EC February 2010

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

15 participants
35 discussions

Fwd: [wvec-board] Wind Turbine Indiana Bat mortality
by James Kotcon 11 Feb '10

11 Feb '10

FYI. JBK >>> Dave Cowan <dcowan(a)frontiernet.net> 2/11/2010 6:11 PM >>> FYI, the first confirmed kill of an Indiana Bat by a wind turbine. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/News/release.cfm?rid=177 Dave Cowan __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group Messages in this topic (2) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Start a New Topic MARKETPLACE Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Re: [EC] WV Net Metering Summary
by John Christensen 07 Feb '10

07 Feb '10

This is something I found this am concerning net metering programs and how WV ranks near the bottom as is...we got an F as usual, where as Va. got a C. John Christensen WV Environmental Council Lobby Team Member 410-499-4873 cell www.wvecouncil.org ----- Original Message ----- From: John Balasko To: jbc329@earthlink.net;fyoung@mountain.net;jkotcon@wvu.edu;billhowley@hughes.net;ec@osenergy.org;mjmb@westco.net;Larry;WVBiker98@aol.com Sent: 2/6/2010 11:39:44 PM Subject: WV Net Metering Summary The attachment contains a summary of WV's net metering "rules" as they now stand. I've copied from the site in case you are not able to open the attachment. http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=WV03R&re=1&… West Virginia - Net Metering Last DSIRE Review: 07/02/2009 Program Overview: State:West Virginia Incentive Type:Net Metering Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies:Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells, Small Hydroelectric Applicable Sectors:Commercial, Residential Applicable Utilities:All utilities System Capacity Limit:25 kW Aggregate Capacity Limit:0.1% of utility's total load participation (utility tariff provision) Net Excess Generation:Credited to customer's next bill at retail rate REC Ownership:Not addressed Meter Aggregation:Not addressed Authority 1: West Virginia PSC Order, Case No. 06-0708-E-GI Date Enacted: 12/12/2006 Authority 2: West Virginia PSC Order, Case No. 06-0708-E-GI Date Enacted: 1/26/2007 Authority 3: HB 103 Date Enacted: 06/02/2009 Date Effective: 07/01/2009

2 1

Re: [EC] [WVaPATH] Re: WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy
by John Christensen 07 Feb '10

