August 2009 - EC - lists.bikelover.org

FW: NYT (Friedman -- While Detroit Slept)
by James Kotcon 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

From my father-in-law. JBK >>> "Bob Elliott" <rdelliott(a)socal.rr.com> 12/12/2008 7:29 AM >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/> <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> _____ December 10, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist While Detroit Slept By <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/tho maslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per> THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN As I think about our bailing out Detroit, I can't help but reflect on what, in my view, is the most important rule of business in today's integrated and digitized global market, where knowledge and innovation tools are so widely distributed. It's this: Whatever can be done, will be done. The only question is will it be done by you or to you. Just don't think it won't be done. If you have an idea in Detroit or Tennessee, promise me that you'll pursue it, because someone in Denmark or Tel Aviv will do so a second later. Why do I bring this up? Because someone in the mobility business in Denmark and Tel Aviv is already developing a real-world alternative to Detroit's business model. I don't know if this alternative to gasoline-powered cars will work, but I do know that it can be done - and Detroit isn't doing it. And therefore it will be done, and eventually, I bet, it will be done profitably. And when it is, our bailout of Detroit will be remembered as the equivalent of pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of the birth of eBay. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into the CD music business on the eve of the birth of the iPod and iTunes. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into a book-store chain on the eve of the birth of Amazon.com and the Kindle. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into improving typewriters on the eve of the birth of the PC and the Internet. What business model am I talking about? It is Shai Agassi's electric car network company, called Better Place. Just last week, the company, based in Palo Alto, Calif., announced a partnership with the state of Hawaii to road test its business plan there after already inking similar deals with Israel, Australia, the San Francisco Bay area and, yes, Denmark. The Better Place electric car charging system involves generating electrons from as much renewable energy - such as wind and solar - as possible and then feeding those clean electrons into a national electric car charging infrastructure. This consists of electricity charging spots with plug-in outlets - the first pilots were opened in Israel this week - plus battery-exchange stations all over the respective country. The whole system is then coordinated by a service control center that integrates and does the billing. Under the Better Place model, consumers can either buy or lease an electric car from the French automaker Renault or Japanese companies like Nissan (General Motors snubbed Agassi) and then buy miles on their electric car batteries from Better Place the way you now buy an Apple cellphone and the minutes from AT&T. That way Better Place, or any car company that partners with it, benefits from each mile you drive. G.M. sells cars. Better Place is selling mobility miles. The first Renault and Nissan electric cars are scheduled to hit Denmark and Israel in 2011, when the whole system should be up and running. On Tuesday, Japan's Ministry of Environment invited Better Place to join the first government-led electric car project along with Honda, Mitsubishi and Subaru. Better Place was the only foreign company invited to participate, working with Japan's leading auto companies, to build a battery swap station for electric cars in Yokohama, the Detroit of Japan. What I find exciting about Better Place is that it is building a car company off the new industrial platform of the 21st century, not the one from the 20th - the exact same way that Steve Jobs did to overturn the music business. What did Apple understand first? One, that today's technology platform would allow anyone with a computer to record music. Two, that the Internet and MP3 players would allow anyone to transfer music in digital form to anyone else. You wouldn't need CDs or record companies anymore. Apple simply took all those innovations and integrated them into a single music-generating, purchasing and listening system that completely disrupted the music business. What Agassi, the founder of Better Place, is saying is that there is a new way to generate mobility, not just music, using the same platform. It just takes the right kind of auto battery - the iPod in this story - and the right kind of national plug-in network - the iTunes store - to make the business model work for electric cars at six cents a mile. The average American is paying today around 12 cents a mile for gasoline transportation, which also adds to global warming and strengthens petro-dictators. Do not expect this innovation to come out of Detroit. Remember, in 1908, the Ford Model-T got better mileage - 25 miles per gallon - than many Ford, G.M. and Chrysler models made in 2008. But don't be surprised when it comes out of somewhere else. It can be done. It will be done. If we miss the chance to win the race for Car 2.0 because we keep mindlessly bailing out Car 1.0, there will be no one to blame more than Detroit's new shareholders: we the taxpayers. _____ Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try <http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000 010> it now.

3 2

FW: Money for media presentations - PATH
by Grubb, Karen 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

FYI From: Frank Young [mailto:fyoung@mountain.net] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:38 AM To: keryn(a)stoppathwv.com; Sally Wilts Cc: pwaitster(a)gmail.com; o6redleg(a)aol.com Subject: Re: Money for media presentations Hi Sally & Keryn & all, As Keryn notes below, WV Highlands Conservancy (WVHC) is the fiscal agent for the Stop PATH video / audio project- as the National Trust for Historic Preservation grant could only go to a 501(c)3 organization. And yes, WVHC is an IRS designated tax-exempt organization. If you need our tax-exemption number, I can send it to you separately. I would send that number in this message, but there is one e-mail address here I do not recognize. I will produce a Word file invoice that includes our tax-exempt number, and send it to you. Thank you, Sierra Club, for the generous contribution. And I agree with Keryn that as it is SC and the NTHP that is putting up the direct $$$ for this, it is fitting that SC and NTHP receive appropriate recognition. Also, I think I recall from being on the SC Energy Committee call that your funds can be used only for production costs, and not for air time, right? Let us know for sure on that. And I would say that yes, the grant will be used for grassroots public education about a conservation issue. And as the gatekeeper for these funds, I will insist that they be used for that purpose. Please make the check payable to WV Highlands Conservancy, and send it to me at Rt. 1 Box 108 Ripley WV 25271. That is not WVHC's usual address; but I need to know what funds are coming in for this purpose to see that it is credited to the proper line item in WVHC's budget. Thanks again. Frank Young, coordinator WVHC Stop PATH sub-committee ----- Original Message ----- From: Keryn Newman <mailto:keryn@stoppathwv.com> To: Sally Wilts <mailto:sallywilts@yahoo.com> Cc: pwaitster(a)gmail.com ; fyoung(a)mountain.net ; o6redleg(a)aol.com Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Money for media presentations Hi Sally, We very much appreciate the WV Chapter of Sierra Club's generous donation to our campaign to counter the misleading advertising being aired by the PATH companies. All donations we have collected for the media campaign have been in the name of West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. WVHC is the official organization that received the grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Please make donation check payable to WVHC and mail to Frank Young. By copy of this email, I'm asking Frank if he can create and send the invoice. The grant is for the purpose "....to help produce advertisements about proposed powerlines in West Virginia, which will have a broad and negative impact on nationally significant historic resources, as well as environmental and recreational resources." I don't think there would be any problem with adding a "sponsored by WV Sierra Club" somewhere in the ad, along with the required credit to the National Trust. Keryn Newman StopPATH/Jefferson County On Sun Aug 30 16:16 , Sally Wilts sent: Hi Keryn, I am the treasurer of the WV Chapter of Sierra Club. The Executive committee voted to give your group $1000 to use for expenses of broadcasting the media that you have had produced with grant from WVHC. The board asks that you present an invoice of some sort to us and they are wondering if Sierra Club will get any credit for this donation. Is Stop Path WV a nonprofit? Do you have a taxpayer ID number? The national SC has to account for all donations to IRS. Would you say the money was being used for grassroots public education about a conservation issue? Let me know if you need clarification and if I have the scenario about right.

