EC February 2008

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

9 participants
20 discussions

[Fwd: Re: [fom] Breaking News: 50 Ohio students confront corporate and governement targets on proposed coal plant]
by Regina Hendrix 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

I wanted to be sure you saw this. Regina

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] Montana op-ed on Wall Street/coal plants]
by Regina Hendrix 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

I wanted to be sure you saw this.

1 0

Governor announcing big energy recycling project
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT AND A STRONG ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PRAGMATIC ALTERNATIVES TO THE INCREASED TRANSPORTATION OF COAL FIRED ENERGY OFFERED BY TRAIL AND PATH. HERE IS A LINK TO THE RECYCLED ENERGY DEVELOPMENT <http://www.recycled-energy.com/index.html> WEB PAGE. LINK BELOW TO DAILY MAIL ARTICLE ON PROJECT AT ALLOY PLANT IN FAYETTE COUNTY. TO GENERATE 44 MW FOR A COST OF 45 MILLION, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS FINANCIALLY, AND INFINITELY LESS DAMAGING ENVIRONMENTALLY. ----- Tuesday February 5, 2008 *Governor announcing big energy recycling project<http://www.dailymail.com/News/200802050159> * by George Hohmann<http://%5C%22contact/ohfvarff+qnvylznvy+pbz+return=/News/200802050159%5C%22> Daily Mail Business Editor New facility would take plant exhaust and use it to power factory <http://www.dailymail.com/News/200802050159> -- 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

Re: [EC] NY times on Clean Power or Dirty Coal
by Paul Wilson 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

February 10, 2008 New York Times Editorial Clean Power or Dirty Coal? Opposition to new coal-fired power plants built without new technology — that is, without the capacity to capture greenhouse gas emissions — is rising on both Wall Street and Main Street. Citizen opposition has led companies to cancel some high-profile projects, including a proposed plant near the Florida Everglades. Pressure from environmental organizations has persuaded major banks to begin weighing the risks of global warming when deciding whether to finance new plants. This is good news. Coal-fired power plants are big contributors to global warming. In the United States alone, they generate half the country's electricity and nearly a third of its emissions. Meanwhile, scientists have left no doubt that the world has just a few years to make deep cuts in emissions or begin to suffer the worst consequences of rising temperatures. This means that scientists will have to figure out a way to capture carbon dioxide from coal plants, or coal will have to be replaced with cleaner fuels. Given that task, the failure — by both the Bush administration and Congress — to encourage alternative sources of power is distressing. Bowing to veto threats from the White House, Congress stripped from an otherwise admirable energy bill two important provisions on alternative fuels. One would have required states to generate an increasing share of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar energy. The other would have rolled back about $12 billion in wholly unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry and used the proceeds to develop cleaner fuels and new energy technologies. There is a way that Congress can quickly begin to make amends. That is to extend important tax breaks for alternative energy sources that are set to expire at the end of this year. These incentives have been critically important to the development of wind and solar power; wind power has become increasingly cost-competitive with natural gas, although not yet with coal. Investors are unlikely to pump much new money into clean power unless they are sure the credits will be available next year. The American Wind Energy Association has already detected a drop in new capital spending. As we have said before, the surest and probably the only way to encourage meaningful and swift commercial development of cleaner fuels and energy sources is to put a stiff price on carbon emissions. That, in turn, would inspire — indeed require — industry to invest heavily in energy efficiency and low-carbon fuels. But until Congress sets such a price, through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program — and it is a long way from doing so — every effort should be made to encourage the development of alternative energy sources. The first step is to extend the tax credits for alternative sources like wind and solar power. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: [wman] RAN News Release: Proposed Coal Plants Losing Steam
by Paul Wilson 06 Feb '08