07 Feb '10

The net metering bill is officially in the hopper today at 3pm, should come out with a number next week if all goes well. Will advise. Anybody planning on coming down for E-Day on the 24th? John Christensen WV Environmental Council Lobby Team Member 410-499-4873 cell www.wvecouncil.org > [Original Message] > From: Frank Young <fyoung(a)mountain.net> > To: <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>; Art and Pam Dodds <pamelart(a)hughes.net>; James Kotcon <James.Kotcon(a)mail.wvu.edu>; Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net>; <ec(a)osenergy.org>; John balasko <mjmb(a)westco.net>; Larry <LMWatBullRun(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: <dsgjr(a)aol.com>; <wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com> > Date: 2/4/2010 5:58:11 PM > Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy > > John, 2000 KW (2 megawatts) is the generating capacity of only one single > wind turbine in the typical "wind farms" of today. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Christensen" <jbc329(a)earthlink.net> > To: "Art and Pam Dodds" <pamelart(a)hughes.net>; "Frank Young" > <fyoung(a)mountain.net>; "James Kotcon" <James.Kotcon(a)mail.wvu.edu>; "Bill > Howley" <billhowley(a)hughes.net>; <ec(a)osenergy.org>; "John balasko" > <mjmb(a)westco.net>; "Larry" <LMWatBullRun(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: <dsgjr(a)aol.com>; <wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" > energy > > > > Art and Pam, there is nothing in the bill that promotes large wind farms > > to > > my knowledge. How many KW would those type generators produce? The max > > in > > this bill would be 2000 KW total for industrial applications. > > > > John Christensen > > WV Environmental Council > > Lobby Team Member > > 410-499-4873 cell > > www.wvecouncil.org > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Art and Pam Dodds <pamelart(a)hughes.net> > >> To: <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>; Frank Young <fyoung(a)mountain.net>; James > > Kotcon <James.Kotcon(a)mail.wvu.edu>; Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net>; > > <ec(a)osenergy.org>; John balasko <mjmb(a)westco.net>; Larry > > <LMWatBullRun(a)yahoo.com> > >> Cc: <dsgjr(a)aol.com>; <wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com> > >> Date: 2/4/2010 10:42:59 AM > >> Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" > > energy > >> > >> Greetings: > >> > >> The use of solar and wind, which are volatile sources, requires more coal > > to > >> be burned than if they were not in the system at all. This makes the > > waste > >> products such as tires, bio-fuel, methane from coal beds, and trash, more > >> reliable and will reduce the amount of coal used instead of increasing > > the > >> amount of coal used. > >> > >> Residential solar panels and residential small windmills provide energy > > that > >> can be stored in batteries and used when needed, without negative impacts > > to > >> the grid or to the environment. Residential renewables save coal and > > money > >> to the person at the residence by storage of energy in batteries and by > > net > >> metering. HOWEVER, industrial-scale wind turbines require electricity > > from > >> the grid in order to operate properly, require coal-fired plants to > > operate > >> at all times for the required reliable back-up, and require that the > >> coal-fired boilers ramp up and down to keep pace with the volatile wind > >> source. It is important to remember that the generating capacity of the > >> coal-fired or nuclear plants must be maintained at the projected load, > >> regardless of what other volatile sources of energy, such as wind and > > solar, > >> are in the system. > >> > >> Additionally, construction of industrial-scale wind turbines on our > > mountain > >> ridges requires thousands of acres of deforestation, results in habitat > >> fragmentation, causes negative impacts to our water resources due to > >> increased stormwater runoff and decreased groundwater recharge, and > >> slaughters bats and birds (for example, it is estimated that 3,000 bats > > are > >> killed annually at Backbone Mountain alone). The cumulative negative > >> impacts to our water resources by deforestation for transmission lines > > and > >> industrial-scale wind turbines, in addition to the horrid mountain-top > >> removal operations, will create water resource problems that will > > ultimately > >> be irreversible. We strongly advise that you NOT add wording that > > promotes > >> construction of industrial-scale wind turbines. Incentives for SMALL, > >> RESIDENTIAL windmills would help tremendously to reduce the need for > >> electricity from the grid. > >> > >> Pam and Art Dodds > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Larry" <LMWatBullRun(a)yahoo.com> > >> To: <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>; "Frank Young" <fyoung(a)mountain.net>; "James > >> Kotcon" <James.Kotcon(a)mail.wvu.edu>; "Bill Howley" > > <billhowley(a)hughes.net>; > >> <ec(a)osenergy.org>; "John balasko" <mjmb(a)westco.net> > >> Cc: <dsgjr(a)aol.com>; <wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com> > >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 6:02 AM > >> Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" > >> energy > >> > >> > >> I think that this is an improvement. There are two issues- reducing the > >> need for new plants, and reducing the environmental impact. Does this > > bill > >> address the 1% cap issue? There is no technical reason not to permit a > >> greater percentage than 1%, especially for relatively reliable sources > > such > >> as waste to energy boilers. > >> > >> We might also suggest some way for preferred sources (like those with > > less > >> impact (solar, wind) or those most reliable (WVO diesel, etc)) to > > supersede > >> more traditional sources, too. I can craft some language for that if > >> desired. > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: John Christensen > >> To: Frank Young ; James Kotcon ; Bill Howley ; ec(a)osenergy.org ; John > >> balasko > >> Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com ; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:07 PM > >> Subject: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" > > energy > >> > >> > >> the new rules we are proposing in Manypenny's bill tba....please advice > > as > >> to any problems > >> > >> John Christensen > >> WV Environmental Council > >> Lobby Team Member > >> 410-499-4873 cell > >> www.wvecouncil.org > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Frank Young > >> To: James Kotcon;Bill Howley;ec(a)osenergy.org;John Balasko > >> Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net > >> Sent: 2/3/2010 8:00:11 PM > >> Subject: Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy > >> > >> > >> But Jim, the net metering rules of 2006 or 2007, promulgated as part > > of > >> the PSC's tariff making authority, apply only to generators up to 25 > >> Kilowatt (KW) capacity. Anything beyond 25 KW- which an industrial > > facility > >> using a waste coal or natural gas generator would be, would fall under > > the > >> federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)- which > >> requires utilities to buy power from qualified facility