1 0

Beech Ridge wind farm TAC - First meeting
by Frank Young 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Sierra Club energy committee: As per below, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Beech Ridge wind farm is coming together. Studies should commence late winter / early spring 2010. The wind farm is expected to become partially operational (about 69 turbines) before the end of December, 2009. Frank Young wind energy sub-committee ----- Original Message ----- From: Miner, Laura To: Bystriansky, Steve ; Groberg, Dave ; wtidhar(a)west-inc.com ; dyoung(a)west-inc.com ; emelton(a)psc.state.wv.us ; laura_hill(a)fws.gov ; craigstihler(a)wvdnr.gov ; fyoung(a)mountain.net ; Cynthia D. Ellis ; ross.conover(a)glenville.edu Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 2:33 PM Subject: Beech Ridge TAC - First meeting When: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:00 AM-1:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: 611 Nicholas Street, Apt 5, Rupert, WV Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Please join us at the first meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Beech Ridge Post-Construction Monitoring Program. For those who cannot attend in person, we will have conference call capability (instructions to follow). Preliminary Agenda (EST): 10:00 Introductions including an overview of the Beech Ridge development 10:15 Overview of PSC Order and discussion of the TAC role and guidelines 10:45 Outline of Monitoring Protocol with Q&A and Discussion 12:00 Lunch (catered or at a nearby establishment) 1:00 Site tour (optional) 2:00 Adjourn Additional materials to follow before the meeting (such as draft protocol and TAC guidelines). Preliminary membership: PSC Earl Melton FWS Laura Hill (or designee) DNR Craig Stilher BWEC TBD Sierra Club Frank Young Brooks Bird Club Cynthia Ellis Glenville State College Ross Conover (unconfirmed) Consultant: WEST, Inc. Wendy Tidhar WEST, Inc. David Young Beech Ridge: Vice President David Groberg Asset Manager Steve Bystriansky Program Manager Laura Miner

1 0

Fwd: Public News Service-WVNS story for August 28, 2009 City of Morgantown Saving Mone
by James Kotcon 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

FYI. News story that went out. Let's chalk this one up as a victory. JBK >>> "Public News Service" <wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org> 8/28/2009 10:40 AM >>> Public News Service-WV August 28, 2009 City of Morgantown Saving Money and Cutting Carbon CHARLESTON, W. Va. - Even in a state where electricity is relatively cheap, local governments can save money and reduce their carbon footprints by conserving energy - and local officials in Morgantown say they're proving it. The municipal government is in the middle of a long-term effort to reduce energy use by 20 percent and save money in the process. Morgantown City Manager Dan Boroff lists a number of changes to be made in the next eight months, that are expected to pay off for years. "A new air conditioning system at the airport; a new chiller system at ice rink; new lighting throughout the parking garages, even down to the stop lights in the city, replacing them with LED systems." All that, plus new boilers and insulation for city buildings are on the ambitious agenda. It is a $2.7 million investment, not including hybrid or fuel-efficient replacements for the city fleet as old vehicles are retired. Boroff says Morgantown is guaranteed to make its money back over 15 years - or the contractors have to pay back the difference. According to Mayor Bill Byrne, theirs was a hardheaded business decision that also had environmental advantages. "We had an opportunity to both save money and improve the quantity of carbon that we put into the environment. We're doing it for economic reasons, and also, because it's positive for the environment." A study released this summer found nationwide, homes and businesses could reduce energy use by nearly one-fourth though steps like upgrading appliances and sealing leaky air conditioning and heating ducts. The study found returns would double the investment in 11 years. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/10297-1 --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org and put the word "remove" in the subject line.

1 0

PATH - DISCOVERY REQUESTS FOR SIERRA CLUB AND WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

Attached are six sets of discovery requests submitted to PATH today in the West Virginia proceeding, and on behalf of the Sierra Club and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. The requests are the product of all of the lawyers and consultants assisting these clients, but principally Wil Burns. -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

1 1

Fwd: News links re cap and trade
by James Kotcon 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

I had an inquiry for a response to the developing stories about the forged letters and astroturf campaigns by fossil fuel companies against the Cap and Trade Bill (see the web sites below). Does anyone have any juicy sound bites that brings up some local West Virginia angles? JBK http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/sensitive_oil_industry_me… http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/lobby_firm_sent_forged_cl…

3 2

Fwd: Good time to pitch a story
by Paul Wilson 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

assume others got this? paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: West Virginia News Service WVNS <wvnsnews(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM Subject: Good time to pitch a story To: Hi Friends, Dan Heyman here. I've got space for some stories at the moment, so if you have anything you think might be news worthy, now would be a good time to pitch it. best, drh -- West Virginia News Service (WVNS) Toll Free: 1-800-317-6705 Fax: 540-301-0801 E-mail: wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

Fw: Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC Telebriefing
by cindyrank 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

Thought some of you might be interested ---- or know someone who is and can use the 1 CLE. cindy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC August 21, 2009 10:00 AM PDT, 11:00 PM MDT, 12:00 PM CDT, 1:00 PM EDT Download or view the program agenda here. Ms. Rank: We are pleased to present a one-hour expert analysis by phone of the recent appellate case, Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC, which is the first to review FERC's revised guidelines for granting market-based rate authority to a wholesale electricity seller. In this decision, a Ninth Circuit panel rejected a challenge to FERC's grant of market-based rate authority to several affiliates of PPL Corporation (PPL Companies) in a control area covering most of Montana. In doing so, the Court stated that it felt a need to "afford great deference" to FERC's rate determinations and expressed reluctance to "second guess [FERC's] judgment on questions of policy within its expertise." Although the ruling is unpublished and generally not considered binding precedent, it should offer insight into how the Court will approach its pending review of the general market-based rate policies in FERC Order Nos. 697 and 697-A. In this one-hour teleconference, one neutral moderator and two prominent energy lawyers close to the case will discuss the practical implications of the decision on the electric energy industry and its ratepayers, as well as cost recovery implications for transmission planning and development. Register quickly. You can call in from anywhere. Intended Audience Attorneys, industry executives, representatives of customer and environmental intervenors, and state officials involved in FERC wholesale ratemaking or transmission planning and development Registration Register here or call us at (800) 854-8009 Tuition Tuition is $125 per caller and $50 each for any additional people on the same line who desire continuing education credit. 1.0 CLE Credit Available in the Following States: a.. AK b.. AZ c.. BC d.. CA e.. GA f.. IL g.. MO h.. MS i.. NC j.. ND k.. NM l.. NV m.. NY n.. TX o.. UT p.. VA q.. WA r.. WV s.. WA t.. Other credits available, please call I hope you can join us. Kate Johnson President Note: If you do not want to receive email notice of upcoming professional education programs, or want to limit the topics you receive, you can safely tell us by replying to this email. You also can give us a quick call at (800) 854-8009 or go to LSI News Assistant. LSI News, Inc. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA 98104