06 Feb '08

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ananda Tan" <ananda(a)ran.org> To: "WMAN list" <wman(a)lists.onenw.org> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:51:27 -0800 Subject: [wman] RAN News Release: Proposed Coal Plants Losing Steam Please forward, especially to allies fighting coal. Ananda Lee Tan Global Finance Campaign Rainforest Action Network 221 Pine Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 USA Phone: + 1 415 659 0550 Cell: + 1 415 374 0615 Fax: + 1 415 398 2732 Email: ananda(a)ran.org RAN Website: www.ran.org Campaign Site: www.dirtymoney.org Proposed Coal Plants Losing Steam *59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007* * * SAN FRANCISCO—Fifty-nine proposed coal-fired power plants were cancelled or shelved during 2007, according to research compiled by Coal Moratorium NOW<http://cmnow.org/>! and Rainforest Action Network. <http://www.dirtymoney.org/> Both groups are calling for a moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants. The list, including documentation, is posted online at "Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007."<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007>It includes data supplied by Sierra Club <http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp>, coalSwarm <http://www.coalswarm.org/>, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Lab<http://cmnow.org/NETL%20New%20Coal%205.2007.pdf>, and utility industry sources. "Coal-fired power plants are the wrong investment for our climate, our health, and our economy," said Becky Tarbotton, director of Rainforest Action Network's Global Finance Campaign. "Utilities, regulators, and investors are realizing that the path ahead is energy efficiency and renewable energy. It's time to stop financing and building coal and to start funding the future." Ted Nace, founder of Coal Moratorium NOW! said, "Although we knew that many plants were being nixed, we were stunned by the total number. It spells real hope for the movement seeking to blunt the coal rush." Because coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, coal plants are at the top of the list of global warming threats cited by climate scientists. Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Center, the world's largest climate research agency, told Congress on April 26, 2007, that a moratorium on new coal plants is "the most critical action for saving the planet at this time." Among the study's conclusions: * * · *Climate concerns played a role in at least 15 plant cancellations.*These included five plants in Florida, where Gov. Charlie Crist has made global warming a top issue; a three-unit plant in Kansas opposed by Gov. Kathleen Sibelius; and several plants affected by strict new carbon regulations in western states. * * · *Coal plants disappeared entirely from some utilities' long-range plans:* Increasingly, coal plants were cancelled before they could even be named, due to increasing regulatory scrutiny of long-range integrated resource plans by states such as Oregon and California. * * · *Renewables began elbowing out coal: *Regulators in several states favored utility-scale renewables over coal. In Delaware, regulators cancelled a coal power plant proposed by NRG Energy in favor of an alternative proposal that combined wind and natural gas. In California, the combination of a strict carbon emissions standard and a renewable portfolio standard prompted utilities to enter into contracts for large thermal solar projects sponsored by Ausra, BrightSource, and Solel. ** * * · *Grassroots opposition mounted, financial markets cooled to coal: *After a spate of enthusiasm in 2006, coal plant financiers in 2007 recoiled from escalating construction costs; litigation by environmental groups; and public opposition to coal expressed through rallies, sit-ins, petitions, and local referenda in Texas, Maine, Montana, Utah, Iowa, Minnesota, Virginia, and elsewhere. As sponsors ran into difficulty raising funds, numerous projects were quietly abandoned.** * * · *More plants were abandoned than rejected:* Of the 59 cancelled or sidetracked projects, only 15 were rejected outright by regulators, courts, or local authorities. In the remaining 44 cases, the decision was made by the sponsors themselves. Besides climate concerns, leading reasons for abandoning plants include (1) rapidly rising construction costs, (2) insufficient financing or failure to receive hoped-for government subsidies, and (3) lowered estimates of demand. · *Heavy spending but poor results for "clean coal":* Despite a multi-million dollar advertising campaign by the coal industry in support of its "clean coal" message, the public was unconvinced. An October poll by Opinion Research Corporation<http://www.cleanenergyaction.net/101807_CLEAN_survey_report.pdf>showed that 75 percent of American adults would support a five-year moratorium on new coal plants if funding for renewable alternatives was increased and efficiency standards were tightened. *Background on the Coal Boom* After mainly building natural gas turbines during the 1980s and 1990s, utilities returned to coal when natural gas prices jumped in 2000. In May 2007, the Department of Energy's "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (5/07) <http://cmnow.org/NETL%20New%20Coal%205.2007.pdf> study counted 151 proposed coal plants. Five months later, "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" (10/07) <http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf> counted 121 proposed plants. According to a survey completed in the first week of January 2008 by Coal Moratorium NOW! and Rainforest Action Network, the number of proposed plants (including those under construction or recently completed) now stands at 113. Details on the study may be seen at the following links: · "Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007#Li…>" · Proposed Coal Plants: state-by-state descriptions<http://cmnow.org/Proposed%20Coal%20Plants.pdf> · Proposed Coal Plants: spreadsheet<http://cmnow.org/Proposed%20Coal%20Spreadsheet.pdf> · Table of Proposed Coal Plants by Expected Year of Completion<http://cmnow.org/Plants%20by%20Year%20Table.pdf> · Table of Proposed Coal Plants by Type of Utility <http://cmnow.org/Plants%20by%20Type%20of%20Utility%20Table.pdf> · Table of Proposed Coal Plants by Region <http://cmnow.org/Plants%20by%20Region%20Table.pdf> *###* *Coal Moratorium NOW! <http://cmnow.org/> (http://cmNOW.org<http://cmnow.org/>) tracks the coal boom and advocates for a moratorium on new coal plants. Together with the Center for Media and Democracy, Coal Moratorium NOW! also co-sponsors www.coalSwarm.org <http://www.coalswarm.org/>, a coal-oriented wiki. Contact: info(a)cmNOW.org or Ted Nace at 510-331-8743. * * * *Rainforest Action Network <http://www.dirtymoney.org/> ( http://www.dirtymoney.org) runs hard-hitting campaigns to break America's oil addiction, reduce our reliance on coal, protect endangered forests and indigenous rights, and stop destructive investments around the world through education, grassroots organizing, and non-violent direct action.* -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] ctl
by Allan Tweddle 05 Feb '08

