EC January 2008

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

9 participants
22 discussions

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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC January 2008