-in conflict with the job theyâ€™re being asked to do. Quite >simply, theyâ€™re in the business of selling electricity. Economists have a >name for this natural urge to sell more power and make more profit. They >call it the â€œthroughput incentive.â€ Harris B. McDowell III, a state senator >from Delaware, describes it this way. â€œAsk yourself: how hard would General >Motors work to convince people they donâ€™t need a car? How hard does RJ >Reynolds try to get people to stop smoking? Itâ€™s the same problem when >efficiency programs operate under the utility. Theyâ€™ll give lip service, >but they wonâ€™t pour their hearts out.â€ > As McDowell sees it, utilities canâ€™t be entrusted with responsibility for >energy efficiency. Instead, he prefers circumventing them altogether. >McDowellâ€™s efficiency plan, which the Delaware legislature passed in June, >sets up a competing â€œsustainable energy utilityâ€ whose sole task is to help >customers save energy. The utility will subsidize purchases of >energy-efficient appliances, and also aid customers who want to generate >their own energy on site using solar, wind or geothermal technologies. >Delaware will bankroll the new nonprofit with revenues from a $30 million >bond sale. The hope is that after 10 years, the utility can sustain >positive cash flow by taking a cut of the savings customers see on their >energy bills. > Delawareâ€™s sustainable utility is a twist on a similar program that has >been showing positive results in Vermont. McDowell thinks itâ€™s the best way >to break the electric system of its gluttonous habits. â€œThat structure >knows only one thing, and that is to increase supply,â€ McDowell says. â€œItâ€™s >whatâ€™s comfortable. The utilities know exactly how many consultants to hire >to tell you to do that. But building more supply is a self-fulfilling >prophecy. If you build it, theyâ€™ll use it.â€ > >THE GRAPH > There are other ways to neutralize the throughput incentive. And electric >utilities, which seem resigned to a future with some kind of carbon >regulation, are increasingly open to talking about them. The Edison >Electric Institute, the national voice of investor-owned utilities, >recently hired Diane Munns to direct its energy-efficiency operations. >Munns was a utility regulator in Iowa and co-chaired a panel that produced >the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency â€” a solid synopsis of >barriers to efficiency and methods for overcoming them. Asked if any >particular method works better than others, Munns said, â€œIâ€™m not going to >say there is a best way to do it. I think whatever gets you going is good. >We need to get moving on efficiency.â€ She continued, â€œItâ€™s whatever gets it >done for you â€” whatever you can put together that you think can promote >efficiency and keep your shareholders whole.â€ > California thinks it has a method that works. The Golden State is the >established leader in energy efficiency, and has been for some time. The >proof is in what energy experts there simply call â€œthe graph.â€ What â€œthe >graphâ€ (on page 27) shows is electricity use per capita, for both >California and the rest of the United States. The line for the other 49 >states trends steadily upward from the 1950s through today â€” a proxy for >Americansâ€™ ever-growing appetite for electronics and big houses. The >California line, however, goes flat in the late â€™70s, when the state >adopted the nationâ€™s first efficiency standards for appliances and >buildings. California hasnâ€™t eliminated the need for new power plants â€” its >load continues to grow along with the population. But the average >Californian today consumes about the same amount of power as he did a >generation ago. > Whatâ€™s more, California began tackling the throughput incentive in the >early 1980s. The tool it devised was called â€œdecoupling.â€ To understand >what that means, it helps to know how rate regulation works. Typically, >states allow utilities to recover their fixed costs, such as debt on power >plants, and in addition earn a reasonable rate of return. These >calculations are penciled out every so often in rate cases before public >utility commissions. In the meantime, if utilities sell more power than >they anticipated, they earn windfall profits. If demand is lower than >expected, their profits suffer. What decoupling does is sever the link >between a utilityâ€™s sales and its profits. From time to time, regulators >tweak rates in a way that smooths out ups and downs in revenue. The utility >still makes its profit. But it also becomes agnostic on the question of >whether itâ€™s better to sell more electricity or less of it. > Californiaâ€™s decoupling experiment worked so well that a few other states >also began tinkering with it. Then deregulation fever set in, and all the >states pushed decoupling aside for what seemed like a much sexier idea: >competitive power markets. Deregulation, as everyone knows, failed. Shortly >after its blackout crisis of 2001, California went back to decoupling. This >was one way California renewed its vows to energy efficiency. (Another key >policy was called the â€œloading order,â€ which put efficiency above renewable >and fossil fuels in the list of utilitiesâ€™ options for meeting electric >demand.) > Californiaâ€™s second run with decoupling seems to be working. The stateâ€™s >three investor-owned utilities are in the midst of one of the nationâ€™s most >aggressive efficiency campaigns ever. Between 2006 and 2008, theyâ€™re >investing $2 billion toward the goal of helping reduce customer demand for >their product. Peter Darbee, CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric, attributes his >companyâ€™s newfound enthusiasm for efficiency to decoupling. Testifying >before Congress, he said decoupling â€œmeans our financial health doesnâ€™t >depend on selling more energy.â€ Dian Grueneich, a public utility >commissioner in Sacramento, agrees. â€œWe believe strongly that decoupling is >an essential part of doing a good job on energy efficiency,â€ she says. â€œYou >canâ€™t just expect a business to want to do something where they lose >money.â€ > Now other states are looking at decoupling. Idaho just began a three-year >pilot with Idaho Power in June. Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin are >studying decoupling for electric utilities. Eleven states have adopted >decoupling for their natural gas utilities. > Decoupling has its critics, especially among consumer advocates. Because >of how the mechanism works, customers end up paying higher rates when they >use less power â€” and it doesnâ€™t matter whether thatâ€™s because efficiency >programs are working or because of mild weather or a slow economy. >Neutering the utilitiesâ€™ profit motive may make them lazy about controlling >costs. Utilities might also forfeit their traditional role of helping >government promote industry and economic development, a job that utilities >always did in order to grow their load. And Californiaâ€™s Grueneich admits >that all decoupling does is level the playing field for efficiency >programs. It eliminates a disincentive, but it doesnâ€™t make efficiency >financially appealing for utilities, either. > California expects to correct that last problem soon. Later this month, >the state utilities commission is due to introduce a package of financial >incentives for utilities that would allow them to earn profits on >efficiency programs. Other states have tinkered with such incentives, but >Grueneich says the plan California is working on will be characteristically >groundbreaking in its comprehensiveness. â€œDecoupling is a major first >step,â€ Grueneich says. â€œBut the second step is that utilities make an >approximately similar amount of money as they would if they took the same >money and put it on the generation side.