05 Feb '08

Vivian It's a good discussion none the less Nice to see you quoted and chosen as source of concern for the global environmental community. The author should have used the quote, (I believe one that you distributed), by the Minister of the Environment for the South African Government when he stated that the Segunda Plant of Salsol is the largest single source of greenhouse gasses on the globe! I am going to try and work this into my talks this week at Shepherd University tomorrow afternoon...two science classes and...then an all campus all student and faculty debate with a nay-slayer (that's not a typo) on Thursday evening. Wish me luck...wish you could be there to ask some key questions. Allan ----- Original Message ----- From: Vivian Stockman<mailto:vivian@ohvec.org> To: Allan Tweddle<mailto:allantweddle@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:38 AM Subject: ctl http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/04/221273/environment-special-…<http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/04/221273/environment-special-…> Allan--my quote should read "mountaintop removal coal mining" not "mountaintop removal, coal mining"

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] 'Blue haze' inquiry narrows to John Amos]
by Regina Hendrix 03 Feb '08

03 Feb '08

I wanted to be sure you saw this. Not only are we sacrificing our mountains, even more important, we are sacrificing our health. We're sucking this stuff up every day. Mostly it dissipates faster, but the small daily doses are still poisonous. We generate the electricity because the Eastern Seaboard states don't want the expense of shipping coal and they'd rather not have the pollution from generation either. Now they want new transmission lines running thru some of our acreage which has been unspoiled so far. They want us to figure out a way to stop the acid rain from heading north and east. And they want WV ratepayers to pay for the transmission lines too. Meanwhile the WV taxpayer pays to repair our roads after 120,000 lb. plus coal trucks tear them up and we pay big bucks to treat our streams subject to acid mine drainage. This in a state where taxpayers making as little as $10K pay state income tax and the out-of-state landholding companies pay pennies per acre property tax on their resource-rich holdings. Gosh this does sound like a diatribe and I know I'm preaching to the choir.......... Regina

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] Fwd: Did Bush kill coal, boost nukes?]
by Regina Hendrix 03 Feb '08

03 Feb '08

Wanted to be sure you saw this one. Regina

1 0

Save OVEC & WV mountains
by duane330＠aol.com 02 Feb '08

02 Feb '08

>From the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy www.wvhighlands.org ? ? ????The WV Coal Association's Friends of Coal has denounced the Ohio Valley Environmental Council? (OVEC) as an extremist organization. They are boycotting Kroger for including OVEC in their gift card program. If you would like to show your support for the wonderful work OVEC is doing in their fight against mountain top removal strip ?mining you are?encouraged to purchase a Kroger gift card and write and /or email?Kroger and?encourage them to continue including?OVEC?in their gift card program.? ????Here is the process for buying an OVEC Kroger gift card-- Go to the OVEC website www.ohvec.org?and just down from the top of the homepage,in the center,is a link with full explanation and a printable pdf application to mail in. You the Kroger shopper buys a Kroger gift card from OVEC for $20, it is preloaded with $20; then as you shop at Kroger, pay for your purchase with the gift card,making sure you have it sufficiently recharged at the customer service desk before you check out. You can load the Kroger card with any amount up to $500 and spend it over time,?& OVEC get's 5% of whatever?you spend. If you normally pay for groceries with a credit card,you can just recharge your gift card with the same credit card, continuing to earn frequent-flier miles,bonus points,cash back,or whatever. ????Kroger has held up well and so far continues to include OVEC in the gift card program. ????You can email Kroger on line at http://services.kroger.com/comments/comments.aspx ????To write to Kroger and thank them for including OVEC use the address below. Please cc martinjul(a)aol.com? so we know how many have responded. ? Mr. Carl York Public Relations Manager Kroger P.O. Box 14002 Roanoke, VA? 24038? ? "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, things aren't going to get better, they're not!" From The Lorax by Dr. Suess For The Mountains Julian Martin Vice-President for State Affairs West Virginia Highlands Conservancy www.wvhighlands.org 1525 Hampton Road, Charleston, WV 25314 Contact me(martinjul(a)aol.com) for a trip to Kayford Mountain to see active and so-called reclaimed mountain top removal. Go to www.wvhighlands.org for I Love Mountains t-shirts, hats, I Heart Mountains and Friends Of The Mountains bumper stickers and for speakers, information and exhibits on environmental issues in West Virginia. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

