August 2010 - EC - lists.bikelover.org

MTR banks
by Frank Young 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

Blank"Several lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and others, have developed internal lending policies that limit or eliminate their relationships with mining outfits that engage in mountaintop removal mining, which is precisely as it sounds: mining companies simply blast off mountaintops to quickly (and cheaply) gain access to coal seams, dumping the debris in valleys below. "The banks appear to be wagering that mountaintop removal has become sufficiently objectionable that it threatens their reputations if they’re seen as connected to it — something opponents have become all too happy to expose. "The policies also suggest that the environmental risk divisions within these banks believe that the regulatory noose is tightening around this and other forms of extreme surface mining — making it a risky investment on its face." More at: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/new-fault-lines-in-mountaintop-co…

1 0

Earthquakes may be tied to gas drilling activity
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

I sort of suspected this may be the case with the Braxton Country quakes: http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=16275 -Jonathan

1 0

Free Bus to Allalachia Rising
by Jim Sconyers 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

Get on the Bus! Free Bus to Appalachia Rising in Washington Sept. 26/27. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 1

Fwd: WVNS story: Is West Virginia Ready for Wave of Marcellus Drilling?
by Paul Wilson 19 Aug '10

19 Aug '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:02 AM Subject: WVNS story: Is West Virginia Ready for Wave of Marcellus Drilling? To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Public News Service-WV August 19, 2010 Is West Virginia Ready for Wave of Marcellus Drilling? CHARLESTON, W.Va. - According to national and state observers, West Virginia is not ready to deal with the effects of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Nationally, there has been a 40 percent increase in gas drilling in the last six years, a large part of it in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York and Ohio. Documentary director Josh Fox is bringing his film, "Gasland," to Buckhannon this weekend. While making it, he researched the wave of new drilling in many states. "Every place I went was the same story: water contamination and citizens outraged, feeling that they were being overrun because they lost control of their property, feeling that they'd lost control of their lives." Industry supporters point to the economic growth that comes with the new wells, but long-term, the damage could cost more, Fox warns. He praises New York state for putting a one-year moratorium on new drilling. The West Virginia Department of Transportation just announced that drillers will have to put up bonds to pay for possible damage to roads caused by the heavy equipment. But according to Shanda Minney, executive director of the *West Virginia Rivers Coalition*, the state Department of Environmental Protection is unready. "We're absolutely unprepared. We don't have enough inspectors on the ground, and the ones we do have are spread very thinly." In the last two years, Pennsylvania has gone from 36 drilling inspectors to 121. In the same time, West Virginia went from 17 to 21. Fox says he started work on the film so people in various areas could see the national pattern. "That's why I made the film, to connect all these different areas. To show that what was happening in rural West Virginia and rural Pennsylvania was the same thing the same thing happening in Dallas-Fort Worth, the same thing happening in rural Wyoming, same thing happening in Colorado." Fox will introduce his film at 3:30 p.m. on Aug. 22 at the West Virginia Wesleyan College Performing Arts Center (PAC). 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/15541-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/15541-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: Cap & Trade Not Raising Electricity Prices In The Northeast
by James Kotcon 18 Aug '10

18 Aug '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:13 AM Subject: WVNS story: Cap & Trade Not Raising Electricity Prices In The Northeast To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Public News Service-WV August 18, 2010 Cap & Trade Not Raising Electricity Prices In The Northeast CHARLESTON, W. Va. - While climate legislation is stalled in the U.S. Senate, a cap-and-trade system is up and running in much of the Northeast. It's called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), "Reggie" for short. Ten states from Maryland to Maine put a cap on how much carbon can be generated by electric utilities, with a market on carbon emissions among those utilities. Peter Shattuck is a carbon markets policy analyst for Environment Northeast. He says RGGI has already begun to cut emissions and raise millions for developing cleaner forms of energy, without increasing power prices for consumers. "It's showing that cap-and-trade can work, that the sky does not fall down. Electricity prices have actually come down since the start of the program — which is not exclusively due to RGGI, but is encouraging." According to Andrew Light, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a national cap-and-trade system will be needed to meet the country's commitment to reducing emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. However, he believes individual states' plans and regional agreements, such as RGGI, can go a long way toward meeting that goal. "Collectively, together, those will amount to a reduction of about seven percent below 2005 levels by 2020. And so, that's going to be absolutely necessary for the United States to demonstrate any progress internationally." Light also thinks a federal system is better because it would make the policy more uniform and predictable. He says the success of RGGI could be duplicated in similar systems being worked out in Western and Midwestern states — or on an even larger scale. "Really, we might even see a national program that's actually modeled after RGGI coming forward, given that it's probably going to be the first viable American system that we'll see actually in action." The U.S. House passed a climate bill with a national cap-and-trade plan more than a year ago. Opponents have said it would be costly to implement, and bad for business and consumers. Shattuck says RGGI shows those fears are exaggerated. 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/15516-1 ( http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/15516-1 ) --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org ( mailto:remove@publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove ) and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

1 0

Re: [EC] Sierra Club chapter website...
by Paul Wilson 18 Aug '10

18 Aug '10

Greetings, y'all: I have jumped the gun a bit due to my imminent departure for a family emergency. I have posted the September - October MSS on the website, plus I have updated the outings and SierraFest pages and added a Left Nav link for the Marcellus Shale Gas campaign plus its related secondary page. Look 'em over! If you have any changes/additions, please get them to me by tonight or early tomorrow. I will be leaving either Friday or Sunday. I will have email access, but no way to spend a lot of time on web stuff. As always, contact me if you have any questions. best, paul -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

WVNS story: Cap & Trade Not Raising Electricity Prices In The Northeast
by Frank Young 18 Aug '10

18 Aug '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Aug 18, 2010 4:13 AM Subject: WVNS story: Cap & Trade Not Raising Electricity Prices In The Northeast To: HughRogers <hugh.rogers(a)gmail.com> Public News Service-WV August 18, 2010 Cap & Trade Not Raising Electricity Prices In The Northeast CHARLESTON, W. Va. - While climate legislation is stalled in the U.S. Senate, a cap-and-trade system is up and running in much of the Northeast. It's called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), "Reggie" for short. Ten states from Maryland to Maine put a cap on how much carbon can be generated by electric utilities, with a market on carbon emissions among those utilities. Peter Shattuck is a carbon markets policy analyst for Environment Northeast. He says RGGI has already begun to cut emissions and raise millions for developing cleaner forms of energy, without increasing power prices for consumers. "It's showing that cap-and-trade can work, that the sky does not fall down. Electricity prices have actually come down since the start of the program — which is not exclusively due to RGGI, but is encouraging." According to Andrew Light, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a national cap-and-trade system will be needed to meet the country's commitment to reducing emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. However, he believes individual states' plans and regional agreements, such as RGGI, can go a long way toward meeting that goal. "Collectively, together, those will amount to a reduction of about seven percent below 2005 levels by 2020. And so, that's going to be absolutely necessary for the United States to demonstrate any progress internationally." Light also thinks a federal system is better because it would make the policy more uniform and predictable. He says the success of RGGI could be duplicated in similar systems being worked out in Western and Midwestern states — or on an even larger scale. "Really, we might even see a national program that's actually modeled after RGGI coming forward, given that it's probably going to be the first viable American system that we'll see actually in action." The U.S. House passed a climate bill with a national cap-and-trade plan more than a year ago. Opponents have said it would be costly to implement, and bad for business and consumers. Shattuck says RGGI shows those fears are exaggerated. 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/15516-1 --- 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. __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Fwd: Yahoo! News Story - AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding - Yahoo! News
by James Kotcon 17 Aug '10