generators at > >> "avoided cost". So the various line capacities and previous year > > aggregate > >> loads do not apply to anything beyond 25 KW anyway. > >> > >> Frank > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: James Kotcon > >> To: Bill Howley ; ec(a)osenergy.org ; John Balasko > >> Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com ; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com ; jbc329(a)earthlink.net > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:04 AM > >> Subject: Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy > >> > >> > >> The original net-metering rules, established around 2007, only > > applied > >> to large utilities, and exempted the small municipal systems and rural > > coops > >> in the state. This new rule would apply to all sellers of electricity, > >> including those smaller systems with <30,000 customers. > >> > >> The new net-metering rules were mandated in the Alternative and > >> Renewable Energy Portfolio Act of 2009, pushed by Gov. Manchin. The > > biggest > >> concern I have is that it extends the net-metering to non-renewable > > sources > >> including various coal, tire-derived-fuels, natural gas, waste coal, and > >> coal-bed methane. Furthermore, it retains the limit of 1 % of the > > utilities > >> aggregate load, and no more than 15 % on any one 3-phase line or 5 % on a > >> single-phase line. I think that means that an industrial facility using > > a > >> waste coal or natural gas generator could preclude net-metering to > >> residences using wind or solar. The more I think about this, the more it > >> seems like a REALLY BIG PROBLEM. > >> > >> While the Governor's bill established the portfolio standard, it is > >> not clear that it was meant to apply to the net-metering program. > >> > >> JBK > >> > >> >>> "John Balasko" <mjmb(a)westco.net> 2/3/2010 10:49 AM >>> > >> > >> > >> This may be the original "net metering order" filed by the > >> Commissioners for all electric utilities. Why don't the currently > > proposed > >> rules apply to all electric utilities and not just those with less than > >> 30,000 customers, and what are the significant differences? In response > > to > >> the case 06-0708-E-GI, several smaller utilities filed net metering > > tariffs > >> with the Commission. Mr. Rodecker filed for the Philipi utility. I'm > > new > >> to this area, but I was told by a friend who has solar panels that excess > >> generation produced by the customer was not paid for by the utility. The > >> currently proposed rules provide for a true-up at the end of each > > reporting > >> period. I'll have to do some more reading. > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> 06-0708-E-GI 01/26/2007 Order View Document > >> General investigation into net metering, smart metering and > >> interconnection standards set forth in the Federal Energy Policy Act of > > 2005 > >> Commission Final Order that all electric utilities > > providing > >> service are directed to file the net metering tariff on or before > > 2/15/2007; > >> that each electric utility shall inform its customers of the net metering > >> tariff and contact information for those customers interested; that each > >> utility shall file affidavit evidencing notice on or before 4/10/2007; > > etc. > >> Case Final. Removing from open docket. > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Bill Howley > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:49 AM > >> To: John Balasko > >> Cc: owner(a)goetc.com ; WVBiker98(a)aol.com ; WVaPATH(a)yahoogroups.com > >> Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] WV Net Metering????? > >> > >> > >> The rules for larger power companies may already be in place. I > > know > >> of quite a few people who have been doing net metering with Allegheny and > >> Appalachian Power for a couple of years now. The rules you note only > > apply > >> to smaller utilities that do not have net metering programs in place. > >> Allegheny has been doing net metering in MD for ten years. They already > >> have programs set up. This rule is specifically for smaller WV > > companies, > >> because they have never had to do net metering before. > >> > >> Del. Mike Manypenny from Taylor County has introduced a bill in the > >> current legislative session that would dramatically expand WV's net > > metering > >> program. Right now, net metering is set up so that any credits you run > > by > >> producing more power than you use disappear in a relatively short time. > >> Manypenny's new bill (I'll get you a bill number soon) allows businesses, > >> homeowners and farmers to become net producers of electricity by > > requiring > >> power companies to actually purchase power from you up to certain limits. > > I > >> believe Manypenny's bill requires power companies to buy power up to 3 > >> megawatt hours per year from businesses and 1 megawatt hour per year from > >> farmers. > >> > >> John Balasko wrote: > >> > >> > >> Thom, Kathy, Donna, Bill, WVPATH > >> > >> I thought you all might enjoy the continuation of this joke that > > we > >> have gotten ourselves into. > >> > >> Is this something that requires lobbying action? > >> > >> > > http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityID > > =288733&NotType='WebDocket' > >> > >> GO 258 02/02/2010 Order View Document > >> General Order No. 258 > >> Commission Procedural Order that the Rules Governing > >> Electric Utility Net-Metering Arrangements and Interconnections are > >> promulgated as Commission proposed legislative rules; directing the > >> Executive Secretary to publish a copy of the Notice of Rulemaking in > >> Charleston; directing the Executive Secretary to serve a copy of the > > Notice > >> by electronic mail or by First Class Mail upon all electric utilities > >> operating in WV; directing the Executive Secretary to file a copy of the > >> Rules with the Office of the Secretary of State; establishing a comment > >> period; Initial Comments may be filed on or before 4/4/2010; Reply > > Comments > >> may be filed until 5/5/2010; etc. > >> > >> > >> The way I read the proposed rules Allegheny Power and Appalachian > >> Power would be exempt from net metering because they serve more than > > 30,000 > >> customers. > >> > >> Here is a list of the other generators affected: > >> > >> Black Diamond Power, Elk Power, Union Power, City of New > >> Martinsville, City of Philippi, Craig-Botetourt Electric Coop; Harrison > >> Rural Electrification, Shenandoah Valley Electric > >> > >> > >> Also, "The total rated generating capacity of all customers > >> served > >> under this tariff shall be limited to one percent (1%) of the > >> Company single hour peak load > >> > >> during the previous year. > >> > >> > >> Do you think the legislature will approve the proposed rules????? > >> The whole state and everything in it is controlled by COAL. > >> > >> Why do we allow our metallurgical coal to be shipped to China, > >> India, and Eastern Europe by Consol, Massey, and others. If these > > companies > >> and our "leaders" were so concerned about "national security," the > > shipments > >> would be stopped. > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> EC mailing list > >> EC(a)osenergy.org > >> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > >> > > > > > > >