â€ > >AN EPIPHANY > If this way of thinking is nothing new in California, itâ€™s almost unheard >of in North Carolina. Some credit for the new mindset goes to Jim Rogers, >the CEO of Duke Energy. Rogers has been an outspoken advocate of a national >cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. He also served as Munnsâ€™ >co-chair on the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. > Rogers recently told the Charlotte Observer that he had an epiphany. It >happened in February, he said, during a dinner with 14 environmentalists. >They told him Duke should support renewables and take a more aggressive >approach on energy efficiency. Rogers says now that heâ€™s following their >advice. Surely, the epiphany was helped along by North Carolinaâ€™s decision >to limit Duke to one coal plant rather than two. Rogers began calling >energy efficiency the â€œfifth fuel,â€ right behind nuclear power, coal, >natural gas and renewables. And he began laying the groundwork for >save-a-watt. â€œWe need a new regulatory compact,â€ he wrote in an op-ed in >March, â€œthat puts investments in energy efficiency on an equal footing with >new generation investments.â€ > On the surface, save-a-watt sounds similar to what California is doing. >But Dukeâ€™s plan actually is quite different. It has nothing to do with >decoupling, for example. Rather, what Duke is proposing is to make >efficiency programs extremely lucrative â€” so much so that the utility wonâ€™t >just want to run them but run them with gusto. Richard Sedano, a director >at the Regulatory Assistance Project, a Vermont think tank, describes it >this way: â€œSave-a-watt attempts to overwhelm the throughput incentive with >financial counter-incentives.â€ > Hereâ€™s what Duke proposed: In exchange for helping its customers save >electricity, Duke wants to charge them for 90 percent of the cost of the >power plant it no longer has to build. Duke says customers would save money >compared with business-as-usual. And Duke would collect only if independent >auditors verify that the load reductions are for real. â€œItâ€™s a fundamental >shift,â€ says Duke spokesman Tom Williams. â€œEfficiency is a business line >for the utility now.â€ > Some of the efficiency programs Duke would invest in are old standbys. >For example, Duke would pay for energy audits of customersâ€™ homes and >businesses, offering energy-saving suggestions, and it would subsidize >purchases of compact fluorescent light bulbs and high-efficiency heating >and cooling systems. Duke also would test new energy-saving technologies, >such as advanced metering, as well as ways of remotely shutting off >customersâ€™ air conditioners, freezers and hot water heaters for brief >periods of time. The idea is to save energy without inconveniencing people. >These steps would reduce demand by 1,700 megawatts by 2012. To sweeten the >deal, Duke would retire 800 megawatts of its oldest, dirtiest coal plants >as the energy savings come online. > Nobody in North Carolina disputes that Dukeâ€™s save-a-watt plan is an >innovative approach. The question now is whether North Carolina regulators >will go along with it. The hang-up may be deciding whether Duke is trying >to make efficiency too profitable. â€œThe incentives are larger than what >youâ€™d normally see,â€ Sedano says. â€œWhat a commission tries to decide about >any cost it asks consumers to pay is, is it worth it?â€ James McLawhorn, >director of the electric division of the North Carolina commissionâ€™s public >advocacy arm echoes the concern. â€œWe recognize there needs to be some >incentive,â€ McLawhorn says. â€œBut how much is enough and how much is too >much?â€ > >More resources on electric utilities and energy efficiency: > >Delaware sustainiable energy utility report >http://www.seu-de.org/docs/final_report_4-21.pdf > >ACEEE energy efficiency policy toolkit >http://www.raponline.org/showpdf.asp?PDF_URL=Pubs/Efficiency%5FPolicy%5FToo… 2Epdf > >ACEEE decoupling http://www.aceee.org/pubs/u061.htm > >Duke's "save a watt" >http://ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/webview/senddoc.pgm?dispfmt=&itype… =TAAAAA72170B&parm3=000126792 > > >3. Amory Lovins: How to Face Today's Greatest Energy Challenges >Read this interesting interview on Alternet at > >http://www.alternet.org/environment/58460 > > >4. Scientific American magazine on Liquid Coal >July 15, 2007 >The full article, "Worse Than Gasoline," can be found at www.sciam.com > >.. . . > The conversion technology is well established (the Germans used it during >World War II), and liquid coal can power conventional diesel cars and >trucks as well as jet engines and ships. Coal industry executives contend >that it can compete against gasoline if oil prices are $50 a barrel or >higher. But liquid coal comes with substantial environmental and economic >negatives. On the environmental side, the polluting properties of >coalâ€”starting with mining and lasting long after burningâ€”and the large >amounts of energy required to liquefy it mean that liquid coal produces >more than twice the global warming emissions as regular gasoline and almost >double those of ordinary diesel. As pundits have pointed out, driving a >Prius on liquid coal makes it as dirty as a Hummer on regular gasoline. > One ton of coal produces only two barrels of fuel. In addition to the >carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates >almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Which is to >say, one ton of coal in, more than two tons of carbon dioxide out. >Congressional and industry proponents of coal-to-liquid plants argue that >the same technologies that may someday capture and store emissions from >coal-fired plants will also be available to coal-to-liquid plants. But even >if the carbon released during production were somehow captured and >sequesteredâ€”a technology that remains unproven at any meaningful scaleâ€”some >studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8 percent more >global warming pollution than regular gasoline. > Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. Lawmakers from coal states are >proposing that U.S. taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction >loans for production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and >guarantee big purchases by the government for the next 25 years. Their >mantra is that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline. But no >operating coal-to-liquid plants exist in the U.S., and researchers at the >Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70 billion to >build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. >Some energy experts worry that the scale of the incentives could lead to a >repeat of the disastrous effort 30 years ago to underwrite a synthetic >fuels industry. > The country would be spending billions in loans, tax incentives and price >guarantees to lock in a technology that produces more greenhouse gases than >gasoline does. This is unacceptable at a time when leading scientists from >all over the world are warning that greenhouse gases must be cut by at >least 60 percent over the next half a century to avert the worst >consequences of global warming. Instead of spending billions to subsidize a >massively polluting industry, we should be investing in efficiency and in >renewable energy technologies that can help us constrain global warming >today. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: [fom] US Senate Majority Leader declares war on U.S. coal-fired power]
by Regina Hendrix 21 Aug '07

