EC May 2008

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

9 participants
33 discussions

NYTimes: Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal
by Paul Wilson 30 May '08

30 May '08

New York Times, May 30, 2008 The Energy Challenge Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal By MATTHEW L. WALD<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/matthew_l_wald…> WASHINGTON — For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…>. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of "clean coal." All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming. "It's a total mess," said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. "Coal's had a tough year," said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_comp…>that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster. Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere. Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable. Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant. Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/inde…>, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration. But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, "we're not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate," said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades. The highest-profile failure involved a project known as FutureGen, which President Bush himself announced in 2003: a utility consortium, with subsidies from the government, was going to build a plant in Mattoon, Ill., testing the most advanced techniques for converting coal to a gas, capturing pollutants, and burning the gas for power. The carbon dioxide would have been compressed and pumped underground into deep soil layers. Monitoring devices would have tested whether any was escaping to the atmosphere. About $50 million has been spent on FutureGen, about $40 million in federal money and $10 million in private money, to draw up preliminary designs, find a site that had coal, electric transmission and suitable geology, and complete an Environmental Impact Statement, among other steps. But in January, the government pulled out after projected costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion. The government feared the costs would go even higher. A bipartisan effort is afoot on Capitol Hill to save FutureGen, but the project is on life support. The government had to change its approach, said Clarence Albright Jr., the undersecretary of the Energy Department, to "limit taxpayer exposure to the escalating cost." Trying to recover, the Energy Department is trying to cut a deal with a utility that is already planning a new power plant. The government would offer subsidies to add a segment to the plant dedicated to capturing and injecting carbon dioxide, as long as the utility bore much of the risk of cost overruns. It is unclear whether any utility will agree to such a deal. The power companies, in fact, have been busy pulling back from coal-burning power plants of all types, amid rising costs and political pressure. Utility executives say they do not know of a plant that would qualify for an Energy Department grant as the project is now structured. Most worrisome to experts on global warming, the utilities have recently been canceling their commitments to a type of plant long seen as a helpful intermediate step toward cleaner coal. In plants of this type, coal would be gasified and pollutants like mercury, sulfur and soot removed before burning. The plants would be highly efficient, and would therefore emit less carbon dioxide for a given volume of electricity produced, but they would not inject the carbon dioxide into the ground. But the situation is not hopeless. One new gasification proposal survives in the United States, by Duke Energy<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/duke_energy_corporati…>for a plant in Edwardsport, Ind. In Wisconsin, engineers are testing a method that may allow them to bolt machinery for capturing carbon dioxide onto the back of old-style power plants; Sweden, Australia and Denmark are planning similar tests. And German engineers are exploring another approach, one that involves burning coal in pure oxygen, which would produce a clean stream of exhaust gases that could be injected into the ground. But no project is very far along, and it remains an open question whether techniques for capturing and storing carbon dioxide will be available by the time they are critically needed. The Electric Power Research Institute, a utility consortium, estimated that it would take as long as 15 years to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work. The institute has set a goal of having large-scale tests completed by 2020. "A year ago, that was an aggressive target," said Steven R. Specker, the president of the institute. "A year has gone by, and now it's a very aggressive target." -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] Transmission tax
by Jim Sconyers 29 May '08