17 Aug '10

I recall an early estimate that, of the 151 plants on the drawing boards, about 80 % would drop out of the race. These statistics suggest that all we have done is help "thin the herd" as the top 20 % are now operating or under construction. It seems clear that these new plants are operating under the assumption that they can pass on any carbon capture costs to customers. Perhaps we need to put the financial risks back on the investors, and push the PSC to require stockholders to share the risk of any carbon control costs for plants built after 1992 (That was the year that President George Bush signed the Rio Treaty pledging the US to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".) The advantage of such a campaign is that it shifts the debate from the question of "whether to do anything about climate change", to "who pays for it". And I suspect that a lot of consumers do not want stockholders of out-of-state corporations to get rich at their expense. JBK >>> Jim Sconyers 08/17/10 3:24 PM >>> Saw this. Good reporting as we congratulate ourselves on all the canceled coal-fired plants. Here we have inexorable expansion of GHG emissions. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. From: Paul Wilson To: WV Chapter Energy Committee Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 3:17:04 PM Subject: [EC] Fwd: Yahoo! News Story - AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding - Yahoo! News fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ross Geredien <goodmigrations(a)yahoo.com> Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:59 AM Subject: Yahoo! News Story - AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding - Yahoo! News To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Ross Geredien (goodmigrations(a)yahoo.com) has sent you a news article. (Email address has not been verified.) ------------------------------------------------------------ Personal message: AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding - Yahoo! News http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100817/ap_on_re_us/us_old_coal ============================================================ Yahoo! News http://news.yahoo.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: Arizona energy update
by James Kotcon 17 Aug '10

17 Aug '10

Attached is an "Energy Update" from the Arizona Chapter. This electronic newsletter goes out monthly to their energy activists. Is this something we should do in WV? If so, is anyone interested in taking this on as a task? This would be a great job for the "activist in training" because you would learn so much about the Chapter's work, without really having to do any of it! :-) JBK

1 0

Fwd: Yahoo! News Story - AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding - Yahoo! News
by Paul Wilson 17 Aug '10

17 Aug '10

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ross Geredien <goodmigrations(a)yahoo.com> Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:59 AM Subject: Yahoo! News Story - AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding - Yahoo! News To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Ross Geredien (goodmigrations(a)yahoo.com) has sent you a news article. (Email address has not been verified.) ------------------------------------------------------------ Personal message: AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding - Yahoo! News http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100817/ap_on_re_us/us_old_coal ============================================================ Yahoo! News http://news.yahoo.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

2 1

Re: [EC] State of WV hopes to buy gas well water?
by DSGJr＠aol.com 16 Aug '10

16 Aug '10

Mark's comments don't quite get this right. The brine they are talking about is not from Marcellus wells, but from conventional producing wells. It is not known to be "laced with known cancer causing agents." And the AOP treatment plant is in Fairmont, not the Northern Panhandle. The state has been using oil field brine on roads in the winter, off and on, for about 20 years. From what I have been told, it doesn't work as well as regular salt. don garvin In a message dated 8/15/2010 5:12:09 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, fyoung(a)mountain.net writes: To spread on icy highways, no less. And then where does it go? As the slogan says, "Don't Frack With Our Water"! See below. ----- Original Message ----- From: _Mark Blumenstein_ (mailto:markb@mountain.net) To: _WVENVIRO(a)googlegroups.com_ (mailto:WVENVIRO@googlegroups.com) Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 9:26 AM Subject: Insane ! This is insane ! DOH to spread fluid laced with know cancer causing agents on roads to deice in Winter! Spreading the toxins across the landscape to enter our rivers and water supply ..... This stuff is what killed all in Dunkard Creek months back ...... This only aides the gas drillers . in trying to solve the problem of where to Fracking fluid will go . Now we know.. THere is only one official Fracking water treatment plant in the state and thats in the Northern panhandle! Joes a gas man ..... August 13, 2010 State to use gas-well brine on winter roads By The Associated Press CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Salty wastewater from natural-gas wells may end up on West Virginia roads this winter under a new agreement between the state departments of Environmental Protection and Transportation. The agreement to let highway crews use the brine to treat snow- and ice-coated roads establishes new limits for pH, iron, barium, lead, oil and grease, benzene and ethylbenzene. DOT spokesman Brent Walker said the brine can also be mixed with rock salt to prevent clumping or sprayed on roads before precipitation. The Division of Highways will take bids for brine supply and is hoping to pay about 5 cents a gallon, Walker said. It plans to distribute about 1.2 million gallons to 123 sites around the state to start the season. Highway crews had been relying on brine made with rock salt mined from the Great Lakes region. "That ended up containing a fair amount of soil, and with that you get iron and other metals," said Scott Mandirola, head of the DEP's Division of Water and Waste Management. "It was going relatively unchecked. We sat down and looked at some specs and came up with some limits that were better than the quality of what was currently being used." Mandirola said some of the brine could run off into state waterways -- but that's always happened, and deicing is necessary for public safety. "What we came up with here is equal to or better than what's been happening," he said. The brine will come from producing wells, Mandirola said, not from the hydraulic fracturing of Marcellus Shale wells. That fluid, used in unconventional horizontal drilling, contains additives that make it thicker and slicker. That fracking water also could contain naturally occurring radioactive material, which Mandirola said has been found in some spots in Pennsylvania.

1 0

State of WV hopes to buy gas well water?
by Frank Young 16 Aug '10

16 Aug '10

To spread on icy highways, no less. And then where does it go? As the slogan says, "Don't Frack With Our Water"! See below. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Blumenstein To: WVENVIRO(a)googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 9:26 AM Subject: Insane ! This is insane ! DOH to spread fluid laced with know cancer causing agents on roads to deice in Winter! Spreading the toxins across the landscape to enter our rivers and water supply ..... This stuff is what killed all in Dunkard Creek months back ...... This only aides the gas drillers . in trying to solve the problem of where to Fracking fluid will go . Now we know.. THere is only one official Fracking water treatment plant in the state and thats in the Northern panhandle! Joes a gas man ..... August 13, 2010 State to use gas-well brine on winter roads By The Associated Press CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Salty wastewater from natural-gas wells may end up on West Virginia roads this winter under a new agreement between the state departments of Environmental Protection and Transportation. The agreement to let highway crews use the brine to treat snow- and ice-coated roads establishes new limits for pH, iron, barium, lead, oil and grease, benzene and ethylbenzene. DOT spokesman Brent Walker said the brine can also be mixed with rock salt to prevent clumping or sprayed on roads before precipitation. The Division of Highways will take bids for brine supply and is hoping to pay about 5 cents a gallon, Walker said. It plans to distribute about 1.2 million gallons to 123 sites around the state to start the season. Highway crews had been relying on brine made with rock salt mined from the Great Lakes region. "That ended up containing a fair amount of soil, and with that you get iron and other metals," said Scott Mandirola, head of the DEP's Division of Water and Waste Management. "It was going relatively unchecked. We sat down and looked at some specs and came up with some limits that were better than the quality of what was currently being used." Mandirola said some of the brine could run off into state waterways -- but that's always happened, and deicing is necessary for public safety. "What we came up with here is equal to or better than what's been happening," he said. The brine will come from producing wells, Mandirola said, not from the hydraulic fracturing of Marcellus Shale wells. That fluid, used in unconventional horizontal drilling, contains additives that make it thicker and slicker. That fracking water also could contain naturally occurring radioactive material, which Mandirola said has been found in some spots in Pennsylvania.