5 4

New Poll - Americans support clean energy, including cap-and-trade.
by Jim Sconyers 07 Feb '10

07 Feb '10

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/06/yet-another-poll-from-yale-shows-wide-s… New Poll - Americans support clean energy, including cap-and-trade. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

WV Net Metering Summary
by John Balasko 06 Feb '10

06 Feb '10

The attachment contains a summary of WV's net metering "rules" as they now stand. I've copied from the site in case you are not able to open the attachment. http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=WV03R&re=1&… West Virginia - Net Metering -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last DSIRE Review: 07/02/2009 Program Overview: State: West Virginia Incentive Type: Net Metering Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies: Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells, Small Hydroelectric Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Residential Applicable Utilities: All utilities System Capacity Limit: 25 kW Aggregate Capacity Limit: 0.1% of utility's total load participation (utility tariff provision) Net Excess Generation: Credited to customer's next bill at retail rate REC Ownership: Not addressed Meter Aggregation: Not addressed Authority 1: West Virginia PSC Order, Case No. 06-0708-E-GI Date Enacted: 12/12/2006 Authority 2: West Virginia PSC Order, Case No. 06-0708-E-GI Date Enacted: 1/26/2007 Authority 3: HB 103 Date Enacted: 06/02/2009 Date Effective: 07/01/2009