1 0

7th Circuit opinion overturning FERC rule that was basis for pass thru of transmission line costs to WVa in FERC cases involving TRAIL and PATH
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

Some of you may have already seen the attached opinion by Judge Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which is based in Chicago and is the intermediate appellate court between US District Courts and the Supreme Court. In essence, Posner struck down the FERC rule that allowed PJM to recoup the costs of construction of a new high voltage electric transmission line -- even in part -- from utilities that derived no discernible benefit from the line. Importantly, the court deemed the value associated with "reliability" -- the chief benefit cited as justification for the TRAIL and PATH lines in W. Va. -- to be negligible and, in any event, insufficient to justify the pass thru of costs to utilities who received no other tangible economic benefit. Although the decision repeats, in a very different context (one relating to recoverable transmission rates, not authority to construct transmission lines) many of the arguments we made last year in TRAIL and will make this year in PATH, it will be some time before we will use the decision in our own case. Additionally, there was a powerful dissent, quoting the conflicting opinion of then Judge John Roberts in a DC Circuit case which reached the opposite outcome, obviously for the purpose of highlighting the fact that there is now a "conflict of decisions among circuits" (one of the grounds SCOTUS uses to decide whether to hear an appeal) and attempting to draw the attention of now Chief Justice John Roberts. Stand by.... -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

2 1

Fwd: Federal court could stop PATH/TrAIL
by James Kotcon 16 Aug '09

16 Aug '09

Bill Howley sent me the link below. The story is on his blog. This could mean lower electric rates for WV, and it means back to the drawing board for financing TrAIL. JBK >>> Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net> 8/15/2009 7:15 PM >>> This just came in on the Sierra Club listserv. Here's my post on The Power Line <http://calhounpowerline.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/blockbuster-federal-court-…>. This could be big news. Bill Blockbuster Federal Court Decision Could Doom PATH & TrAIL 2009 August 15 Here is the news from SNL, a financial news Web site: In a decision that could significantly hamper efforts to build major new transmission facilities nationwide, a divided three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit on Aug. 6 overturned a FERC order signing off on the PJM Interconnection LLC’s postage-stamp rate design for new transmission lines operating at voltages of 500-kV or more. After reviewing the arguments, the majority said the stakes are high, noting, for example, that under FERC’s decision, Commonwealth Edison Co. [an Illinois utility] may be required to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to help pay for the proposed “Project Mountaineer,” when under the old policy it wouldn’t have had to pay a dime. The problem, according to Judge Richard Posner, who penned the court’s decision in which Judge John Tinder joined, is that FERC never looked at the consequences of switching to the new pricing policy. “No particulars are presented concerning the contribution that very high-voltage facilities are likely to make to the reliability of PJM’s network. Not even the roughest estimate of likely benefits to the objecting utilities is presented,” Posner recalled. Posner suggested that the new policy is unfair to customers in the western portion of PJM, where power plants are located relatively close to their customers and relatively low-voltage, mainly 345-kV, transmission facilities are used. In contrast, generating plants that serve the eastern portions of PJM are generally located long distances from load, and therefore 500-kV and even higher-voltage transmission facilities are used to deliver the power. Yet, FERC never took this disparity into consideration, Posner maintained. Instead, he said, the agency relied on the fact that the eastern utilities that created PJM many years ago agreed to share the costs of certain facilities through pro rata sharing agreements. “The fact that these utilities thought it appropriate to share costs in 1967 says nothing about the advantages and disadvantages of such an arrangement in the larger, modern PJM network,” the judge wrote. “The fact that one group of utilities desires to be subsidized by another is no reason in itself for giving them their way.” The case was in the Seventh Circuit Federal Court in Minnesota because public utilities commissions in Illinois and Ohio had sued PJM over their rate scheme for Project Mountaineer, which included both TrAIL and PATH lines. As noted on Who Pays for PATH, more than 40% of the costs of TrAIL and PATH will be paid for by rate payers west of the Allegheny Mountains. The Seventh Circuit says that can’t happen. There are two alternatives. Either only east coast utilities pay for PATH and TrAIL because they are getting the power, or AEP and Allegheny Energy pay for PATH and TrAIL because they are getting the profit.

1 0

WVEC announcement/Please forward widely!
by Grubb, Karen 14 Aug '09

14 Aug '09

West Virginia Environmental Council Join America's #1 Populist Jim Hightower at WVEC's Annual Fall Conference It's Our 20th Anniversary Celebration! Friday, September 25th - Sunday, September 27th Holly Gray Park, Sutton WV (Braxton County) - Exit # 67 off I 79 Please join us as we celebrate our 20-year history and build from it to pass strong environmental policy in 2010. Founded in 1989 to be the legislative arm for the environmental movement in West Virginia, WVEC now marks 20 years of policy work at the legislature as we continue to be your voice at the capitol. Conference will feature: * Key-note address- by JIM HIGHTOWER, nationally known progressive commentator and co-Editor of America's hottest newsletter, the Hightower Lowdown. We expect to hold a Friday evening reception for Jim. And Saturday morning Mr. Hightower will deliver the Keynote Address for our 20th birthday celebration! * The best of West Virginia's environmental movement as we hold educational workshops on top issues, and organizing training to help improve the effectiveness of your organization; Setting our 2010 Legislative Priorities - incorporate your voice into our organization through discussions and electing representatives of the regions in WV to our Board of Directors; Saturday evening offers a panel of our founders discussing the fascinating history of WVEC. * The weekend will have it's fun, too: Our traditional Silent Auction (bring a contribution or two and be prepared to outbid your friends of course); Booths on environmental issues / Artists / Green Businesses; Recreational Outings as we enjoy the gorgeous scenery of Holly Gray Park, fishing lessons and more; Saturday Night Birthday Bash (musicians to be announced). Please come out to build your connection with the statewide environmental movement in WV, your organization's connection with our lobbying resources - and simply have a great time with our most special guest, Jim Hightower! Registration: Only $15 adult / $10 seniors, students, low income. Youth ages 12 and under receive free registration. Sleeping accommodations: On-site - includes bunk beds in cabins ($10 per night) and unlimited camping ($5 per tent, per night). Please see the registration form <http://www.wvecouncil.org/calendar/WVEC_2009_Fall_Conf_Registration_For m.pdf> at http://www.wvecouncil.org <http://www.wvecouncil.org> . Cost details and off-site accommodations in the area are listed on the registration form. Meals: Breakfasts Saturday & Sunday: $5 each Lunches Saturday & Sunday: $5 each Saturday night dinner - Pot Luck ... Please brings a dish to share. The full Agenda for the weekend will be sent out and posted on our website in August as details are completed. Please stay tuned ...... Download Registration form here. <http://www.wvecouncil.org/calendar/WVEC_2009_Fall_Conf_Registration_For m.pdf> : http://www.wvecouncil.org <http://www.wvecouncil.org> West Virginia Environmental Council Representing West Virginia "Special Interests"- People Who Want to Breathe Clean Air and Drink Clean Water 2206 Washington Street East, Charleston WV 25311 (304) 414-0143 www.wvecouncil.org <http://www.wvecouncil.org/>