3 2

huge solar PV project in Morgantown
by Jim Sconyers 15 Aug '10

15 Aug '10

Here's a pic of the new solar PV facility at the Book Exchange in Evansdale - so far the largest solar project in WV. Brought to us by Matt Sherald and PIMBY. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

NYTimes.com: A Battle in Mining Country Pits Coal Against Wind
by william.depaulo＠gmail.com 15 Aug '10

15 Aug '10

This page was sent to you by: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com. BUSINESS | August 15, 2010 A Battle in Mining Country Pits Coal Against Wind By TOM ZELLER Jr. Opponents of mountaintop mining have proposed an alternative in West Virginia: a wind farm they say could save the land and diversify employment. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/energy-environment/15coal.html?e… ---------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com. NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

1 0

Fwd: Fw: GAS DRILLING - Civil Rights, Human Rights
by Paul Wilson 13 Aug '10

13 Aug '10

This is from upstate NY and they have some heavy hitters like Pete Seeger, Mark Ruffalo and Theo Colburn. Interesting website. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: vivian newman <newviv(a)roadrunner.com> Date: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM Subject: Fw: GAS DRILLING - Civil Rights, Human Rights To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* DamascusCitizens.org <DCS(a)mailhosts.net> *To:* vivian Newman' <newviv(a)adelphia.net> *Sent:* Saturday, August 07, 2010 1:14 PM *Subject:* GAS DRILLING - Civil Rights, Human Rights *FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE - HEARING MONDAY* Damascus Citizens and some of its members have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to stop Damascus township from violating the civil rights, property rights, and due process rights of its citizens. Our motion to dismiss suit by industry against our town will also be heard at this federal court hearing: http://www.damascuscitizens.org/news-legal.html* Federal Court Hearing - Monday, Aug. 9 PURE WATER - BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS* The people have a constitutional right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Religious leaders in Pittsburgh - a city where the public water supply is being contaminated - have taken a stand for basic human rights: http://www.damascuscitizens.org/Pittsburgh-Letter.pdf * http://www.DamascusCitizens.org* - Please click REPLY and type the word REMOVE in the SUBJECT line to be removed from this list. -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

MARCELLUS & EPA
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 10 Aug '10

10 Aug '10

[image: Green - Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line]<http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=cookie&pos=Position1B> August 10, 2010, 5:28 pm 8,000 People? E.P.A. Defers Hearing on Fracking By MIREYA NAVARRO <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/author/mireya-navarro/> Jeff Swensen for The New York Times The E.P.A.’s last hearing on fracking, held in Canonsburg, Pa., in July, drew over 1,200 people. After successfully holding hearings around the country on the impact of the natural gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, officials with the federal Environmental Protection Agency ran into a hurdle this week in New York State: and went looking for an acceptable location for a hearing and for the passionate crowds expected to show up for it. The agency announced on Tuesday that it was canceling an all-day hearing that had been scheduled for Thursday at the OnCenter Complex<http://www.oncenter.org/>Convention Center in Syracuse after Onondaga County officials expressed concern that they had not been given enough time to prepare security in anticipation of rallies and protests at the event. The hearing had just been moved to Syracuse after the original venue, Binghamton University, set conditions that E.P.A. officials found unacceptable and sent the agency looking for an alternate site in a hurry. Judith Enck, the E.P.A.’s regional administrator in New York, said that Binghamton University had been squared away as a site last month but suddenly decided to change the meeting’s location to a room with no air conditioning. When the E.P.A. “pushed back” on this change, she said, the university relented but raised its fee for the event — to $32,000 from $6,000. “It is regretful that Binghamton University has put E.P.A., and more importantly, thousands of people on both sides of the issue who had planned to attend this meeting, in this inconvenient and difficult position,” Ms. Enck said in a statement. “Universities are places where civic participation should flourish, especially on a major environmental topic like hydraulic fracturing’s potential impact on drinking water.” But university officials countered that they had raised the price to cover security and logistical costs after consulting local law enforcement officials, special interest groups and others that indicated that as many as 8,000 people could show up for the hearing, far more than the 1,200 participants that the E.P.A. had pre-registered for the event. “Because we are a public university and responsible to the taxpayer, and as we do for all contracted events, a price was developed to ensure that the campus would remain cost-neutral,” the university’s interim president, C. Peter Magrath, and its vice president for administration, James Van Voorst, said in a joint statement. The E.P.A. is now hunting for a new site and hopes to hold the hearing in September. Hydraulic is a type of natural gas exploration that involves injecting millions of gallons of chemically treated water deep into the ground. The cancellation disappointed many of the people whose planned attendance had stirred some concern for the host venues. Roger Downs, the Sierra Club’s senior staff member in New York, said that environmental and grass-roots groups had planned to bus people from around the state to the hearing to hold a rally. He said the rally was intended to signal concern over drilling but also support for the E.P.A., which is soliciting testimony for a study on the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. “I really doubt it would have been that big a deal in either site,” he said. [image: DCSIMG]

1 0

Fwd: Good news -- lots of stream buffer comments submitted
by James Kotcon 10 Aug '10

10 Aug '10

>>> Oliver Bernstein <oliver.bernstein(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG> 8/9/2010 4:59 PM >>> The Sierra Club has generated 12,264 online comments so far about protecting streams from mining waste. According to this press release from the Office of Surface Mining, about 21,000 email comments, meaning Sierra Club generated 58% of all online comments! http://www.osmre.gov/resources/newsroom/News/Archive/2010/080610.pdf Thanks to Ed Hopkins, Aaron Isherwood, Peter Morgan and Michael Grenetz for setting this up. -Oliver -- Oliver Bernstein Senior Communications Strategist Sierra Club Phone: 512.477.2152 Cell: 512.289.8618 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

1 0

PORTUGAL'S CONVERSION TO GREEN ENERGY
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 10 Aug '10