29 May '08

Looks like grandstanding, doesn't it? Can it be taken seriously? - Rate reductions for West Virginia’s citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line. Are we receiving juice from this line? I thought it was just to pass power through to the East. - Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line. How do you force the company to give free juice? Or are the landowners going to forward their electric bills to Charleston? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:56:05 AM Subject: [EC] Transmission tax Below is the Governor's press release regarding his proposal to impose a transmission tax if TrAIL is approved. The first line specifically states that the Governor's Office released this proposal in a response to the Sierra Club FOIA. My question is : "Does the Governor have any other details of this proposed tax? Would it apply only to TrAIL, or to all transmission from the state? If it is specific to TrAIL, would it not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? The line would originate in PA and end in VA, so how could one state impose a tax on the privilege of electrons crossing the state, especially if the power is generated in Ohio or PA, not WV? If it applies to all transmission lines, why should other existing transmission companies pay a tax just because TrAIL is being installed? This proposal raises so many questions that I do not know where to begin or how to respond, but you can be sure that these questions will be asked tomorrow, if not at the hearing, then by reporters afterward. Would it be appropriate to request more info on this from the Governor's Office? JBK May 23, 2008 GOVERNOR PLANS TO PROPOSE TRANSMISSION TAX IF TRAIL LINE IS APPROVED Manchin says he wants to protect interests of all West Virginians Contact: Lara Ramsburg, 304-558-2000 CHARLESTON, W.Va. – In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request from the Sierra Club of West Virginia, the Governor’s Office has released information on a proposed transmission tax that Gov. Joe Manchin intends to pursue should either the federal government or the state Public Service Commission approve the TrAIL Line project. “This is something I have been thinking about and discussing for some time, primarily because of the possibility of the federal government superseding any decision that may be made on the state level,” Manchin said. In May 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order interpreting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to say that the FERC had the power to issue a permit for construction of a new power line even if a state lawfully denied a site transmission application. “If the line goes through, I want to do all that I can to make sure that we have a plan in place that will provide a benefit to the communities affected, and the state as a whole, for providing a key piece of America’s energy infrastructure.” The governor’s proposed plan comprises four components: - Rate reductions for West Virginia’s citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line. - Extra revenue for the counties that house the line. - Extra revenue for the state that will allow it to provide additional services to all its citizens. - Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line. “If the TrAIL line is approved, either by the PSC or the federal government, we will stand ready to make sure that our citizens aren’t taken advantage of and instead receive a benefit from its placement in West Virginia,” Manchin said. # # # _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

Re: [EC] Transmission tax
by Grubb, Karen 29 May '08

29 May '08

I had a call from a reporters about this (Walt Williams of the WV State Journal). I talked to him and Bill and gave Walt Bill's phone number. I also received an email from Emily Corio asking for information, and I gave her Bill's and Jim's email. I did not know about Jim Ellars or why we wanted him to take the stand. Hi Karen, I found your name on a Sierra Club Web page about the proposed Allegheny Power transmission line. I think the WV Sierra Club is an intervenor in this case, and I'm wondering if I can get some information about the Club's position and intentions for the hearing on the joint stipulation agreement this Friday. I understand that the WV Sierra Club wanted to Jim Ellars to take the stand Friday but that was rejected. Why Ellars and what now? Thanks, Emily Corio Senior Producer West Virginia Public Broadcasting Morgantown, WV 26508 (304) 284-1459 (o) (304) 284-1454 (f) ecorio(a)wvpubcast.org ________________________________ From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of Jim Sconyers Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:37 AM To: James Kotcon; william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; ec(a)osenergy.org Subject: Re: [EC] Transmission tax Looks like grandstanding, doesn't it? Can it be taken seriously? - Rate reductions for West Virginia's citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line. Are we receiving juice from this line? I thought it was just to pass power through to the East. - Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line. How do you force the company to give free juice? Or are the landowners going to forward their electric bills to Charleston? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:56:05 AM Subject: [EC] Transmission tax Below is the Governor's press release regarding his proposal to impose a transmission tax if TrAIL is approved. The first line specifically states that the Governor's Office released this proposal in a response to the Sierra Club FOIA. My question is : "Does the Governor have any other details of this proposed tax? Would it apply only to TrAIL, or to all transmission from the state? If it is specific to TrAIL, would it not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? The line would originate in PA and end in VA, so how could one state impose a tax on the privilege of electrons crossing the state, especially if the power is generated in Ohio or PA, not WV? If it applies to all transmission lines, why should other existing transmission companies pay a tax just because TrAIL is being installed? This proposal raises so many questions that I do not know where to begin or how to respond, but you can be sure that these questions will be asked tomorrow, if not at the hearing, then by reporters afterward. Would it be appropriate to request more info on this from the Governor's Office? JBK May 23, 2008 GOVERNOR PLANS TO PROPOSE TRANSMISSION TAX IF TRAIL LINE IS APPROVED Manchin says he wants to protect interests of all West Virginians Contact: Lara Ramsburg, 304-558-2000 CHARLESTON, W.Va. - In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request from the Sierra Club of West Virginia, the Governor's Office has released information on a proposed transmission tax that Gov. Joe Manchin intends to pursue should either the federal government or the state Public Service Commission approve the TrAIL Line project. "This is something I have been thinking about and discussing for some time, primarily because of the possibility of the federal government superseding any decision that may be made on the state level," Manchin said. In May 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order interpreting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to say that the FERC had the power to issue a permit for construction of a new power line even if a state lawfully denied a site transmission application. "If the line goes through, I want to do all that I can to make sure that we have a plan in place that will provide a benefit to the communities affected, and the state as a whole, for providing a key piece of America's energy infrastructure." The governor's proposed plan comprises four components: - Rate reductions for West Virginia's citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line. - Extra revenue for the counties that house the line. - Extra revenue for the state that will allow it to provide additional services to all its citizens. - Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line. "If the TrAIL line is approved, either by the PSC or the federal government, we will stand ready to make sure that our citizens aren't taken advantage of and instead receive a benefit from its placement in West Virginia," Manchin said. # # # _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