1 0

Fwd: Membership
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

Mark I represented the Highlands Conservancy in the first wind turbine case ever filed with the Public Service Commission in 2005 [CORRECTION 2000], and I represent them (and the Sierra Club) now in proceedings at the PSC relating to AEP/Allegheny's proposed construction of PATH, a high voltage electric transmission line from the John Amos coal-fired electric plant in Winfield to Maryland -- through 225 miles of West Virginia, including vast swaths of forest. I think it is inaccurate to state the Sierra has stated a blanket policy in favor of absolutely any and all wind turbines. There clearly is a strong desire to build them, and as many as possible, but there is no blank check. HC dropped its opposition to the first wind turbine in 2005 [CORRECTION 2000] when the developer agreed to make changes moving the turbines further away from Dolly Sod. See the attached agreement. The Highlands Conservancy has adopted what I regard as an impossible standard for wind turbines, in effect, the exact opposite of blanket approval. HC's requirement that wind turbines demonstrate that they will result in the shut down of some equivalent MW of coal or other fossil fuel plant is just unrealistic, especially in a world where more generation capacity is being built all of the time. The reality is that no wind turbine, in the absence of the authority as the owner of a coal fired plant to shut down the plant, could ever meet that standard. None would be approved, ever, anywhere. Can you show me a single wind turbine project the HC is currently supporting under its recently announced standard? Of any size, in any location? I hope you can. Honestly. Best regards, Bill On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net>wrote: > Thanks Bill for the effort to help me understand the issueI am fully > aware of all You bring to this issue but the relevant point I make and will > repeat > is A Blank policy that all WInd projects are good without close examination > of the details and the effects on individuals and communities will only lead > to a watered down effort . There are thousands of citizens and much animal > life that will be negatively effected by this local Beach Ridge project and > without compensation for property devaluation etc. and will reap nothing > from it except more power for the grid so the Pittsburgh suburbs can > flourish . And the green credits mean more pollution by a dirty industry > that buys or owns them! Yes there are many negative issues you did not > address in your email > I dont care to argue the fine points . > > Just look at the WV Highland Conservancy turn around position on Wind > projects in WV > Their reversal on this is an epic decision for an environmental org of WV > and is very commendable ! > So I would suggest that the WV SC also have a closer l@@K at its position > ALL WIND PROJECTS ARE NOT GOOD and therefore a blanket statement endorsing > these only hurts the membership issue > as in my case and the image of the org. > > Thanks for the consideration > Mark > > On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:29 PM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. wrote: > > But trust me when I tell you that uninformed moral fervor will not deter > the Sierra Club from aggressively pursuing realistic energy and > environmental solutions. > > > > > * > Mark Blumenstein* > > *HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910* > > *304 445 7822* > > * * > > * markb(a)mountain.net* > > > > -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email. -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