10 Aug '10

[image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/> ------------------------------ August 9, 2010 Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/elisabeth_rose…> LISBON — Five years ago, the leaders of this sun-scorched, wind-swept nation made a bet: To reduce Portugal<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/po…>’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, they embarked on an array of ambitious renewable energy projects — primarily harnessing the country’s wind and hydropower, but also its sunlight and ocean waves. Today, Lisbon’s trendy bars, Porto’s factories and the Algarve’s glamorous resorts are powered substantially by clean energy. Nearly 45 percent of the electricity in Portugal’s grid will come from renewable sources this year, up from 17 percent just five years ago<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-07-019/EN/KS-QA-07-…>. Land-based wind power — this year deemed “potentially competitive” with fossil fuels <http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2010SUM.pdf> by the International Energy Agency in Paris — has expanded sevenfold in that time. And Portugal expects in 2011 to become the first country to inaugurate a national network of charging stations for electric cars<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/electric_veh…>. “I’ve seen all the smiles — you know: It’s a good dream. It can’t compete. It’s too expensive,” said Prime Minister José Sócrates, recalling the way Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, mockingly offered to build him an electric Ferrari. Mr. Sócrates added, “The experience of Portugal shows that it is possible to make these changes in a very short time.” The oil spill<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_spills/g…>in the Gulf of Mexico has renewed questions about the risks and unpredictable costs of America’s unremitting dependence on fossil fuels. President Obama has seized on the opportunity to promote his goal<http://www.barackobama.com/issues/newenergy/index.php>of having 20 to 25 percent of America’s electricity produced from renewable sources by 2025. While Portugal’s experience shows that rapid progress is achievable, it also highlights the price of such a transition. Portuguese households have long paid about twice what Americans pay for electricity, and prices have risen 15 percent<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-10-022/EN/KS-QA-10-…>in the last five years, probably partly because of the renewable energy program, the International Energy Agency says. Although a 2009 report by the agency called Portugal’s renewable energy transition a “remarkable success,” it added, “It is not fully clear that their costs, both financial and economic, as well as their impact on final consumer energy prices, are well understood and appreciated.” Indeed, complaints about rising electricity rates are a mainstay of pensioners’ gossip here. Mr. Sócrates, who after a landslide victory in 2005 pushed through the major elements of the energy makeover over the objections of the country’s fossil fuel industry, survived last year’s election only as the leader of a weak coalition. “You cannot imagine the pressure we suffered that first year,” said Manuel Pinho, Portugal’s minister of economy and innovation from 2005 until last year, who largely masterminded the transition, adding, “Politicians must take tough decisions.” Still, aggressive national policies to accelerate renewable energy use are succeeding in Portugal and some other countries, according to a recent report by IHS Emerging Energy Research <http://www.emerging-energy.com/> of Cambridge, Mass., a leading energy consulting firm. By 2025, the report projected, Ireland, Denmark and Britain will also get 40 percent or more of their electricity from renewable sources; if power from large-scale hydroelectric<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hydroelectri…>dams, an older type of renewable energy, is included, countries like Canada and Brazil join the list. The United States, which last year generated less than 5 percent of its power from newer forms of renewable energy, will lag behind at 16 percent (or just over 20 percent, including hydroelectric power), according to IHS. To force Portugal’s energy transition, Mr. Sócrates’s government restructured and privatized former state energy utilities to create a grid better suited to renewable power sources. To lure private companies into Portugal’s new market, the government gave them contracts locking in a stable price for 15 years — a subsidy that varied by technology and was initially high but decreased with each new contract round. Compared with the United States, European countries have powerful incentives to pursue renewable energy. Many, like Portugal, have little fossil fuel of their own, and the European Union’s emissions trading system<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/emission_trading2_en.pdf>discourages fossil fuel use by requiring industry to essentially pay for excessive carbon dioxide emissions. Portugal was well poised to be a guinea pig because it has large untapped resources of wind and river power, the two most cost-effective renewable sources. Government officials say the energy transformation required no increase in taxes or public debt, precisely because the new sources of electricity, which require no fuel and produce no emissions, replaced electricity previously produced by buying and burning imported natural gas, coal and oil. By 2014 the renewable energy program will allow Portugal to fully close at least two conventional power plants and reduce the operation of others. “So far the program has placed no stress on the national budget” and has not created government debt, said Shinji Fujino, head of the International Energy Agency’s country study division. If the United States is to catch up to countries like Portugal, energy experts say, it must overcome obstacles like a fragmented, outdated energy grid poorly suited to renewable energy; a historic reliance on plentiful and cheap supplies of fossil fuels, especially coal; powerful oil and coal industries that often oppose incentives for renewable development; and energy policy that is heavily influenced by individual states. The relative costs of an energy transition would inevitably be higher in the United States than in Portugal. But as the expense of renewable power drops, an increasing number of countries see such a shift as worthwhile, said Alex Klein, research director, clean and renewable power generation, at IHS. “The cost gap will close in the next decade, but what you get right away is an energy supply that is domestically controlled and safer,” Mr. Klein said. *Necessity Drives Change* Portugal’s venture was driven by necessity. With a rising standard of living and no fossil fuel of its own, the cost of energy imports — principally oil and gas — doubled in the last decade, accounting for 50 percent of the country’s trade deficit, and was highly volatile. The oil went to fuel cars, the gas mainly to electricity. Unlike the United States, Portugal never depended heavily on coal for electricity generation because close and reliable sources of natural gas were available in North Africa, and Europe’s carbon trading system could make coal costly. Portugal is now on track to reach its goal of using domestically produced renewable energy, including large-scale hydropower, for 60 percent of its electricity and 31 percent of its total energy needs by 2020. (Total energy needs include purposes other than generating electricity, like heating homes and powering cars.) In making the shift, Portugal has overcome longstanding concerns about reliability and high cost. The lights go on in Lisbon even when the wind dies down at the vast two-year-old Alto Minho wind farm. The country’s electricity production costs and consumer electricity rates — including the premium prices paid for power from renewable sources — are about average for Europe, but still higher than those in China or the United States, countries that rely on cheap coal. Portugal says it has kept costs down by focusing heavily on the cheapest forms of renewable energy — wind and hydropower — and ratcheting down the premium prices it pays to lure companies to build new plants. While the government estimates that the total investment in revamping Portugal’s energy structure will be about 16.3 billion euros, or $22 billion, that cost is borne by the private companies that operate the grid and the renewable plants and is reflected in consumers’ electricity rates. The companies’ payback comes from the 15 years of guaranteed wholesale electricity rates promised by the government. Once the new infrastructure is completed, Mr. Pinho said, the system will cost about 1.7 billion euros ($2.3 billion) a year less to run than it formerly did, primarily by avoiding natural gas imports. A smaller savings will come from carbon credits Portugal can sell under the European Union’s carbon trading system: countries and industries that produce fewer emissions than allotted can sell permits to those that exceed their limits. Mr. Fujino of the International Energy Agency said Portugal’s calculations might be optimistic. But he noted that the country’s transition had also created a valuable new