1 0

Good news from the SEC; Usable graph on energy taxes, not good on nuclear
by James Kotcon 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

Two recent news items worth paying attention to. 1) The Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Jan. 27 to require all publicly traded companies to project and disclose to stockholders their vulnerabilities to climate risks. (Wonder what Massey Energy's report will say? Will they tell their stockholders the truth, or regurgitate the Blankenship bloviations?) http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100129/sec-decision-requiring-disclosure-cli… 2) The Obama Administration's proposed budget would close tax loopholes for fossil fuel companies estimated at $36 Billion. Rep. Shelly Capito is crying about how awful it is, and Jay Rockefeller thinks this is "not the year to do it". This article has a good graphic representation of tax subsidies for various energy resources. http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100201/obama-budget-erases-fossil-fuel-subsi… JBK

2 1

Fw: Mountaintop Mining Briefing on Capitol Hill
by Frank Young 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

Clean Water Network News CWN is the largest national coalition in the country working to protect ALL of the waters of the U.S., including the nation's Great Waters, rivers, streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, coastal areas and wetlands. February 5th, 2010 Don't miss this upcoming Congressional Briefing! Mountaintop Removal Mining and Its Impacts on Water Quality and Human Health Hosted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin and Senator Lamar Alexander Tuesday February 9th, 2010 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM 406 Dirksen (EPW Hearing Room) Speakers: Dr. Margaret A. Palmer: Director, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Dr. Emily S. Bernhardt: Assistant Professor, Duke University Keith N. Eshleman: Professor, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Michael Hendryx: Director, West Virginia Rural Health Research Center and Associate Professor, West Virginia University Dr. A. Dennis Lemly: Professor, Wake Forest University Dr. Orie Loucks: Professor, Miami University Summary: Over the past thirty years, there has been a significant increase in mountaintop removal mining to extract coal and other minerals. This briefing will examine the impacts of mountaintop removal mining on water quality and human health in the Appalachia region and how it affects the quality of life for residents living in its coalfields. Science magazine recently published an article on the ecological and human health impacts of mountaintop removal mining and valley fills. The authors argue that peer-reviewed research unequivocally documents that mountaintop removal mining causes irreversible environmental impacts and exposes local residents to a higher risk of serious health problems. The lead author of this article, Dr. Palmer, along with several co-authors, will discuss their findings and be available to answer questions. For more information, please contact Sarah Greenberger (sarah_greenberger(a)cardin.senate.gov; 4-4524) or Curtis Swager (curtis_swager(a)alexander.senate.gov; 4-4944). Speaker Biographies: Dr. Margaret A. Palmer Margaret Palmer is Director of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL) in Solomons, MD. Prior to assuming directorship in 2005, she taught and conducted research for 17 years as a Professor at the University of Maryland in College Park. Palmer completed her M.S. and Ph.D. in Coastal Oceanography at the University of South Carolina and her B.S. in Biology from Emory University. Dr. Palmer's research expertise is riverine science, particularly stream and river restoration. She has more than 100 scientific publications, serves as an editor for the journal Restoration Ecology and published the book The Foundations of Restoration Ecology in 2006. Dr. Palmer has been honored as an AAAS Fellow, an Aldo Leopold Leadership Fellow, a Lilly Fellow, a Distinguished Scholar Teacher, and with an Ecological Society of America Distinguished Service Award. Dr. Emily S. Bernhardt Emily Bernhardt is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biology at Duke University in Durham, NC. Prior to joining the faculty of Duke, Bernhardt coordinated the National River Restoration Science Synthesis which assessed the status of river restoration projects nationally. Dr. Bernhardt completed her Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Cornell University and also holds a B.S. degree in biology from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Bernhardt's research expertise is in watershed biogeochemistry and stream and wetland restoration. Dr. Bernhardt is the recipient of a Career Award from the National Science Foundation and the H.G. Hynes early career award from the North American Benthological Society. Dr. Keith N. Eshleman Keith Eshleman is Professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science - Appalachian Laboratory in Frostburg, Maryland. Dr. Eshleman completed his Ph.D. in Water Resources at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and holds a B.A. degree in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia and a S.M. degree in Civil Engineering from M.I.T. He has published more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and dozens of technical reports in his career and is co-author of an undergraduate textbook entitled Elements of Physical Hydrology. Eshleman's research interests are in the areas of watershed and wetlands hydrology, groundwater/surface water interactions, biogeochemical processes in upland and wetland ecosystems, hydrochemical modeling, and ecosystem responses to disturbance and land use change. Recent research projects have focused on the hydrological impacts of acid deposition, forest disturbances, and surface mining activities in the Appalachian Mountain region. Dr. Michael Hendryx Michael Hendryx is Director of the West Virginia Rural Health Research Center and Associate Professor in the Department of Community Medicine at West Virginia University. He has also held faculty appointments at Washington State University and the University of Iowa. He completed his M.S. and Ph.D. in Psychology from Northwestern University and completed his B.S. in Psychology from the University of Nevada. Dr. Hendryx's area of expertise is in the public health impacts of coal mining in Appalachia, in terms of both socioeconomic and environmental risks to health. He has more than 90 peer-reviewed publications, several book chapters and numerous scientific presentations at national meetings. Dr. Hendryx has been nominated for the West Virginia University School of Medicine Distinguished Teaching Award, and teaches health policy in the Community Medicine department. Dr. A. Dennis Lemly Dennis Lemly is a scientist specializing in the ecotoxicology of selenium, a trace element pollutant associated with coal mining, coal combustion waste, and other sources. Dr. Lemly completed his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Biology from Wake Forest University, where he is a Research Professor of Biology, and received his B.S. from Western Carolina University. He has over 30 years of research experience with this environmental contaminant, and has conducted intensive investigations of numerous cases of selenium pollution, including Belews Lake, North Carolina, where 19 species of fish were eliminated, and Kesterson Marsh, California, where thousands of aquatic birds were poisoned. Dr. Lemly has published 47 research articles on selenium toxicity to fish and wildlife, as well as the reference book Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems. Lemly has consulted on selenium pollution issues ranging from power plant waste in Australia to mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. He is Associate Editor of the international research journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Dr. Orie Loucks Dr. Orie Loucks began his career with the Department of Forestry in Canada (1955-1962) and joined the Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin in 1962. He served as Director of the Center for Biotic Systems, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, and headed interdisciplinary studies of the impacts of coal-fired electricity generation in Wisconsin. River in central Wisconsin. After joining Miami University in 1989, Dr. Loucks continued studies of air pollution and mining effects on forests in the Ohio Valley. In the mid-1980's Dr. Loucks was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Water Science and Technology, and was U.S. Co-chair of the joint NRC-NAS/Royal Society of Canada study reviewing the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Please help Clean Water Network continue to expand and provide key member services to grassroots groups across the country. DONATE to the Network today! Clean Water Network 218 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003 202.547.4208 check out our website at: www.cleanwaternetwork.org Forward email This email was sent to clrank(a)hughes.net by jenniferpeters(a)cwn.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by Clean Water Network | 218 D St. SE | Washington | DC | 20003