1 0

Re: [EC] Membership
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

Mark Jim Kotcon is a very polite guy, and both courteous and elegant in his communications. I would rather open your eyes. First, the easy one. Carbon offsets are, by definition, required only of energy generated by sources relying up a carbon based fuel, like coal, petroleum, natural gas, and other fossil fuels (methane, butane, propane, the list goes on). Wind, which is roughly 90% nitrogen and 10% oxygen, has no carbon content. There is no predicate, therefore, for requiring a "carbon" offset. That would be making green energy sources offset the damage caused by other, non-green energy sources. That makes no sense as a matter of public policy. Period. View shed issues are more difficult. They are inherently subjective. What upsets one, pleases another, or may leave them indifferent. I am largely indifferent to wind turbines; I don't think of them as visual phenomena any more than I assess the aesthetics of an Exxon station when I pull into a gas station to fill up my gas tank (lacking as I do an electric car that could be charged at night by electricity generated by a wind turbine or solar panel). It's true, wind turbines frequently, if not always, require trees to be cut down. So does toilet paper, in significantly greater numbers....what did the wise man say? DETOGT (don't even think of going there). If you wanna see a LOT of trees cut down go look at the 10,000 acre wasteland that surrounds Kayford Mountain, 20 miles south of Charleston, the legacy of a fifteen year, ongoing mountain top removal project. At the same time I find the visual image of thousands of 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 year-old soldiers -- returning to the United States in caskets -- upsetting. *Very* god damned upsetting. I blame the fact that we are now engaged in wars in three countries in the Middle East on the fact that the oil companies were able to prevail upon their fraudulently elected lap dogs to embark on a war in Iraq primarily -- if not exclusively -- to control Iraqi oil fields. And that was not done as a "favor" to US citizens; it was the war crime known as aggressive war. I also react negatively (yeah, angry, exasperated, pissed off, pick any phrase you like, they all fit) when serious efforts to end American economic imperialism, and the squandering of environmental resources, are frustrated by misguided efforts -- however well intended -- to obstruct increases in domestically generated, and environmentally sustainable, energy sources. Like wind turbines. There are no risk or cost free choices in life. Either we continue to purchase (and steal) tremendous volumes of foreign crude oil, or we produce energy here in volumes sufficient to substitute for it. Or, even more difficult, we embark on the virtually impossible political task of persuading people to dramatically reduce their life styles. A footnote: China's per capita ownership of automobiles right now is about where the US's per capita ownership was in, buckle your seat belt, 1906. They are not going to accept that as a standard of living; they not about to *reduce* anything. They are going to *increase* vehicular use, geometrically. And there are 1.2 billion Chinese. Ditto for 1 billion residents of India, who in fact have a faster growing population. Either we find a way -- worldwide -- to generate electricity for electric cars, and simultaneously avoid both coal and petroleum, or we're going to be literally underwater. And the population displacements caused by rising sea levels will wreck civilization as we know it. Should we encourage on a wholesale basis conservation in every possible way? Of course, from the use of efficient appliances and cars, to constructing efficient buildings, and lighting them with compact flourescent lights (or better yet, even more efficient by several orders of magnitude, LED's, which hopefully with mass production will drop dramatically in price). Yes, all of these are desperately needed. But energy use is still going to go up, not down, under any realistic scenario. So we have got to find additional energy sources that don't require delivery routes guaranteed by the Pentagon's Central Command, or the generation of unlimited amounts of CO2. If you start out recognizing that 50-55% of electricity in this country is generated from coal, and that a very substantial majority of petroleum is imported, it becomes very difficult to find realistic alternative fuels in any volume that offers relief from either of those problems. Wind and solar, in vast quantities, are the only candidates for substitution, although many serious environmentalists now advocate greatly increased use of nuclear power. Got any thoughts on that alternative? Some advocate greatly increased use of natural gas, which has its own environmental problems related to water use (at least in the largest domestic discovery known as the Marcellus Shale), and only cuts the carbon generation by about half of that generated from coal. But there's lots of it. Wanna punch holes all over Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and parts of Virginia? There are gas exploration companies dying to enlist your support. So don't get me wrong. It's good you're thinking about this stuff, and it's laudable that you make decisions based on principal. But trust me when I tell you that uninformed moral fervor will not deter the Sierra Club from aggressively pursuing realistic energy and environmental solutions. If you want to impact policy -- whether of the US or the Sierra Club -- you need to answer the question of what alternative offers any prospect for relief from our dilemmas. When you find an answer better than wind turbines, call us. We'll waive your dues to get back in. Seeya. 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 On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net>wrote: > Dear JimWithout a plan that mandates a cut in carbon for every Turbine > built > We will only > be just adding a new source of power without reducing the current input > and future inputs of carbon > I can see that a turbine might offset slightly the power needed to generate > but we have no comprehensive plan > that cut emissions as we add generation > AND MY OBJECTION is directly linked to the endorsement of what I see as a > DAMAGING > installation of giant turbines on our southeastern ridges > I THING THE WV SC NEEDS TO BE MORE SELECTIVE IN THEIR ENDORSEMENT > for this is just a shell game for the GREEN CREDITS might just bring us > more pollution > in the future > Mark > > On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:33 PM, James Kotcon wrote: > > Mark: > > I respectfully disagree with your assessment of wind farms. By their very > nature, wind farms generate electricity that offsets carbon emissions. I > am aware of some wind opponents who deny that this is true, but the hard > data make it very clear that wind offsets fossil fuel emissions. While it > is not a 100 % kilowatt for kilowatt offset, it is still one of the least > carbon-emitting sources of energy available. > > I also recognize that the scenic impact is a concern, but that is an issue > that should be handled by county planning ordinances. I would have no > object to a scenic restriction on windfarms if it also applied to coal-fired > power plants, transmission lines, ski resorts and second home development. > But to restrict one type of development, in this case wind, is to > indirectly subsidize fossil fuel power instead. There is no perfect > source of energy, but any objective evaluation would have to conclude that > wind is cleaner than most. > > I also have no objection to compensating the parties affected by energy > generation, but this rule has to be applied to all power sources. As long > as it is required of wind farms but not coal mines or power plants, it > becomes, again, an indirect subsidy for coal and a barrier to the cleaner > sources we claim to want. > > I agree that there are adverse impacts to some birds and bats, but there is > no credible evidence that this has an adverse effect on the "populations". > Until we can compare the effect of a wind farm against the impacts of a > strip mine, there is no basis for singling out one energy source for > additional restrictions, but allow other energy sources to operate without > restriction. > > The Sierra Club would be easily dismissed if we oppose every form of > energy. We need a more rational energy policy to get support from a > majority of Americans. We do not support every wind farm application, but > we also would not be credible if we opposed them all. > > I hope you will reconsider your membership. Feel free to contact me if > you wish to discuss this in more detail. > > Jim Kotcon, Chair > Energy Committee > 304-293-8822 (office) > 304-594-3322 (home) > > P.S. We are currently compiling a subcommittee of Club members to review > additional wind farm permit applications in West Virginia. Let me know if > you are interested in being part of that evaluation. > > Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net> 8/12/2009 4:11 PM >>> > > > Since the WV SC has taken a position on wind turbines on our historic > ridges in WV especially without WITHOUT a carbon offset > I will not be renewing my membership. > Wind turbines have their place but cutting down mountaintops and > deforesting ridgetops > and forever changing our historic ridges in eastern WV in site of > farms and families > WITHOUT any compensation to the effected parties is a poor decision > and these poorly located devices are BAT and Migrant Bird Killers > > I believe THE WV & NATIONAL SIERRA CLUB should reevaluate their > position > > If this only reaches the membership committee in this email I wish > for you to pass along > this those that make policy > > Mark Blumenstein > HC 73 BX 11 > Alderson WV 24910 > > ps. I think Whale Wars has shown that action not banners change policy > Stop the Whaling by stopping the Whalers! > > > > Mark Blumenstein > HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910 > 304 445 7822 > > markb(a)mountain.net > > > > > > * > Mark Blumenstein* > > *HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910* > > *304 445 7822* > > *http://www.markblumenstein.com* > > * markb(a)mountain.net* > > > >

2 1

Fwd: Bruce's Blog: VICTORY: Dynegy Out of the New Coal Business
by Paul Wilson 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nithin Coca <nithin.coca(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM Subject: Bruce's Blog: VICTORY: Dynegy Out of the New Coal Business To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org *Please comment and Recommend - and forward to your local lists.* Grist - *http://www.grist.org/member/11566/*<http://www.grist.org/member/11566/> Daily Kos - *http://www.dailykos.com/user/Bruce%20Nilles*<http://www.dailykos.com/user/Bruce%20Nilles> Huffington Post - *http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-nilles*<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-nilles> Compass - *http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/coal-director/*<http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/coal-director/> Opposing Views - *http://www.opposingviews.com/tags/environment*<http://www.opposingviews.com/tags/environment> SF Green - * http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?plckPersonaPage=Persona… *<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?plckPersonaPage=Persona…> Climate Crossroads - http://connect.sierraclub.org/post/ClimateCrossroadsBlog/victory_dynegy_out… Also posted on - SE Green, Alltop Green, and Alternet _________________________ Nithin Coca Grassroots Media Coordinator * Sierra Club (o) 415.977.5761 (m) 913.940.1571 nithin.coca(a)sierraclub.org follow me on Twitter - twitter.com/excinit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-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: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

Fw: re: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting
by Jim Sconyers 11 Aug '09

11 Aug '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net> wrote: From: Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net> Subject: re: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting To: "Undisclosed Recipients" <fslider(a)verizon.net> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 1:45 PM FW: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Hall Meeting August 10, 2009 – Congressman Alan B. Mollohan announced today that he will be having a town hall meeting 6:00 PM on Friday, August 14, 2009 at Wheeling Jesuit University, Troy Theater in Swint Hall. He will be available to listen to his constituents on matters that are of concern to them.