industry: Last year, for the first time, it became a net power exporter, sending a small amount of electricity to Spain. Tens of thousands of Portuguese work in the field. Energias de Portugal<http://www.edp.pt/en/Pages/homepage.aspx>, the country’s largest energy company, owns wind farms<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/wind_power/i…>in Iowa and Texas, through its American subsidiary, Horizon Wind Energy <http://www.horizonwind.com/home/>. *Redesigning the System* A nationwide supply of renewable power requires a grid that can move electricity from windy, sunny places to the cities. But a decade ago in Portugal, as in many places in the United States today, power companies owned not only power generating plants, but also transmission lines. Those companies have little incentive to welcome new sources of renewable energy, which compete with their investment in fossil fuels. So in 2000, Portugal’s first step was to separate making electricity from transporting it, through a mandatory purchase by the government of all transmission lines for electricity and gas at what were deemed fair market prices. Those lines were then used to create the skeleton of what since 2007 has been a regulated and publicly traded company that operates the national electricity and natural gas networks. Next, the government auctioned off contracts to private companies to build and operate wind and hydropower plants. Bidders were granted rights based on the government-guaranteed price they would accept for the energy they produced, as well as on their willingness to invest in Portugal’s renewable economy, including jobs and other venture capital funds. Some of the winners were foreign companies. In the latest round of bidding, the price guaranteed for wind energy was in the range of the price paid for electricity generated by natural gas. Such a drastic reorganization might be extremely difficult in the United States, where power companies have strong political sway and states decide whether to promote renewable energy. Colorado recently legislated that 30 percent of its energy must come from renewable sources by 2020, but neighboring Utah has only weak voluntary goals<http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11092011>. Coal states, like Kentucky and West Virginia, have relatively few policies<http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm>to encourage alternative energies. In Portugal, said Mr. Pinho, the former economy minister, who will join Columbia University’s faculty, “the prime minister had an absolute majority.” “He was very strong, and everyone knew we would not step back,” Mr. Pinho said. *A Flexible Network* Running a country using electricity derived from nature’s highly unpredictable forces requires new technology and the juggling skills of a plate spinner. A wind farm that produces 200 megawatts one hour may produce only 5 megawatts a few hours later; the sun shines intermittently in many places; hydropower is plentiful in the rainy winter, but may be limited in summer. Portugal’s national energy transmission company, Redes Energéticas Nacionais or R.E.N., uses sophisticated modeling to predict weather, especially wind patterns, and computer programs to calculate energy from the various renewable-energy plants. Since the country’s energy transition, the network has doubled the number of dispatchers who route energy to where it is needed. “You need a lot of new skills. It’s a real-time operation, and there are far more decisions to be made — every hour, every second,” said Victor Baptista, director general of R.E.N. “The objective is to keep the system alive and avoid blackouts.” Like some American states, Portugal has for decades generated electricity from hydropower plants on its raging rivers. But new programs combine wind and water: Wind-driven turbines pump water uphill at night, the most blustery period; then the water flows downhill by day, generating electricity, when consumer demand is highest. Denmark, another country that relies heavily on wind power, frequently imports electricity from its energy-rich neighbor Norway when the wind dies down; by comparison, Portugal’s grid is relatively isolated, although R.E.N. has greatly increased its connection with Spain<http://www.omip.pt/OMIP/MIBEL/tabid/72/language/en-GB/Default.aspx>to allow for energy sharing. Portugal’s distribution system is also now a two-way street. Instead of just delivering electricity, it draws electricity from even the smallest generators, like rooftop solar panels. The government aggressively encourages such contributions by setting a premium price for those who buy rooftop-generated solar electricity. “To make this kind of system work, you have to make a lot of different kinds of deals at the same time,” said Carlos Zorrinho, the secretary of state for energy and innovation. To ensure a stable power base when the forces of nature shut down, the system needs to maintain a base of fossil fuel that can be fired up at will. Although Portugal’s traditional power plants now operate many fewer hours than before, the country is also building some highly efficient natural gas plants. To accommodate all this, Portugal needed new transmission lines from remote windy regions to urban centers. Portugal began modernizing its grid a decade ago. Accommodating a greater share of renewable power cost an additional 480 million euros, or about $637 million, an expense folded into electricity rates, according to R.E.N. Last year, President Obama offered billions of dollars in grants to modernize the grid in the United States, but it is not clear that such a piecemeal effort will be adequate for renewable power. Widely diverse permitting procedures in different states and the fact that many private companies control local fragments of the grid make it hard to move power over long distances, for example, from windy Iowa to users in Atlanta. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States’ grid a “D+,” commenting that it is “in urgent need of modernization.” “A real smart national grid would radically change our technology profile,” said John Juech, vice president for policy analysis at Garten Rothkopf, a Washington consulting firm that focuses on energy. “But it will be very costly, and the political will may not be there.” A 2009 report<http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/wind-solar-electricity-report.pdf>commissioned by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change estimated that the United States would have to spend $3 billion to $4 billion a year for the next two decades to create a grid that could accommodate deriving 20 percent of electricity from wind power by 2030 — a 40 percent to 50 percent increase over current spending. *The Drawbacks* Energy experts consider Portugal’s experiment a success. But there have been losers. Many environmentalists object to the government plans to double the amount of wind energy, saying lights and noise from turbines will interfere with birds’ behavior. Conservation groups worry that new dams will destroy Portugal’s cork-oak habitats. Local companies complain that the government allowed large multinationals to displace them. Until it became the site of the largest wind farm south of Lisbon, Barão de São João was a sleepy village on the blustery Alentejo Coast, home to farmers who tilled its roller coaster hills and holiday homeowners drawn to cheap land and idyllic views. Renewable energy has brought conflict. “I know it’s good for the country because it’s clean energy and it’s good for the landowners who got money, but it hasn’t brought me any good,” said José Cristino, 48, a burly farmer harvesting grain with a wind turbine’s thrap-thrap-thrap in the background. “I look at these things day and night.” He said 90 percent of the town’s population had been opposed. In Portugal, as in the United States, politicians have sold green energy programs to communities with promises of job creation. Locally, the effect has often proved limited. For example, more than five years ago, the isolated city of Moura became the site of Portugal’s largest solar plant because it “gets the most sun of anywhere in Europe and has lots of useless space,” said José Maria Prazeres Pós-de-Mina, the mayor. But while 400 people built the Moura plant, only 20 to 25 work there now, since gathering sunlight requires little human labor. Unemployment remains at 15 percent, the mayor said — though researchers, engineers and foreign delegations frequently visit the town’s new solar research center. Indeed, Portugal’s engineers and companies are now global players. Portugal’s EDP Renováveis, first listed on stock exchanges in 2008, is the third largest company in the world in wind-generated electricity output. This year, its Portuguese chief executive, Ana Maria Fernandes, signed contracts to sell electricity<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/02/edp-renewables…>from its wind farm in Iowa to the Tennessee Valley Authority. “Broadly, Europe has had great success in this area,” said Mr. Juech, the analyst at Garten Rothkopf. “But that is the result of huge government support and intervention, and that raises questions about what happens when you have an economic crisis or political change; will these technologies still be sustainable?” [image: DCSIMG]