Fwd: Stopping Munis from building coal: Lansing BWL proposed plant
by Paul Wilson 29 May '08

29 May '08

would longview be an appropriate example? If so fwd info to Anne. thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anne Woiwode <Anne.Woiwode(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:57 PM Subject: Stopping Munis from building coal: Lansing BWL proposed plant To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Lansing, Michigan's municipal power company has just announced plans to build a new 250 MW coal plant at the state's capital. We are looking for examples of successful fights in other munis to oppose coal plant proposals. Please share your examples with Anne Woiwode at anne.woiwode(a)sierraclub.org Thank you Anne Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter (517) 484-2372 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

TrAILCO Proceeding
by William DePaulo via YouSendIt 29 May '08

29 May '08

Hello from William, Message from william.depaulo(a)gmail.com:<br><br>FOIA documents from Gov Manchin's office You have 1 file(s) called <a href='http://download.yousendit.com/75047E1C66C31A22'>MANCCHIN FOIA.zip</a> from william.depaulo(a)gmail.com waiting for download. You can click on the following link to retrieve your file. The link will expire in 14 days and will be available for 500 number of downloads.. Link: http://download.yousendit.com/75047E1C66C31A22 Do not reply to this automatically-generated email. If you have any questions, please email us at paidsupport(a)yousendit.com ----- File too big for email? Try YouSendIt at http://www.yousendit.com YouSendIt 1919 So. Bascom Avenue, 3rd Floor Campbell, CA, 95008

1 0

Transmission tax
by James Kotcon 29 May '08

29 May '08

Below is the Governor's press release regarding his proposal to impose a transmission tax if TrAIL is approved. The first line specifically states that the Governor's Office released this proposal in a response to the Sierra Club FOIA. My question is : "Does the Governor have any other details of this proposed tax? Would it apply only to TrAIL, or to all transmission from the state? If it is specific to TrAIL, would it not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? The line would originate in PA and end in VA, so how could one state impose a tax on the privilege of electrons crossing the state, especially if the power is generated in Ohio or PA, not WV? If it applies to all transmission lines, why should other existing transmission companies pay a tax just because TrAIL is being installed? This proposal raises so many questions that I do not know where to begin or how to respond, but you can be sure that these questions will be asked tomorrow, if not at the hearing, then by reporters afterward. Would it be appropriate to request more info on this from the Governor's Office? JBK May 23, 2008 GOVERNOR PLANS TO PROPOSE TRANSMISSION TAX IF TRAIL LINE IS APPROVED Manchin says he wants to protect interests of all West Virginians Contact: Lara Ramsburg, 304-558-2000 CHARLESTON, W.Va. – In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request from the Sierra Club of West Virginia, the Governor’s Office has released information on a proposed transmission tax that Gov. Joe Manchin intends to pursue should either the federal government or the state Public Service Commission approve the TrAIL Line project. “This is something I have been thinking about and discussing for some time, primarily because of the possibility of the federal government superseding any decision that may be made on the state level,” Manchin said. In May 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order interpreting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to say that the FERC had the power to issue a permit for construction of a new power line even if a state lawfully denied a site transmission application. “If the line goes through, I want to do all that I can to make sure that we have a plan in place that will provide a benefit to the communities affected, and the state as a whole, for providing a key piece of America’s energy infrastructure.” The governor’s proposed plan comprises four components: - Rate reductions for West Virginia’s citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line. - Extra revenue for the counties that house the line. - Extra revenue for the state that will allow it to provide additional services to all its citizens. - Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line. “If the TrAIL line is approved, either by the PSC or the federal government, we will stand ready to make sure that our citizens aren’t taken advantage of and instead receive a benefit from its placement in West Virginia,” Manchin said. # # #