1 0

Monday: Transmission Tax on Interim Agenda
by James Kotcon 10 Aug '09

10 Aug '09

The August Legislative Interim committee meetings schedule and agendas were posted very late Friday. The most notable (and important) meeting this month is on Monday, Aug. 10, when Finance Subcommittee B, chaired by Senator Walt Helmick, will take up SCR 57- requesting the Joint Committee on Government and Finance study the proposed new state business and occupation tax on high-voltage electric power transmission lines. The committee will have a presentation on the Governor's proposed transmission line tax from Jonathan Deem, the Governor's General Counsel. The meeting is from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM in the Senate Finance Committee meeting room. This is an incredible opportunity. Those who are in town for the status hearing should make every effort to get to the Capitol at 4 PM in massive numbers. The Legislature needs to hear about the problems with the Transmission line process, and be told in no uncertain terms that a vote for this tax is a vote to take people homes and farms! Instead of a transmission tax, the PSC siting process needs to be reformed by: 1) Mandate that applicants provide written notification to all affected property owners, 2) Direct the PSC to balance the needs of ratepayers against the need for transmission lines; 3) Direct the PSC to evaluate alternatives to new transmission lines (including demand-side management alternatives) where feasible, less-impacting alternatives exist. 4) Protect designated scenic areas; and 5) Consider indirect as well as direct impacts. Currently, only those property directly crossed by the line are compensated, neighbors suffer real losses, but get nothing. 6) Consider the increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from plants producing the electricity to be carried by these lines. Make sure the Legislature knows that phony fixes are not acceptable, and the transmission tax is a fraudulent "bait-and-switch". I suspect that even the Governor knows it is unconstitutional, but it would allow the Governor and the PSC to claim that the line benefits West Virginia, and then, by the time it is challenged in court and tossed out, the line will have been built. I plan to attend the hearing, and urge anyone else to attend. Attached is a draft fact sheet that we put together for our alternative, the PSC Reform Act. Please let me have comments before noon Monday. JBK

1 0

Monday: Transmission Tax on Interim Agenda
by James Kotcon 10 Aug '09

10 Aug '09

The August Legislative Interim committee meetings schedule and agendas were posted very late Friday. The most notable (and important) meeting this month is on Monday, Aug. 10, when Finance Subcommittee B, chaired by Senator Walt Helmick, will take up SCR 57- requesting the Joint Committee on Government and Finance study the proposed new state business and occupation tax on high-voltage electric power transmission lines. The committee will have a presentation on the Governor's proposed transmission line tax from Jonathan Deem, the Governor's General Counsel. The meeting is from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM in the Senate Finance Committee meeting room. This is an incredible opportunity. Those who are in town for the status hearing should make every effort to get to the Capitol at 4 PM in massive numbers. The Legislature needs to hear about the problems with the Transmission line process, and be told in no uncertain terms that a vote for this tax is a vote to take people homes and farms! Instead of a transmission tax, the PSC siting process needs to be reformed by: 1) Mandate that applicants provide written notification to all affected property owners, 2) Direct the PSC to balance the needs of ratepayers against the need for transmission lines; 3) Direct the PSC to evaluate alternatives to new transmission lines (including demand-side management alternatives) where feasible, less-impacting alternatives exist. 4) Protect designated scenic areas; and 5) Consider indirect as well as direct impacts. Currently, only those property directly crossed by the line are compensated, neighbors suffer real losses, but get nothing. 6) Consider the increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from plants producing the electricity to be carried by these lines. Make sure the Legislature knows that phony fixes are not acceptable, and the transmission tax is a fraudulent "bait-and-switch". I suspect that even the Governor knows it is unconstitutional, but it would allow the Governor and the PSC to claim that the line benefits West Virginia, and then, by the time it is challenged in court and tossed out, the line will have been built. I plan to attend the hearing, and urge anyone else to attend. Attached is a draft fact sheet that we put together for our alternative, the PSC Reform Act. Please let me have comments before noon Monday. JBK

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Summary of allocation of revenues from allowances under climate bill
by James Kotcon 07 Aug '09

07 Aug '09

To: Energy Committee This report identifies the funding allocated by state for energy efficiency in the Cap and Trade Bill (ACES). They estimate that West Virginia would get over $2.7 billion for energy efficiency during the 2012 to 2019 period. This would create an estimated 24,000 jobs. And since each dollar spent on energy efficiency generates three dollars n savings for the consumer, that means the bill saves consumers in West Virginia an estimated $8 billion dollars!!!!! We need to get this story our there. How do we do it? JBK >>> Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> 8/6/2009 1:52 AM >>> A group called Environment Northeast has developed an analysis of the ASES (climate) legislation which passed the House on Micheal Jackson/Farrah Fawcett day (June 25th). The allocation of allowances to the states for different purposes identifies four areas in which funding will be provided, in hundreds of millions of dollars, to billions of dollars, depending on formulae in the bill. The majority of this money will save three dollars for each dollar spent. Those of you who are meeting with Senators and staff may want to be familiar with this or present the report. It is a huge amount of money. http://www.env-ne.org/resources/open/p/id/895. Both funding levels and estimates of benefits are included. - Ned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fw: WInd turbines on Allegheny Mtn in VA
by Frank Young 07 Aug '09

07 Aug '09

This communication, just below, is about a wind farm proposed for Highland County, VA- just east of Pendleton County, WV. I have no other information about this proposed wind facility. Frank Young ----- Original Message ----- From: Martinjul(a)aol.com To: dawn(a)brightsideacres.com Cc: wvhcboard(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:51 PM Subject: [WVHCBOARD] Re: WInd turbines on Allegheny Mtn In a message dated 8/7/2009 12:26:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dawn(a)brightsideacres.com writes: Hello Martin, I am writing to ask you and The Highlands Voice to look into what is going on in Highland County Virginia regarding the county's recent approval of Highland County Wind Development, LLC to erect a 19-tower wind generating facility on Tamarack Ridge (the highest point in Highland County and approximately 1600 feet from the West Virginia line. These 19 towers will each be 400 feet tall, and will be in clear view from the Camp Allegheny Battlefield, which is on the National Register of Historic Places; as well as from multiple sites on County Route 3 (the Old Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, which is a National Historic Backway.) Apparently, Highland County's Technical Review Committee simply approved the site plan submitted yesterday, eventhough environmental reviews, impact statements or permits normally required by the federal government have neither been obtained nor formally waived. No photo-simulation to evaluate the visual impact of the turbines on the Camp Allegheny Battlefield and historic surrounds has been conducted. >From everything I have read in The Recorder, the impact of this wind farm on West Virginia has not been considered whatsoever. Perhaps it is a matter for the Department of Interior? Perhaps, if brought to Nick Rahall's attention, a cease and desist order could be issued by a Federal Court? I believe that the Pocahontas County Commission is looking into this as of their meeting yesterday. Do you know Commissioners David Fleming or Martin Saffir? Could The Highland's Voice be of help to them? According to yesterday's Recorder, Highland County Wind Development intends to break ground next week. Please see the link below for articles regarding this issue. Swift action is required to preserve the natural and historic integrity of an historically significant and environmentally pristine area of WV. http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/08/06/wind-utility-headed-into-construc… Thank You, Dawn Baldwin "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 Love Mountains and Friends Of The Mountains bumper stickers and for speakers on environmental issues in West Virginia.