1 0

Appalachian Power Co. president calls for cap and trade bill
by Frank Young 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

Blank August 4, 2010 APCO president calls for cap and trade bill By Ken Ward Jr. The Charleston Gazette CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The new president of Appalachian Power said Wednesday that congressional action to cap greenhouse gas emissions is needed to help guide utilities in perfecting and deploying technology to limit those emissions. ] http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201008040959

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Germany Ups Renewable Target--Again
by James Kotcon 06 Aug '10

06 Aug '10

Ditto my previous message. JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 8/4/2010 1:29 PM >>> Germany Ups Renewable Target--Again August 4, 2010 By Paul Gipe In what is becoming a regular occurrence, Germany has again increased its target for renewable energy. In a meeting today the German cabinet voted to up the target to 20% of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption. The release from Federal Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen said that at the current pace Germany will surpass its current target of 18% by 2020. As in the past, the German government has had to increase their renewable targets to keep ahead of actual development on the ground. The renewable target for renewables in electricity generation has been increased from the current range of 25%-30% to 38.6%. Germany is ruled by a conservative coalition of the Christian Democrats and the Neoliberal Party. Röttgen is a member of the Christian Democrats, Germany's main conservative party. Minister Röttgen: Renewables' share of almost 20 percent can be achieved by 2020 -End- Paul Gipe 606 Hillcrest Dr. Bakersfield, CA 93305-1413 661 325 9590, 661 472 1657 mobile pgipe(a)igc.org, www.wind-works.org Wind Energy Basics (Revised) 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Renewables 2010 Global Status Report
by James Kotcon 06 Aug '10

06 Aug '10

Those who say "It can't be done" need to get out of the way of those who are doing it. JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 8/4/2010 1:03 PM >>> These latest numbers can serve to answer those who contend that renewable power can't be scaled up fast enough as fossil fuel sources are supplanted by cleaner energy options and the transition proceeds toward a low-carbon energy economy.. Note in particular the explosive growth in the solar PV market -- 60% yearly for the past decade. Correct policies, supported by Sierra Club and other advocates of renewable power, can help keep these trends bending upward. -- Ed M. Renewables 2010 Global Status Report · $150 billion was invested in new renewable energy capacity in 2009; up from $20 billion in 2004. · Worldwide, about 500,000 people are employed in the wind industry, and 600,000 in solar energy · Nearly half (47%) of all new power generation capacity built in 2008 and 2009 worldwide was renewable · 305 gigawatts of existing renewable electric power generation capacity worldwide (by comparison: the entire US power generation capacity is 1000 gigawatts) · At current rates of construction, another 500 gigawatts of renewable electric power generation will be online by 2020 · Solar water and space heating provided another 180 gigawatts of thermal capacity · Solar hot water is used in 70 million households, mostly in China · 38 gigawatts of wind power were added in 2009, bringing the world total to 159 gigawatts · Global photovoltaics market has grown 60% per year every year for the past decade, increasing 100-fold since 2000. · More than 100 countries have renewable policies Download the report here: http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/REN21_GSR_2010_full.pdf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Re: [EC] Hydro-Fracking Team on the Club's online Activist Network
by Paul Wilson 04 Aug '10