1 0

Fwd: press release on our West Virginia MTR CWA victory
by Paul Wilson 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '10

kudos to Bill Price! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cramer, Virginia <virginia.cramer(a)apps.sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM Subject: press release on our West Virginia MTR CWA victory To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Good news from West Virginia. - ginny FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 4, 2010 Contact: Virginia Cramer, 804-225-9113 x 102 *Judge Rules Mountaintop Removal Coal Mines Polluting West Virginia Waterways* State’s efforts to help companies avoid penalties are invalid Charleston, WV: A judge has found that Powellton Coal Company has repeatedly violated the law by polluting West Virginia waterways, and has ordered a trial to further investigate scores of additional violations at Powellton’s Bridge Fork mountaintop removal coal mining complex in Fayette County. Among those waterways polluted are the tributaries that feed the Gauley River, a world-class whitewater run and prime tourist destination. The judge’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by Sierra Club and the Ansted Historic Preservation Council. The judge also found that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) could not act to insulate the coal company from clean water regulations. The WVDEP had issued “modification orders” in an attempt to allow the company to continue polluting. Those orders were ruled invalid. “This is another important step forward in holding Powellton responsible for their clean water violations. Water is our most important resource,” said Katheryne Hoffman, president of the Ansted Historic Preservation Council. “For Fayette County tourism is our economy. If they ruin these waters our future is gone. We have so much to offer and we need to protect that.” “Powellton knows about this pollution, but instead of paying to treat it at the source they just pass the costs along to the public, to the people and communities that rely on these waters for their well-being,” said Jim Sconyers, WV Chapter Chair of the Sierra Club. “They view these violations as just the cost of doing business.” The Ansted Historic Preservation Council and the Sierra Club challenged the Bridge Fork West mountaintop removal coal mine last year, raising serious concerns about the pollution from the mine’s valley fills and its impact on historic sites, local communities and tourist draws in the area. Pollution from the Bridge Fork mining complex has continually exceeded legal limits, leading to high levels of toxic aluminum, manganese and other pollution in nearby waterways. One of these waterways, which feed the Gauley River, is Rich Creek, well known for its trout fishing. “Common sense tells us that dumping toxic aluminum into a renowned trout stream is bad,” said Sierra Club Environmental Justice organizer Bill Price. “We should be protecting these economic drivers, using these sources of tourism to build some much needed diversity into our economy, not sacrificing them to more coal mining.” Aluminum pollution can sicken or kill fish. It can also lead to lower fish populations since eggs and larvae are more sensitive to aluminum pollution than mature fish. The groups are represented in their efforts by Derek Teaney and Joe Lovett of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. ### -- Virginia Cramer Associate Press Secretary Sierra Club tel: 804-225-9113 x 102 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

Re: [EC] [WVaPATH] Re: WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy
by Larry 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '10