1 0

PSC Procedural Order of August 4, 2009
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 07 Aug '09

07 Aug '09

Dear Mr. Watkins: I am forwarding this email to you for distribution to the Commission, and in response to the Commission's August 4 procedural order. I am forwarding it in advance of the hearing on August 10, in an attempt to convey some thoughts that might assist the Commission in resolving the issues surrounding the manner and level of participation by the 200+ would-be intervenors in the PATH proceeding. I also convey these thoughts now, in advance of the August 10 hearing, so that the idea of breaking the Jefferson County and Ashton Woods groups down into more effective groups can percolate within the Commission before Monday. I recognize that it is possible that the idea, if it has any merit at all, could be lost in the sea of advocates that will appear Monday. I acknowledge that this email does not conform with the requirements of a formal pleading before the Commission, and I do not request that it be accorded any formal status. At the same time, I have copied it by email to counsel for PATH and as many of the Allegheny Energy personnel as I can; I have no email addresses for AEP personnel. Additionally, I have copied other intervenors whose email addresses I know, and by this email request that two persons, Patience Wait and Tom Hildebrand, forward the email to the two large groups whom they are associated with, respectively, Jefferson County intervenors and Ashton Woods intervenors. In light of this dissemination, I would submit that it is not an ex parte communication. I have blind-copied the email to a much larger list in the interest of allowing as many people as possible have the benefit, however minimal, of these thoughts in advance of Monday. I will file a hard copy with the Executive Secretary for service on others as soon as the email list is disseminated. Of the 200+ intervenors, I am advised that fully 140+ are from Jefferson County and 40+/- are from Ashton Woods. Stated otherwise, fully 180 of the 200 intervenors -- no less than 90% -- are by the terms of the August 4 order to be represented by 2 persons. The remaining 20+/- intervenors will be represented, presumably, by 20+/- attorneys or others spokesmen, for a total of 22 representatives. I do not know if the Commission was aware of this statistical breakdown at the time the August 4 order was entered. However, I believe the statistically disproportionate representation of Jefferson County and Ashton Woods intervenors in the total suggests that the Commission might achieve its legitimate objective of making the PATH proceeding manageable in a more effective fashion. Specifically, if the Commission did nothing more than allow the 140+ intervenors from Jefferson County break themselves down into 5 groups, the effectiveness of the representation of the intervenors would increase dramatically, while the incremental burden on the Commission in dealing with the PATH proceeding would be minimal. That is, the number of spokesmen would only increase from 22 to 27. Why would this be more effective for the participants from Jefferson County? Because they are, apparently, themselves geographically diverse. And they will absorb a disproportionate impact in total from the PATH line's passage through their community. For instance, I am advised that there is a geographically segregable group from a neighborhood called "Blue Ridge" which has an interest in the proceeding that is very localized to them, and runs the risk of being lost in the background noise of a pleading, written or verbal, on behalf of 140 people. Similarly, there is another identifiable group interested in the impact not on their residence or business, per se, but on the schools they send their children to. There are undoubtedly other readily identifiable subgroups in the 140 who could rationally be separated from the 140 aggregation and who, as a result, would have a much more effective representation before the Commission, again with a minimal incremental impact on the efficiency of the PATH proceeding. I apologize for not getting this to the Commission earlier, but I have only come by the facts I relate here since August 4. I want to emphasize that I do not represent anyone in their capacity as a resident of Jefferson County or Ashton Woods (although I assume there must be some Sierra Club and/or Highlands Conservancy members in one or both communities, whether or not they have intervened individually). I make these suggestions merely as one lawyer among many with an interest in assisting the Commission achieve its stated goals. I convey these thoughts now only because it strikes me that the disproportionate representation of these two communities in the total intervenor group might be more rationally dealt with in a manner other than aggregation by County, and that the alternative of disaggregating these two large groups can achieve the Commission's stated goal of efficiency while making the intervenors' participation more effective, another goal which the Commission clearly wanted to achieve, within the bounds of practicality, in its August 4 order. Best regards, 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

1 0

Fw: MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) on fraudulent coal lobby letter and MTR
by Jim Sconyers 06 Aug '09

06 Aug '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) on fraudulent coal lobby letter and MTR To: "Jim Sconyers" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>, "Regina Hendrix" <reginahendrix999(a)gmail.com>, "William DePaulo" <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 1:25 PM This is a must-see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32307765 Aaron Isherwood Senior Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second Street, 2d Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Phone: (415) 977-5680 Fax: (415) 977-5793 CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. If you receive this e-mail inadvertently, please reply to the sender and delete all versions on your system. Thank you.

1 0

"BLACKOUT" - REVIEW OF BOOK QUESTIONING LONGEVITY OF COAL RESERVES (AND STUDY ON WHICH IT IS BASED)
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 05 Aug '09