1 0

Re: [EC] Old Dominion Sierran
by James Kotcon 29 May '08

29 May '08

There is also a really cool article on "How Green Is Your Computer." JBK >>> Regina Hendrix <regina1936(a)verizon.net> 05/28/08 9:59 PM >>> Take at look at the front page article re wind energy siting in the Mid-Atlantic in the May-June issue of Old Dominion Sierran. http://virginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/ODSMay-Jun-web.pdf Regina _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Old Dominion Sierran
by Regina Hendrix 28 May '08

28 May '08

Take at look at the front page article re wind energy siting in the Mid-Atlantic in the May-June issue of Old Dominion Sierran. http://virginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/ODSMay-Jun-web.pdf Regina

1 0

Re: [EC] Coal Front Group Feels the Heat
by Paul Wilson 28 May '08

28 May '08

Coal Front Group Feels the Heat<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hwDFfYcTXJcWCcZ%2Ba3…> Source: Facing South, May 22, 2008 Americans for Balanced Energy Choices<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qK2g5oqr3V6tR7Nuzq8R…>(ABEC) -- a coal and power industry front group -- is busy organizing opposition to America's Climate Security Act of 2007<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=BGwNwDfCseliCbZnrBZ3…>proposed by Senators Joe Lieberman<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=b5xfOev3PDd3CFUHraBt…>and John Warner<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=60K6ovjV5PE9j2I4NpiA…>. The Institute for Southern Studies (ISS) reports that Pete MacDowell, an activist with the NC (North Carolina) Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, received a phone call from ABEC asking if he would put his name to a fax to Lieberman and Warner opposing the bill. Asked whether ABEC was an environmental group, the caller said "yes" and denied it had any links to power utilities. In response to ISS's revelation, Steve Gates from ABEC's parent group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hp%2Fhg%2Fyr4K3ZMQaK…>, stated that "one new staff member -- who is no longer working on this project -- decided to 'wing it' when asked some questions that were off her script. This staff person clearly should have answered 'Yes' when asked if ABEC was related to the utility industry." -- 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: [fom] AEP scrubbers - one heads up for northern WV residents]
by Jim Sconyers 27 May '08

27 May '08

I thought northern WV was not suitable for MTR - is that wrong? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 ----- Original Message ---- From: Regina Hendrix <regina1936(a)verizon.net> To: ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:49:03 PM Subject: [EC] [Fwd: [fom] AEP scrubbers - one heads up for northern WV residents] Well, this is not good news. Regina -----Inline Attachment Follows----- Just wanted to give a heads up on something that is related to a big part of my thesis. The new scrubber installations at AEP plants will do what the AP article at http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1402498/scrubbers_to_clean_john_amos_… says, it will shift state demand for coal from southern counties to northern ones. Over the past two years the number of northern strip-mines has declined, but the amount of production and # of employees per mine have increased, suggestion an expansion in size of northern strip-mines. So if you know of anyone up there living near coal seams, might wanna give them a heads up about this as it will surely cause an increase in stripping and MTR up there. Not to mention the other consequences coming from scrubber installation/operation and disposal of the by-products, which surely will be more than the "harmless gypsum" that this article suggests. Of course, the shift isnt going to reduce MTR in the southern counties all that much, if at all. Only about 22% of coal produced in WV is burned in WV, and obiously much of that is from southern counties, so in my estimate, this will result in no more than a 5% shift of MTR production to northern mines, or about 2.5 million tons. Of course, that is significant in one major sense. 2.5 million tons approximates the annual production of a medium size MTR mine if I'm not mistaken. So, one mountain saved given current consumption and export conditions. Those were rough calc's, dont quote me on those. if the coal is to be produced, its better that production is spread evenly across the state. the point is still to reduce the consumption of coal and get an outright ban on MTR. I've pasted the supporting quote for all of this below. -- Rory Shifting Coal Demand Another outcome of the national push to scrub is a shift in demand from more expensive, lower sulfur central Appalachian coal to less expensive, higher sulfur northern Appalachian coal - or, in West Virginia, from southern to northern coal. Amos's scrubbers will go into operation during the coming two years: unit 3, the largest, in January 2009, unit 2 the following spring and unit 1 in spring 2010. The plant currently burns up to 8 million tons of coal a year, most of it from Boone County. Once the scrubbers are up and running, AEP will have the option of shifting to a less expensive coal. -- "Animals suffer and their screams fill the air. Forests are being destroyed. Mountains are ripped open for the metals streaming in their veins. And man cherishes and celebrates those who do the greatest of damage to nature and humanity." - Leonardo Da Vinci (1500)

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC May 2008