I think that this is an improvement. There are two issues- reducing the need for new plants, and reducing the environmental impact. Does this bill address the 1% cap issue? There is no technical reason not to permit a greater percentage than 1%, especially for relatively reliable sources such as waste to energy boilers. We might also suggest some way for preferred sources (like those with less impact (solar, wind) or those most reliable (WVO diesel, etc)) to supersede more traditional sources, too. I can craft some language for that if desired. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Christensen To: Frank Young ; James Kotcon ; Bill Howley ; ec(a)osenergy.org ; John balasko Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com ; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:07 PM Subject: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy the new rules we are proposing in Manypenny's bill tba....please advice as to any problems John Christensen WV Environmental Council Lobby Team Member 410-499-4873 cell www.wvecouncil.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Young To: James Kotcon;Bill Howley;ec(a)osenergy.org;John Balasko Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net Sent: 2/3/2010 8:00:11 PM Subject: Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy But Jim, the net metering rules of 2006 or 2007, promulgated as part of the PSC's tariff making authority, apply only to generators up to 25 Kilowatt (KW) capacity. Anything beyond 25 KW- which an industrial facility using a waste coal or natural gas generator would be, would fall under the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)- which requires utilities to buy power from qualified facility generators at "avoided cost". So the various line capacities and previous year aggregate loads do not apply to anything beyond 25 KW anyway. Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: James Kotcon To: Bill Howley ; ec(a)osenergy.org ; John Balasko Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com ; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com ; jbc329(a)earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy The original net-metering rules, established around 2007, only applied to large utilities, and exempted the small municipal systems and rural coops in the state. This new rule would apply to all sellers of electricity, including those smaller systems with <30,000 customers. The new net-metering rules were mandated in the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act of 2009, pushed by Gov. Manchin. The biggest concern I have is that it extends the net-metering to non-renewable sources including various coal, tire-derived-fuels, natural gas, waste coal, and coal-bed methane. Furthermore, it retains the limit of 1 % of the utilities aggregate load, and no more than 15 % on any one 3-phase line or 5 % on a single-phase line. I think that means that an industrial facility using a waste coal or natural gas generator could preclude net-metering to residences using wind or solar. The more I think about this, the more it seems like a REALLY BIG PROBLEM. While the Governor's bill established the portfolio standard, it is not clear that it was meant to apply to the net-metering program. JBK >>> "John Balasko" <mjmb(a)westco.net> 2/3/2010 10:49 AM >>> This may be the original "net metering order" filed by the Commissioners for all electric utilities. Why don't the currently proposed rules apply to all electric utilities and not just those with less than 30,000 customers, and what are the significant differences? In response to the case 06-0708-E-GI, several smaller utilities filed net metering tariffs with the Commission. Mr. Rodecker filed for the Philipi utility. I'm new to this area, but I was told by a friend who has solar panels that excess generation produced by the customer was not paid for by the utility. The currently proposed rules provide for a true-up at the end of each reporting period. I'll have to do some more reading. John 06-0708-E-GI 01/26/2007 Order View Document General investigation into net metering, smart metering and interconnection standards set forth in the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 Commission Final Order that all electric utilities providing service are directed to file the net metering tariff on or before 2/15/2007; that each electric utility shall inform its customers of the net metering tariff and contact information for those customers interested; that each utility shall file affidavit evidencing notice on or before 4/10/2007; etc. Case Final. Removing from open docket. From: Bill Howley Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:49 AM To: John Balasko Cc: owner(a)goetc.com ; WVBiker98(a)aol.com ; WVaPATH(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] WV Net Metering????? The rules for larger power companies may already be in place. I know of quite a few people who have been doing net metering with Allegheny and Appalachian Power for a couple of years now. The rules you note only apply to smaller utilities that do not have net metering programs in place. Allegheny has been doing net metering in MD for ten years. They already have programs set up. This rule is specifically for smaller WV companies, because they have never had to do net metering before. Del. Mike Manypenny from Taylor County has introduced a bill in the current legislative session that would dramatically expand WV's net metering program. Right now, net metering is set up so that any credits you run by producing more power than you use disappear in a relatively short time. Manypenny's new bill (I'll get you a bill number soon) allows businesses, homeowners and farmers to become net producers of electricity by requiring power companies to actually purchase power from you up to certain limits. I believe Manypenny's bill requires power companies to buy power up to 3 megawatt hours per year from businesses and 1 megawatt hour per year from farmers. John Balasko wrote: Thom, Kathy, Donna, Bill, WVPATH I thought you all might enjoy the continuation of this joke that we have gotten ourselves into. Is this something that requires lobbying action? http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'WebDocket' GO 258 02/02/2010 Order View Document General Order No. 258 Commission Procedural Order that the Rules Governing Electric Utility Net-Metering Arrangements and Interconnections are promulgated as Commission proposed legislative rules; directing the Executive Secretary to publish a copy of the Notice of Rulemaking in Charleston; directing the Executive Secretary to serve a copy of the Notice by electronic mail or by First Class Mail upon all electric utilities operating in WV; directing the Executive Secretary to file a copy of the Rules with the Office of the Secretary of State; establishing a comment period; Initial Comments may be filed on or before 4/4/2010; Reply Comments may be filed until 5/5/2010; etc. The way I read the proposed rules Allegheny Power and Appalachian Power would be exempt from net metering because they serve more than 30,000 customers. Here is a list of the other generators affected: Black Diamond Power, Elk Power, Union Power, City of New Martinsville, City of Philippi, Craig-Botetourt Electric Coop; Harrison Rural Electrification, Shenandoah Valley Electric Also, "The total rated generating capacity of all customers served under this tariff shall be limited to one percent (1%) of the Company single hour peak load during the previous year. Do you think the legislature will approve the proposed rules????? The whole state and everything in it is controlled by COAL. Why do we allow our metallurgical coal to be shipped to China, India, and Eastern Europe by Consol, Massey, and others. If these companies and our "leaders" were so concerned about "national security," the shipments would be stopped. John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