04 Aug '10

I don't see anybody from WV on this Team. So I hope some of you will explore the SC Activist Network and join Team that you are interested in. cheers, paul w. http://connect.sierraclub.org/Team/Hydrofracking_Team -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fw: Renewables 2010 Global Status Report
by Jim Sconyers 04 Aug '10

04 Aug '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 1:03:54 PM Subject: Renewables 2010 Global Status Report These latest numbers can serve to answer those who contend that renewable power can't be scaled up fast enough as fossil fuel sources are supplanted by cleaner energy options and the transition proceeds toward a low-carbon energy economy.. Note in particular the explosive growth in the solar PV market -- 60% yearly for the past decade. Correct policies, supported by Sierra Club and other advocates of renewable power, can help keep these trends bending upward. -- Ed M. Renewables 2010 Global Status Report · $150 billion was invested in new renewable energy capacity in 2009; up from $20 billion in 2004. · Worldwide, about 500,000 people are employed in the wind industry, and 600,000 in solar energy · Nearly half (47%) of all new power generation capacity built in 2008 and 2009 worldwide was renewable · 305 gigawatts of existing renewable electric power generation capacity worldwide (by comparison: the entire US power generation capacity is 1000 gigawatts) · At current rates of construction, another 500 gigawatts of renewable electric power generation will be online by 2020 · Solar water and space heating provided another 180 gigawatts of thermal capacity · Solar hot water is used in 70 million households, mostly in China · 38 gigawatts of wind power were added in 2009, bringing the world total to 159 gigawatts · Global photovoltaics market has grown 60% per year every year for the past decade, increasing 100-fold since 2000. · More than 100 countries have renewable policies Download the report here: http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/REN21_GSR_2010_full.pdf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: Great NYT piece on relative costs of nukes, solar, ee
by James Kotcon 03 Aug '10

03 Aug '10

Great piece. I was not aware of it until this article pointed it out, one of the reasons current nuclear energy costs are so "cheap" is that the utilities just wrote off the capital costs of all those nukes that went belly-up in the 80s, to the tune of over $140 billion. JBK >>> Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt(a)sierraclub.org> 7/27/2010 11:44 AM >>> News - Great NYT piece on relative costs of nukes, solar, ee July 26, 2010 Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage By DIANA S. POWERS The New York Times PARIS — Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month. “Solar photovoltaics have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants,” John O. Blackburn, a professor of economics at Duke University, in North Carolina, and Sam Cunningham, a graduate student, wrote in the paper, “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover.” This crossover occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, they said. While solar power costs have been declining, the costs of nuclear power have been rising inexorably over the past eight years, said Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the University of Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and Environment. Estimates of construction costs — about $3 billion per reactor in 2002 — have been regularly revised upward to an average of about $10 billion per reactor, and the estimates are likely to keep rising, said Mr. Cooper, an analyst specializing in tracking nuclear power costs. Identifying the real costs of competing energy technologies is complicated by the wide range of subsidies and tax breaks involved. As a result, U.S. taxpayers and utility users could end up spending hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars more than necessary to achieve an ample low-carbon energy supply, if legislative proposals before the U.S. Congress lead to adoption of an ambitious nuclear development program, Mr. Cooper said in a report last November. The report, “All Risk, No Reward for Taxpayers and Ratepayers,” was a response to a legislative wish list developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group. The institute has called for a mix of U.S. subsidies, tax credits, loan guarantees, procedural simplifications and institutional support on a large scale. At the state level, the industry has also pressed the case for “construction work in progress,” a financing system that requires electricity users to pay for the cost of new reactors during their construction and sometimes before construction starts. With long construction periods and frequent delays, this can mean that electricity users start to pay higher prices as much as 12 years before the plants produce electricity. The institute’s Web site says the financing system “reduces the cost ratepayers will pay for power from the plant when it goes into commercial operation,” by lowering interest payments on capital costs and spreading the costs over time. “The utilities insist that the construction work in progress charged to ratepayers also include the return on equity that the utilities normally earn by taking the risk of building the plant — even though they have shifted the risk to the ratepayers,” Mr. Cooper said. “If the plant is not built or suffers cost overruns, the ratepayers will bear the burden.” History suggests that the risk of this is not negligible. In 1985, Forbes magazine dubbed the construction of the first generation of U.S. nuclear plants “the largest managerial disaster in business history.” The first round of plants resulted in write-offs through bankruptcies and “stranded costs” — investments in existing power plants made uncompetitive by deregulation — which essentially transferred nearly $100 billion in liabilities to electricity users, said Doug Koplow, an economist and founder of Earth Track, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which campaigns against subsidies it considers environmentally harmful. “Although the industry frequently points to its low operating costs as evidence of its market competitiveness, this economic structure is an artifact of large subsidies to capital, historical write-offs of capital, and ongoing subsidies to operating costs,” Mr. Koplow said. From 1943 to 1999 the U.S. government paid nearly $151 billion, in 1999 dollars, in subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power, Marshall Goldberg of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a research organization in Washington, wrote in a July 2000 report. Of this total, 96.3 percent went to nuclear power, the report said. Still, these costs pale in comparison with the financial risks and subsidies that are likely to accompany the next wave of nuclear plant construction, Mr. Cooper said. A November 2009 research report by Citigroup Global Markets termed the construction risks, power price risks, and operational risks “so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility to its knees.” Those risks were mentioned in a 2009 report by the credit rating agency Moody’s. “Moody’s is considering taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants,” the report said. “Historically, most nuclear-building utilities suffered ratings downgrades — and sometimes several — while building these facilities. Political and policy conditions are spurring applications for new nuclear power generation for the first time in years. Nevertheless, most utilities now seeking to build nuclear generation do not appear to be adjusting their financial policies, a credit negative.” Adding to the risks facing any reactor construction program, only one of five proposed designs under consideration by U.S. utilities has ever been built, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. “No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost,” said Stephen Maloney, a utilities management consultant. “We see cost escalations as companies come up the learning curve.” Market risk has been heightened by the recent recession. “The current crisis has decreased energy demand even more than the 1970s oil price shocks,” Mr. Cooper said. The recession “appears to have caused a fundamental shift in consumption patterns that will lower the long-term growth rate of electricity demand.” Meanwhile, most of the projects that have created the increase of license applications to the regulatory commission have already experienced difficulties. “About half of the projects that have been put forward at the start of the next generation of reactors have been delayed or canceled,” Mr. Cooper said. “Those that have moved forward have suffered substantial cost escalation and several have received negative financial reviews. “Of the 19 applications at the N.R.C., 90 percent have had some type of delay or cancellation, run into a design problem, suffered cost increases and/or had the utility bond rating downgraded by Wall Street.” Despite the economic challenges, the nuclear power industry remains unfazed. “This is not a hospitable environment in which to commission any large base-load power plant,” said Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a briefing to the financial community. Still, he said: “Fortunately new nuclear plants won’t be in service until 2016 or later, so today’s market conditions are not entirely relevant.” Mr. Cooper said the industry’s equanimity was based, at least partially, on the supportive cushion provided by loan guarantees and work-in-progress financing. “With such financing the utility is making a one-way bet, allowing it to make a profit even when the project fails,” he said. “The people bear the risks and costs; the nuclear utilities take the profits. Without loan guarantees and guaranteed construction work in progress, these reactors will simply not be built, because the capital markets will not finance them.” Without public guarantees, nuclear projects often cannot get financing. AmerenUE, the Missouri utility, suspended in April 2009 plans to build a $6 billion, 1,600-megawatt reactor at its Callaway County nuclear site, after trying unsuccessfully to get the State Legislature to repeal a longstanding ban on work-in-progress financing. The continued existence of the ban “makes financing a new plant in the current economic environment impossible,” the utility said. Similarly, Florida Power and Light said in January that it would not proceed beyond licensing with plans to build two new reactors at its Turkey Point site, after the Florida Public Service Commission rejected its request to pass on a $1.27 billion cost increase to its users. Yet, despite episodic resistance at the local level, financial support for the industry at the U.S. government level has been increasingly evident in successive versions of climate and energy bills before the U.S. Congress, including the most recent, the American Power Act, which is delayed in the Senate until after the summer recess. Nuclear subsidies in the Senate proposal include five-year accelerated depreciation; tax credits for investments and production and eligibility for the advanced energy tax credit; an increase in government insurance against regulatory delays; access to private activity bonds; and a $36 billion increase in loan guarantees, bringing the total to $56 billion. That remains less than the Nuclear Energy Institute’s goal of $100 billion, an amount it describes as “a minimal acceptable loan volume.” Still, Mr. Fertel said in his financial briefing that “‘strong political support’ understates our position.” Federal loan guarantees cut nuclear construction financing costs by allowing the utilities to sell bonds at a lower interest rate. But at the same time the guarantee means that “the U.S. Treasury, and therefore the taxpayers, are on the hook for the value of the loans should they go bad,” Mr. Cooper said. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the average risk of default for such Department of Energy loan guarantees is about 50 percent, which is the historic rate for the nuclear industry. Mr. Koplow of Earth Track said two of the other subsidies in the Senate bill, the investment tax credit and five-year accelerated depreciation, would together “be worth between $1.3 billion and nearly $3 billion on a net present value basis per new reactor. “This is equivalent to between 15 and 20 percent of the total all-in cost of the reactors, as projected by industry.” Over all, Mr. Koplow said, the proposed subsidy package would undermine the equity requirements of the nuclear loan guarantee program, designed to ensure that investors have a strong interest in the long-term success of the venture. “Although investors will get all the profit if the reactor project is successful, they will bear virtually none of the financial risk if the project fails,” he said. “This is a disastrous incentive structure.” By distorting energy markets, these subsidies would “effectively make the government the chooser of which energy technologies will be winners and which will lose,” he said. The American Power Act “does not build a neutral policy platform on which all energy technologies must compete.” The tax breaks for nuclear would “greatly impede market access for competing energy sources,” Mr. Koplow said. He said handing out huge subsidies would also cloud the transparency of decision-making. “This approach,” he said, “which replaces price signals with decisions by a handful of often unnamed individuals within the U.S. Department of Energy, plays to none of the inherent strengths of the U.S. market system to spur innovation and effectively allocate risks and rewards. Further, the basis, and sometimes scale, of these subsidy decisions is largely hidden from the public view.” For Mr. Cooper, the core issue at stake is one of opportunity cost. “While the cost estimates of nuclear power continue to rise, the potential for energy efficiency measures to reduce the need for energy are far cheaper,” he said. Lower-cost, low-carbon technologies are already available, and cost trends for several others indicate that a combination of efficiency and renewable technologies could meet projected power needs while also achieving aggressive carbon-reduction targets, Mr. Cooper said. In a June 2009 report drawing on several earlier studies, Mr. Cooper said that energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable sources could meet power needs at an average cost of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with a cost of 12 cents to 20 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear power. Choosing the nuclear route, and constructing 100 new reactors, would translate into an extra cost to taxpayers and electricity users of $1.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion over the 40-year life of the reactors, compared with the costs of developing energy efficiency and renewable sources, the report said. Mr. Cooper said it would make sense for policy makers, standing in the place of the market, to choose the least costly alternatives first. “In an attempt to circumvent the sound judgment of the capital markets, nuclear advocates erroneously claim that subsidies lower the financing costs for nuclear reactors and so are good for consumers,” he said. “But shifting risk does not eliminate it. Furthermore, subsidies induce utilities and regulators to take greater risks that will cost the taxpayers and the ratepayers dearly. “The risks that have dismayed Wall Street should be taken seriously by policy makers because they would cost not just hundreds of billions of dollars in losses on reactors that are canceled, but also trillions in excess costs for ratepayers when reactors are brought to completion by utilities that fail to pursue the lower-cost, less risky options that are available. “The frantic effort of the nuclear industry to increase federal loan guarantees and secure ratepayer funding of construction work in progress from state legislatures is an admission that the technology is so totally uneconomic that the industry will forever be a ward of state, resulting in a uniquely American form of nuclear socialism.” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Where next for the wrecked US climate bill?
by James Kotcon 03 Aug '10