1 0

FW: NIETC Call to Action
by Beth Little 01 Feb '08

01 Feb '08

This is hot! Liese called me and explained how even if we win our legal action against TrAIL, federal eminent domain could be used to build it anyway. See below and try to make calls/emails in the next week. -----Original Message----- From: Liese Dart [mailto:ldart@pecva.org] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:45 PM To: jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; ohvec(a)ohvec.org; crmw(a)crmv.net; samsva(a)gmail.com; multiflora123(a)yahoo.com; mjmb(a)westco.net; billgolemon(a)frontiernet.net; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; wojtowicz(a)metsci.com; philipy(a)zoominternet.net; blittle(a)citynet.net; Johnmcferrin(a)aol.com; hugh.rogers(a)gmail.com; buffrodman(a)hotmail.com; marilyn.shoenfeld(a)gmail.com; martinjul(a)aol.com; JohnMcFerrin(a)aol.com; woodhavenwv(a)netscape.net; fyoung(a)wvhighlands.org; larryvthomas(a)aol.com; foutsberg(a)citlink.net; larryvthomas(a)aol.com; foutsberg(a)citlink.net; scz3667(a)aol.com; mayorbobhenrybaber(a)yahoo.com; rdf(a)citynet.net; photonzx(a)ntelos.net; mcclainw(a)davisandelkins.edu; wpmcneel(a)gmail.com; PShoenfeld(a)gmail.com; gbrbat(a)ntelos.net; jeanrodman(a)verizon.net; ellis_6511(a)msn.com; sliderf(a)ovis.net; DSGJR(a)aol.com; cmains(a)wvu.edu; woodhavenwv(a)netscape.net; imaginemew(a)aol.com; woodhavenwva(a)netscape.net; johnmcferrin(a)aol.com; rogers(a)wvhighlands.org; imaginemew(a)aol.com; wvhcweb(a)wvhighlands.org; pshoenfeld(a)gmail.com; 'Heather Wicke' Subject: NIETC Call to Action ****National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Call to Action**** Please call Senator Rockefeller and Senator Byrd next week and ask them to sign onto a letter requesting oversight hearings on National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designation (the letter is attached). The Department of Energy has designated 42 of 55 counties in West Virginia as part of the Mid-Atlantic NIETC. Within this area, an interstate transmission line applicant has access to federal eminent domain to site the line. NIETC could be used to site the TrAILCo/Dominion transmission line in West Virginia. Please ask your Senators to join Senators Casey, Whitehouse and Biden in asking the Energy & Natural Resources Committee to hold hearings on this flawed policy. Senator Rockefeller’s DC office: (202)224-6472 Senator Byrd’s DC office: (202)224-3954 For more information, please contact Liese Dart at (202)857-6982 or by email at ldart(a)pecva.org. What is NIETC Designation? Sec. 1221 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act provided the Department of Energy the discretion to designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC) in areas of the United States that are found to be electrically congested. If a project lies within an NIETC, a utility may appeal an unfavorable state decision to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for use of federal eminent domain to site the project. Despite receiving over 2,000 comments against the designations, the Department of Energy designated two corridors on October 5, 2007. The first NIETC’s encompass portions of 10 states, 220 counties and impact more than 72 million people. The Department of Energy failed to conduct an alternatives analysis or to consult with the affected states prior to these designations, both requirements of Sec. 1221. Although this policy could be used to provide long distance transmission access to our nation’s developing wind and solar facilities, the Department of Energy has not designated areas of the country that are identified as having significant renewable resources. The Mid-Atlantic NIETC designation will increase transmission infrastructure to coal-fired generation built prior to the 1972 Clean Air Act, facilities that lie outside of the EPA’s non-attainment area for air quality. These investments in unnecessary interstate transmission will make cleaner alternatives such as efficiency and demand response technologies less economically viable. Eight of the ten states in the first NIETC designations have filed Petitions for Rehearing against the Department of Energy’s final decision. Liese Dart Special Projects Assistant Piedmont Environmental Council Phone: (202)857-7982 Cell: (202)431-8606 Fax: (540)349-9003 ldart(a)pecva.org www.pecva.org Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.6/1231 - Release Date: 1/18/2008 11:55 AM

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC February 2008