05 Aug '09

Review: *Blackout* by Richard Heinberg by Frank Kaminski *Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis* By Richard Heinberg 201 pp. New Society Publishers – May 2009. $18.95. Richard Heinberg’s new book *Blackout* tries to demolish current assumptions about the world’s remaining coal endowment: namely, that it is immense beyond belief, barely tapped and will last for centuries to come. Heinberg argues that these assumptions are off-base, misleading and not at all supported by recent studies that suggest global coal production could peak in less than two decades. He warns that an impending shortage of minable coal threatens to plunge our civilization into one final, irreversible Blackout unless we act wisely. Heinberg makes his case well. One of the things that I’ve always admired about his writing is the way he tries to avoid any potential for bias by considering all possible viewpoints and contributing factors with regard to a given issue, even those that might weaken his argument. Nowhere is this even-handed approach more evident than in *Blackout*, where he discusses not only the pessimistic reports on remaining coal reserves, but also those that he considers to be overly optimistic. In short, Heinberg can always be counted on to give us fact without inflammation. And yet, my mind still isn’t quite made up about the book's central thesis. Common sense tells me that it's probably more right than wrong—not only because of Heinberg's sound analysis of the reserves data, but also because imminent declines in oil production will surely place additional pressure on coal supplies, which could hasten coal's peak. But quite a few people within the peak oil community simply aren’t buying this case for a peak in coal production within our lifetimes. According to these skeptics, peak coalers underestimate the ability of emerging technologies to extract a larger proportion of the resource than what is currently considered to be recoverable. On the advice of one such skeptic and personal friend, I spent several days researching innovative coal technologies like underground coal gasification (UCG) and microbial coal prior to writing this review. And, being anything but an energy scientist myself, I still find that I can’t reach a firm conclusion about the degree of promise held by these technologies. Thus, the remainder of this review will focus solely on Heinberg’s analysis of reserves data, rather than on the merits of the various emerging coal technologies. The impetus for *Blackout* came two years ago, with the publication of a report titled “Coal: Resources and Future Production<http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-…>.” Authored by a group of independent analysts for Energy Watch Group in Germany, the report analyzed the latest available data on the world’s remaining coal deposits, and came to some sobering conclusions. Above all, it found that our current data on global coal reserves are of very poor quality, since many countries’ reserves figures are woefully out-of-date, having not been updated, in some cases, in several decades. And of the nations that have actually made the effort to update their proven reserves figures, all but two—India and Australia—have revised them substantially *downward* over the past two decades. Some of these downward revisions have been staggering. For example, Botswana, Germany and the United Kingdom have all downgraded their proven reserves by more than 90 percent (Germany’s downgrades were the sharpest, with proven hard coal reserves plummeting by a stunning 99 percent!). Further, the report found that the United States, which we’ve all been told has something like two centuries’ worth of coal left, has in fact *already peaked* in its production of high-quality coal. And even the world’s total in-situ coal resources have been reduced by 60 percent over the past 25 years, from 10 trillion tons of hard coal equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons. The study authors conclude that such drastic reductions are far too significant to simply represent the quantities of coal that have been mined and produced in the time since reserves were last assessed. Instead, they are most likely the result of coal-producing countries having better data now than they once had. And the authors see global coal production peaking, in the best case, in 2025 at 30 percent above present levels of production. Heinberg picked up this story on his *MuseLetter* blog when it first came to light, and it became the basis for a series of essays that he went on to write on peak coal. Over the past two years, the study’s findings have been bolstered by subsequent research carried out by the Institute for Energy (IFE), Caltech Professor David Rutledge and Uppsala University in Sweden, among others. Heinberg draws on all of this research in *Blackout*. The book follows a simple structure. Its first two-thirds are devoted to assessing the reserves of the world’s major coal-producing nations, country by country. This is followed by two brief chapters that deal with the implications of continued coal burning for climate change and the potentialities and limitations of new coal technologies, respectively. Lastly, Heinberg devotes a chapter to three potential scenarios that he believes could be in store for us, depending on how successfully we’re able to rise to the challenges of developing a renewable energy infrastructure and averting catastrophic climate change. I’ve already said all that I think I can about emerging coal technologies. As for the chapter on coal and climate, Heinberg dissects each of the various, differing viewpoints on the implications that continued coal consumption will have for climate change policy—and vice versa—and argues for a “combined approach” to addressing fossil fuel depletion and climate change. This combined approach would ensure that we don’t address each crisis with policies that make the other one worse (as for example by alleviating fuel shortages through the increased use of dirty hydrocarbons like tar sands and shale oil, which would accelerate climate change by ratcheting up carbon emissions). Heinberg also adds his voice to the clamor among leading climate scientists for a global campaign to keep atmospheric CO2 levels to within 350 parts per million (ppm), which is currently deemed the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2. The three future scenarios that Heinberg foresees are a business-as-usual scenario involving the continued wholesale liquidation of the world’s remaining coal reserves; a clean tech scenario in which we continue using coal as quickly as possible, but mitigate its climate effects through massive investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS); and a scenario in which we successfully transition to a renewable energy infrastructure. The business-as-usual scenario would have the worst environmental consequences out of the three. And the clean tech scenario would entail the worst economic consequences, since it would require tremendous investments in CCS infrastructures on the part of economies already ravaged by skyrocketing coal prices and shortages. The renewable energy scenario would involve the least environmental harm, and it’s also the only one in which we would be able to avert total economic and societal collapse. But Heinberg has no illusions that it will be easy to find the political will necessary in order to make this latter scenario a reality. Heinberg may be right that our modern world is doomed to descent into one great, irrevocable Blackout within our lifetimes barring some unprecedented, coordinated worldwide switch to renewables. On the other hand, it may be that innovative technologies will dramatically increase the total amount of economically extractable coal, bringing on a decades-long glut of the stuff—as well as great peril to our environment. But whichever winds up being the case, Heinberg is certainly right about the need to cut our carbon emissions as quickly as we can, just in case Earth’s climate turns out to be far more sensitive to our emissions than we’re currently able to fathom. I don’t know which side is right in the peak coal debate—but I do know that *Blackout* is an important and timely book. In the form of this compact volume, one of the best and most productive peak oil authors working today has turned his customary scholarship, wisdom, wit and writing prowess to some of the most critical issues now unfolding on our planet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Frank Kaminski is a member of Seattle Peak Oil Awareness, a connoisseur of post-oil novels and a regular book reviewer for Energy Bulletin. He can be reached at frank.kaminski AT gmail.com. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Original article available here <http://www.seattleoil.com/> -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

1 0

Fw: Club-wide teleconference - Tuesday, August 4th
by Jim Sconyers 04 Aug '09

04 Aug '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Tue, 8/4/09, Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org <Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org <Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: Club-wide teleconference - Tuesday, August 4th To: rickestes_92595(a)yahoo.com, karen(a)karenmerriam.com, jscorbett(a)mindspring.com, jheising(a)usd.edu, kjohnflaherty(a)yahoo.com, katibug1959(a)aol.com, davidhornbecklaw(a)msn.com, wyh(a)xmission.com, puffin(a)mbay.net, ddickson(a)burlingtontelecom.net, fewmit(a)comcast.net, jimdougherty(a)aol.com, jim_scon(a)yahoo.com, marthamdelrio(a)yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 5:42 PM As we work to create a clean energy economy and solve our climate crisis we face incredible opposition from groups funded by Big Oil and Coal. You are invited to join a Club-wide teleconference “Call to Action on Global Warming and Energy” to hear how you can help create the groundswell of support needed to move these priorities forward this year. When: Tuesday, August 4 th at 8:30pm Eastern Number: 866.501.6174 code: 223 9223 Draft Agenda: - Welcome and Context - International and Federal Legislative Action - Administrative Action: Big Picture Campaign - Questions and Answers Hope you can make it!

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC August 2009