21 Aug '07

Wanted to be sure Energy Committee members saw this one. Regina Hendrix

1 0

FW: Zero Waste Policy: Cradle to Cradle Version 8.4
by Grubb, Karen 21 Aug '07

21 Aug '07

This was sent out for Conservation Committees to comment on. Since we have an Energy Committee instead, is anyone interested in reading this and sending comments? Karen Grubb Conservation Chair ________________________________ From: Sierra Club Chapter and RCC Conservation Chairs [mailto:CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Debbie Neustadt Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:11 PM To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [CH] [Fwd: FW: Zero Waste Policy: Cradle to Cradle Version 8.4] Hi: The Zero Waste Committee has completed another round of edits to the draft "Zero Waste Policy: Cradle to Cradle". We would appreciate any comments your committee would like to make. We would like to bring this policy to the Board of Directors at their November meeting so we would appreciate your prompt review of draft policy. Please send any comments to Bill Sheehan at Bill.Sheehan(a)sierraclub.org and to me at Ann.Schneider(a)sierraclub.org. If your committee does not plan to make any comments could you please tell us that so we won't wait for your comments. Our plan is to make changes and then forward to the next approval body as soon as we know all comments have been received. We truly do thank you in advance for getting us your comments as quickly as you are able. Sincerely, Ann Schneider Chair, Zero Waste Committee Ann.Schneider(a)sierraclub.org 650 697-6249 Millbrae, California - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