4 3

Re: [EC] [WVaPATH] Re: WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy
by John Christensen 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '10

Art and Pam, there is nothing in the bill that promotes large wind farms to my knowledge. How many KW would those type generators produce? The max in this bill would be 2000 KW total for industrial applications. John Christensen WV Environmental Council Lobby Team Member 410-499-4873 cell www.wvecouncil.org > [Original Message] > From: Art and Pam Dodds <pamelart(a)hughes.net> > To: <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>; Frank Young <fyoung(a)mountain.net>; James Kotcon <James.Kotcon(a)mail.wvu.edu>; Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net>; <ec(a)osenergy.org>; John balasko <mjmb(a)westco.net>; Larry <LMWatBullRun(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: <dsgjr(a)aol.com>; <wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com> > Date: 2/4/2010 10:42:59 AM > Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy > > Greetings: > > The use of solar and wind, which are volatile sources, requires more coal to > be burned than if they were not in the system at all. This makes the waste > products such as tires, bio-fuel, methane from coal beds, and trash, more > reliable and will reduce the amount of coal used instead of increasing the > amount of coal used. > > Residential solar panels and residential small windmills provide energy that > can be stored in batteries and used when needed, without negative impacts to > the grid or to the environment. Residential renewables save coal and money > to the person at the residence by storage of energy in batteries and by net > metering. HOWEVER, industrial-scale wind turbines require electricity from > the grid in order to operate properly, require coal-fired plants to operate > at all times for the required reliable back-up, and require that the > coal-fired boilers ramp up and down to keep pace with the volatile wind > source. It is important to remember that the generating capacity of the > coal-fired or nuclear plants must be maintained at the projected load, > regardless of what other volatile sources of energy, such as wind and solar, > are in the system. > > Additionally, construction of industrial-scale wind turbines on our mountain > ridges requires thousands of acres of deforestation, results in habitat > fragmentation, causes negative impacts to our water resources due to > increased stormwater runoff and decreased groundwater recharge, and > slaughters bats and birds (for example, it is estimated that 3,000 bats are > killed annually at Backbone Mountain alone). The cumulative negative > impacts to our water resources by deforestation for transmission lines and > industrial-scale wind turbines, in addition to the horrid mountain-top > removal operations, will create water resource problems that will ultimately > be irreversible. We strongly advise that you NOT add wording that promotes > construction of industrial-scale wind turbines. Incentives for SMALL, > RESIDENTIAL windmills would help tremendously to reduce the need for > electricity from the grid. > > Pam and Art Dodds > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry" <LMWatBullRun(a)yahoo.com> > To: <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>; "Frank Young" <fyoung(a)mountain.net>; "James > Kotcon" <James.Kotcon(a)mail.wvu.edu>; "Bill Howley" <billhowley(a)hughes.net>; > <ec(a)osenergy.org>; "John balasko" <mjmb(a)westco.net> > Cc: <dsgjr(a)aol.com>; <wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 6:02 AM > Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" > energy > > > I think that this is an improvement. There are two issues- reducing the > need for new plants, and reducing the environmental impact. Does this bill > address the 1% cap issue? There is no technical reason not to permit a > greater percentage than 1%, especially for relatively reliable sources such > as waste to energy boilers. > > We might also suggest some way for preferred sources (like those with less > impact (solar, wind) or those most reliable (WVO diesel, etc)) to supersede > more traditional sources, too. I can craft some language for that if > desired. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Christensen > To: Frank Young ; James Kotcon ; Bill Howley ; ec(a)osenergy.org ; John > balasko > Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com ; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:07 PM > Subject: [WVaPATH] Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy > > > the new rules we are proposing in Manypenny's bill tba....please advice as > to any problems > > John Christensen > WV Environmental Council > Lobby Team Member > 410-499-4873 cell > www.wvecouncil.org > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Frank Young > To: James Kotcon;Bill Howley;ec(a)osenergy.org;John Balasko > Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net > Sent: 2/3/2010 8:00:11 PM > Subject: Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy > > > But Jim, the net metering rules of 2006 or 2007, promulgated as part of > the PSC's tariff making authority, apply only to generators up to 25 > Kilowatt (KW) capacity. Anything beyond 25 KW- which an industrial facility > using a waste coal or natural gas generator would be, would fall under the > federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)- which > requires utilities to buy power from qualified facility generators at > "avoided cost". So the various line capacities and previous year aggregate > loads do not apply to anything beyond 25 KW anyway. > > Frank > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: James Kotcon > To: Bill Howley ; ec(a)osenergy.org ; John Balasko > Cc: dsgjr(a)aol.com ; wvapath(a)yahoogroups.com ; jbc329(a)earthlink.net > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:04 AM > Subject: Re: [EC] WV Net Metering rules vs. "Alternative" energy > > > The original net-metering rules, established around 2007, only applied > to large utilities, and exempted the small municipal systems and rural coops > in the state. This new rule would apply to all sellers of electricity, > including those smaller systems with <30,000 customers. > > The new net-metering rules were mandated in the Alternative and > Renewable Energy Portfolio Act of 2009, pushed by Gov. Manchin. The biggest > concern I have is that it extends the net-metering to non-renewable sources > including various coal, tire-derived-fuels, natural gas, waste coal, and > coal-bed methane. Furthermore, it retains the limit of 1 % of the utilities > aggregate load, and no more than 15 % on any one 3-phase line or 5 % on a > single-phase line. I think that means that an industrial facility using a > waste coal or natural gas generator could preclude net-metering to > residences using wind or solar. The more I think about this, the more it > seems like a REALLY BIG PROBLEM. > > While the Governor's bill established the portfolio standard, it is > not clear that it was meant to apply to the net-metering program. > > JBK > > >>> "John Balasko" <mjmb(a)westco.net> 2/3/2010 10:49 AM >>> > > > This may be the original "net metering order" filed by the > Commissioners for all electric utilities. Why don't the currently proposed > rules apply to all electric utilities and not just those with less than > 30,000 customers, and what are the significant differences? In response to > the case 06-0708-E-GI, several smaller utilities filed net metering tariffs > with the Commission. Mr. Rodecker filed for the Philipi utility. I'm new > to this area, but I was told by a friend who has solar panels that excess > generation produced by the customer was not paid for by the utility. The > currently proposed rules provide for a true-up at the end of each reporting > period. I'll have to do some more reading. > > John > > > 06-0708-E-GI 01/26/2007 Order View Document > General investigation into net metering, smart metering and > interconnection standards set forth in the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 > Commission Final Order that all electric utilities providing > service are directed to file the net metering tariff on or before 2/15/2007; > that each electric utility shall inform its customers of the net metering > tariff and contact information for those customers interested; that each > utility shall file affidavit evidencing notice on or before 4/10/2007; etc. > Case Final. Removing from open docket. > > > > From: Bill Howley > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:49 AM > To: John Balasko > Cc: owner(a)goetc.com ; WVBiker98(a)aol.com ; WVaPATH(a)yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] WV Net Metering????? > > > The rules for larger power companies may already be in place. I know > of quite a few people who have been doing net metering with Allegheny and > Appalachian Power for a couple of years now. The rules you note only apply > to smaller utilities that do not have net metering programs in place. > Allegheny has been doing net metering in MD for ten years. They already > have programs set up. This rule is specifically for smaller WV companies, > because they have never had to do net metering before. > > Del. Mike Manypenny from Taylor County has introduced a bill in the > current legislative session that would dramatically expand WV's net metering > program. Right now, net metering is set up so that any credits you run by > producing more power than you use disappear in a relatively short time. > Manypenny's new bill (I'll get you a bill number soon) allows businesses, > homeowners and farmers to become net producers of electricity by requiring > power companies to actually purchase power from you up to certain limits. I > believe Manypenny's bill requires power companies to buy power up to 3 > megawatt hours per year from businesses and 1 megawatt hour per year from > farmers. > > John Balasko wrote: > > > Thom, Kathy, Donna, Bill, WVPATH > > I thought you all might enjoy the continuation of this joke that we > have gotten ourselves into. > > Is this something that requires lobbying action? > > http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityID =288733&NotType='WebDocket' > > GO 258 02/02/2010 Order View Document > General Order No. 258 > Commission Procedural Order that the Rules Governing > Electric Utility Net-Metering Arrangements and Interconnections are > promulgated as Commission proposed legislative rules; directing the > Executive Secretary to publish a copy of the Notice of Rulemaking in > Charleston; directing the Executive Secretary to serve a copy of the Notice > by electronic mail or by First Class Mail upon all electric utilities > operating in WV; directing the Executive Secretary to file a copy of the > Rules with the Office of the Secretary of State; establishing a comment > period; Initial Comments may be filed on or before 4/4/2010; Reply Comments > may be filed until 5/5/2010; etc. > > > The way I read the proposed rules Allegheny Power and Appalachian > Power would be exempt from net metering because they serve more than 30,000 > customers. > > Here is a list of the other generators affected: > > Black Diamond Power, Elk Power, Union Power, City of New > Martinsville, City of Philippi, Craig-Botetourt Electric Coop; Harrison > Rural Electrification, Shenandoah Valley Electric > > > Also, "The total rated generating capacity of all customers served > under this tariff shall be limited to one percent (1%) of the > Company single hour peak load > > during the previous year. > > > Do you think the legislature will approve the proposed rules????? > The whole state and everything in it is controlled by COAL. > > Why do we allow our metallurgical coal to be shipped to China, > India, and Eastern Europe by Consol, Massey, and others. If these companies > and our "leaders" were so concerned about "national security," the shipments > would be stopped. > > John > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > EC mailing list > EC(a)osenergy.org > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec >

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC February 2010