FW: [CH] Political Training
by Grubb, Karen 20 Aug '07

20 Aug '07

________________________________ From: Sierra Club Chapter and RCC Conservation Chairs [mailto:CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Pat Maculloch Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:06 AM To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [CH] Political Training Richard Isaac of the Political Committee asked that this message be posted. The application deadline is August 31. Thanks Steve Baru ________________________________ Subject: Sierra Club Political Committee National Training, Oct. 12-14 Folks, There are still spaces available for this training, which can be really helpful in building your chapter's political program. Please review the material below , and feel free to apply to Peter Goldin (peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org) with the attached application and/or forward it to other Club activists who may be interested. Thanks! Richard Isaac, Training Subcommittee Chair Sierra Club Political Committee (H) 973-716-0297 - - - - - - - - Sierra Club Political Committee National Training What: SCPC is proud to announce the 2007 SCPC National Political Training. This training is an exciting 2-1/2 day event where volunteers from across the country will come to learn important electoral skills, hear from inspirational public figures and guest speakers, network with other SC volunteers -- including SCPC members and meet SC political staff. The training syllabus was developed based on feedback from the SCPC Needs Assessment Survey conducted earlier this year. Topics will include those most requested by survey respondents: Media Tactics, How to Build your Political Committee, Volunteer Recruitment and Retention, Fundraising, Creating a Candidate Support Plan, Compliance Overview and How to Integrate your Political Program with other Conservation Goals. When and Where: October 12-14, 2007 in Silver Spring, Maryland (suburb of Washington, DC). Registration begins at 4:00pm Friday Oct. 12 and the training will end at noon on Sunday Oct. 14. Who: There is limited space available at the facilities. All Chapters are invited and encouraged to send not more than 2 participants. The ideal training candidates are new Chapter Political Chairs, new Group Political Chairs, likely future leaders and/or current activists who are interested in electoral politics/campaigns, and new Chapter/Group Conservation Chairs. [Note: in the event that available slots do not fill up by the application deadline, we will put on a waiting list for possible late acceptance any additional applications from Chapters that have already submitted 2 applications]. How to Apply: If you are interested in attending, please contact your Chapter Chair for approval and complete the attached application. All applications must be submitted by August 31. Please send all applications to political staff member, Peter Goldin at: Sierra Club, 408 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, ATTN: Peter Goldin. You may also fax your application to Peter Goldin's attention at (202) 547-6009 or email to peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org . If your application is accepted by SCPC, you will receive notice acceptance and further logistics information about the event (i.e., directions, instructions for booking hotel, agenda, materials, etc.) Costs: Covered by SCPC: Lodging, some meals (Sat. breakfast, lunch and 2 breaks/snacks and Sun. breakfast and 1 break/snack) and materials. Covered by Chapter (or attendee): All transportation to and from Maryland/DC area and the training venue and some meals (Friday dinner, Saturday dinner). Note: no Sunday lunch provided. Please contact peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org for more information. Peter J. Goldin Political Project Representative Sierra Club 202/547-1141 (main) 202/675-7902 (direct) 202/547-6009 (fax) peter.goldin(a)sierraclub.org www.sierraclub.org ________________________________ Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

2 1

(no subject)
by Allan Tweddle 20 Aug '07

20 Aug '07

Colleagues A couple of days ago, there was an article reporting how Governor Manchin has "finally" gat the attention of former President Bill Clinton about the need for coal to be the solution to our energy crisis." In today's Gazette, there is a report by Tim Huber of Associated Press with the headline "Support Needed for Coal To Liquid" in section A...(I clipped it...so did not get the page number). It outlines our challenge. Supporters of seeking Federal Government subsidies for funding CTL, because Wall Street won't without the Government guarantees, Congressmen Rahall and Murtha and sadly, Senator Rockefeller. Here's Rockefeller's statement, which is unbelievably wrong...but probably politically correct:. "Coal-clean coal-must be the solution for our energy needs"....It is the only solution to our energy needs. That is what is so ridiculous about all of it. It is what we have got. God gave it to us" There is total disregard for Global warming, and the economic opportunities that reversing it present. We must mount a massive two part public education effort. I have tried to outline the issues below, and bear with me, as I know all of you know the issues and alternatives. First we need to refute, and educate, with independent studies and evidence, Rockefeller's arguments: 1.. There is no clean coal technology yet developed that is commercially viable. 2.. CTL is NOT the only solution to our energy needs...by a long shot. To start with, Energy conservation and efficiency is very low hanging fruit that can dramatically cut our imported oil addiction. 3.. The widespread independent opinions about the horrors of CTL, 4.. The truth that carbon sequestration technology on the scale that will be required is not proven or viable...as the Australians have already concluded 5.. God delivers more energy every single day in sunlight than we would need, or could consume in 20+ years. We need to start with Rockefeller and the rest of the WV Delegation, (well maybe excluding Capito) and educate them that 1.. Solar energy is coming down in cost at such a rate that it will be competitive with coal by 2015. 2.. The Renewable energy industry, whether it be solar, wind or biomass and alternative fuels, but particularly the solar manufacturing industry is growing so rapidly that West Virginia is going to be in worse economic shape if it does not participate NOW 3.. Several States have already embraced the inevitable switch to renewable energy, including Murtha's Pennsylvania. 4.. There needs to be aggressive support for raising the C.A.F.E. Standards...because the battery technology exists to achieve 100 m.p.g. in a plug in Prius, so the technology to get higher gas mileage is here and emerging...so Government support needs to be focused on accelerating and incentivizing its adoption. When can we all get together and develop a strategy, and a program to counter the effort that the CTL crowd are going to make? I urge you all to see this as a major crisis requiring bold and immediate action. There are National organizations in addition to the Sierra Club that may have resources to help us. We need a ground swell of opposition to thwart this CTL crowd. And proposing alternatives will bring a positive focus to our efforts, and show that we are not opposed to jobs and economic development, quite the contrary, there are just as well paying jobs in renewable energy that are safer, (Sago, Utah Miners) , do not pollute or use our precious water and air. We all have a lot on our plates right now, I am sure. I am quite immersed in starting anew manufacturing business, that ironically, will save jet fuel in commercial airlines when brought to fruition. But stopping this CTL effort, and educating the citizens of this State that the ere are alternatives energy policies and technologies that will be better for almost everyone except the Blankenship CEO types and politicians he and his ilk have bought and paid for. I for one am ready, with my available slides and training from the Gore Climate Project, to get on the road and get "our side" of this case out there. But I cannot do it alone.... Let me hear from you all...am I just a ranting old man, (I turned 75 today), or are you with me? Timing is NOW...bring me your commitment so we can together move this effort forward...and it will be the best birthday present that I could ever want... Allan Allan Tweddle Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum Sir Henry Royce, 1924 Allan Allan Tweddle Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum Sir Henry Royce, 1924

6 8

networking and fundraising
by Barbara Fallon 17 Aug '07

17 Aug '07

As promised, I am pursuing funds to support our legal fees and expert witnesses re: PSC intervention. Jim Kotcon and others have been working to find expert witnesses. Both processes are slow going. I have found some money and Jim has found a potential witness. The fee this expert witness has proposed was an eye opener for me. He is talking about $20 - $30,000!!! And along with this he is not sure he can be prepared by October, which is when we might need to have our case ready (although it might be Nov or Dec.) Regardless, time is getting close and it always takes lots of time to get lots of money. I need someone (s) to step forward who is involved with neighborhood groups along the proposed power line who can serve as the Sierra energy liaison. I need this person to represent our interests to the other groups and I need this person to report back to the committee. The over-riding effort at this time is to find "like-minded" groups with whom we can share our expert witness expenses. I know several of you are involved with various groups that are strategizing for intervention. Who among us can bring these groups and our monies together? Barbara ____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting

1 0

Fwd: New Animation - Innovations in Energy
by Paul Wilson 16 Aug '07

16 Aug '07

If you missed this Mark Fiore cartoon on energy it is a good one. enjoy, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Wilson <pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com> Date: Jul 9, 2007 8:56 AM Subject: Fwd: New Animation - Innovations in Energy To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Fiore <mark(a)markfiore.com> Date: Jun 21, 2007 12:49 AM Subject: New Animation - Innovations in Energy To: pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com <http://markfiore.com/email/lt/t_go.php?i=136&e=MjAzNDY=&l=http://www.sfgate…> The new animation "Innovations in Energy"<http://markfiore.com/email/lt/t_go.php?i=136&e=MjAzNDY=&l=http://www.sfgate…>has just been posted! -Mark -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club Wildlife & Endangered Species Comm. 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC August 2007