03 Aug '10

A call for trench warfare, i. e., a return to the courts instead of Congress. JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 8/2/2010 1:38 PM >>> Where next for the wrecked US climate bill? There is a chance to build on the rubble of the Senate's failure to cap carbon emissions, says Eric Pooley Eric Pooley for Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network, Thursday 29 July 2010 14.57 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/29/wrecked-us-climate- bill Senate Democrats hope to pass a narrower energy bill this week that would increase the liability of companies for oil spills, for instance in the Gulf of Mexico. Photograph: Sipa Press / Rex Features Following the rocky path of climate legislation in the U.S. Congress these past years brought me back to the 1980s, and my time as a crime reporter in New York City. After a shooting in those days, a homicide detective named Marty Davin would go to the hospital and intercept the gunshot victim on a gurney outside the emergency room. If the victim was conscious, Davin would lean over and ask, "Who killed you?" That usually got the victim's attention, along with an I'm-not-dead-yet protest. Davin would reply, "You are going to die. You might as well tell me who did it." As I interviewed the sponsor of whichever emissions-reduction bill had just been gunned down, I often thought of Davin. The politicians and climate campaigners would assure me that they were still alive — passage of a carbon cap was inevitable, they'd say — and I'd remind myself that they had survived countless near-death experiences. But what happened last week, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not even try to bring a compromise climate bill to the Senate floor, was not just another setback. Sometimes dead really is dead — and for this Congress, barring a miracle, climate action is finished. With an ugly election looming in November, it may be years before we get another chance to debate a bill that prices carbon. And the consensus approach to federal climate action — the idea that cap- and-trade was the most politically viable policy — may well be dead, too. This is a time to take stock. The first question is whether this was a failure of policy; a failure of politics, message, and messenger; or both? Second, is there a Plan B around which the climate campaign should now unify? And third, what needs to be done to allow a better outcome when the next opportunity finally does appear? No one who follows climate politics could have been very surprised by Reid's move. The bigger shock was his decision to remove from the bill a mandate that utilities must generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. (Proponents hope to offer it as a floor amendment.) It was if the Senate was saying: Anything remotely effective, we're not going to do. When Reid pulled the plug, I thought back to a snowy afternoon in Copenhagen last December. Sitting with Al Gore in an empty hotel café, I asked him to contemplate this very moment. "If the United States doesn't act," he replied, "if the Senate defeats the legislation or waters it down to a point where it is not even worth having a bill, that is an event horizon beyond which it is difficult to see." He parsed the same issues then that climate campaigners are parsing now: "It may mean there is a fundamental flaw in the international political approach, but I'm not sure there is a good alternative. The reality is so dire that a new plan would have to emerge — but just now I can't imagine what it would be." Gore had a point. When the goal is emissions reduction, there aren't many alternatives: You've got to reduce emissions. The Plan B options now being offered by various advocates should be vigorously debated, but all of them seem vulnerable to the same polluted politics that killed the cap. Advocates of the carbon tax are ready to take a run at their goal, and Godspeed — but it is hard to see how politicians who were terrified to support a cap (because opponents labeled it a tax) will suddenly become bold enough to support a carbon tax. Policy groups such as the Breakthrough Institute argue that instead of making dirty fuels more expensive, it's time for intensive energy research and development to make clean fuels cheaper. That sounds reasonable, but without the revenue stream that a cap or tax would provide — and in an era of budget cutbacks — it is hard to see government supplying the massive, long-term funding their plan requires. Is the cap so fundamentally flawed that it should be abandoned forever? I don't think so. I believe it needs to be liberated from legislative bloat and rehabilitated as a modest first step: a tool for regulating power sector emissions, the job it performed so successfully in the 1990s, when America tamed acid rain. It's worth remembering that while climate politics were bogging down, climate policy mechanisms were being improved. Clever wonks found ways to cushion consumers and high- carbon industries from the price impact of the cap, while preserving a price signal for generators. Trading restrictions were added to keep speculators out of the carbon game. Though the term cap-and-trade has been demonized, the cap itself isn't broken. Some will argue that this latest setback is proof that the U.S. will never cap carbon. I reject that view. All we can say for sure is that the U.S. will never cap or price carbon until the politics of the issue change — so the first order of business must be to begin improving the political atmosphere. During the three years I worked on The Climate War, a narrative of the campaign to pass a carbon cap, I came to realize I was writing a political thriller, a whodunit with multiple culprits. Let's look for lessons by considering some of the culprits, starting with the most obvious. 1. The Professional Deniers. Gore and environmental leaders made a tactical error several years ago when they declared the science "settled" and refused to engage the forces of denial and delay. The basic science was indeed settled, but the resulting message vacuum was the perfect medium for those who sow doubt and confusion about global climate change. It shouldn't be surprising that so many Americans remain skeptical about global warming. For 20 years, this loose network of PR pros, working for industry associations and anti-tax think tanks, has spread doubt about climate science and fear about climate economics, claiming that any attempt to cap CO2 would wreck the American economy. Their disinformation, amplified via the Internet, helped poison the debate. To counter the deniers' campaign, President Obama needs to speak out forcefully, and champions of the clean energy economy must point to the new jobs that are already being created by the renewable energy economy and show Americans precisely where they fit into it. 2. Senate Republicans. Most climate campaigners understand the folly of trying to remake the American energy system without bipartisan support. But it's hard to forge centrist solutions when an entire party is denying there's a problem and vilifying the solutions. A scaled-back approach, one that can be sold as a modest, incremental step and not a new industrial revolution, might fare better. There was a time — 2007 and 2008, to be precise — when some Republicans were moving away from deny-and-delay tactics. (In 2007, briefly, Newt Gingrich supported the carbon cap.) More recently, opposition to climate action has become a litmus test in the GOP. Arizona Republican John McCain, who sponsored the Senate's first serious climate bills but now faces a primary challenge from the right, recently called a successor bill "a farce." His mantle of Republican climate courage passed to Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who took so much heat from his own party that he withdrew from the climate bill he helped write. Graham's position has been incoherent since then, but he has signaled support for a cap on the power sector. That could be something to build on. 3. Senate Democrats. After Reid pulled the plug, Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for obstruction. But what about the obstructionists within the Democratic ranks? Harry Reid didn't have the clout to force action on this issue because a dozen or more centrist Democrats — from states that either mine coal or produce much of their electricity from it — were dug in against it. It is impossible to tell if the senators were truly concerned about what the cap would do to their state economies — nonpartisan studies suggest its impact would be minimal — or just worried about what attack ads would do to them. Again, a more modest first step could change the dynamic. The crucial thing is to get started. 4. The Green Group. At a meeting in February 2007, the Green Group, an unofficial association of the leaders of the big U.S. environmental non-profits, told Harry Reid they supported a single legislative goal: An economy-wide cap. Their strategy was to assemble the broadest possible coalition to push the broadest possible bill. Given the magnitude of the crisis and the need to reduce emissions quickly, this made sense. Politically, though, it proved disastrous, because it led to bills of such cost, scope, and complexity that they scared the pants off timid legislators. The Green Group held out for an economy-wide bill even after it became clear, in late 2009, that it was unachievable in the Senate. Only recently did 5. The Power Barons. When the eleventh-hour search for a compromise began, the utilities got too greedy. If they had to go it alone, they argued, they deserved virtually all of the carbon allowances in the program for free. This left too few for other crucial purposes, such as cushioning manufacturers from higher electricity prices. Worse, in exchange for supporting a carbon cap, some utilities demanded relief from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing conventional pollutants such as mercury. Like the greens, they asked for too much and got nothing. (The greens, however, were overreaching on behalf of the planet, not their own coffers.) Some utility bosses were relieved to see the bill die. Those feelings may prove short-lived as the battle to reduce emissions moves to the EPA and the courts. Some advocates, such as Lee Wasserman of the Rockefeller Family Fund, regard the decision to negotiate with the power barons as the height of folly. Washington, they argue, should simply dictate the terms of surrender to the polluters. Such a stance ignores an important fact: It isn't possible to remake the U.S. energy system without negotiating with the power barons. Punishing generators means punishing households that pay electricity bills. That doesn't mean, however, that the politicians should give the barons everything they want. But there was only one player with the clout to cut a fair deal with them, and he was missing in action. 6. The President. Barack Obama chose not to lead on this issue. His decision to address health care reform before energy and climate change doomed the latter. With advisors Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod whispering that climate was a losing proposition (a self-fulfilling prophesy, to be sure), Obama never threw himself behind a particular climate bill. He left it to the Senate, the Green Group, and the power bosses — all of whom were sorely in need of adult supervision. The real grownups in this tale were Rep. Henry Waxman and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last year surprised the Obama Administration by taking a comprehensive climate bill to the House floor. The White House had no choice but to help whip the vote, and it passed. Then Obama stopped trying, and the Senate refused to take up the legislation. It was a colossal failure of nerve, and a decision that likely destroyed any chance of achieving climate action in Obama's first term. Since the president and his political advisers thought an economy-wide cap was too heavy a lift, Obama should have led a tactical retreat to what, in the past several months, became the last-ditch compromise position: the cap on the electric power sector. Had negotiations focused on this months ago instead of weeks ago, and had the president thrown his weight behind it then, we might today be celebrating a step forward instead of mourning another failure. Only Obama had the authority to call this audible early. The environmental NGOs and their allies were too invested in the economy-wide approach; they needed Obama to lead them. He refused. To the bitter end, the White House pursued what his aides called a "stealth strategy" that deployed the president only sparingly. As a result, he failed to take advantage of the BP oil spill. When its terrible scope became apparent, in June, Obama began talking about the need to cap carbon and accelerate the transition to clean energy. But it was a fleeting moment. Many climate campaigners knew the climate bill was dead on June 15, when Obama gave his long-awaited Oval Office address on the oil spill. Instead of making an explicit connection to the climate bill — and explaining that by capping carbon the U.S. could speed its transition to clean energy and help break its addiction to fossil fuels — Obama whiffed. He had a road map but didn't try to share it with the people. "We don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there," he said. Today, with that map in shreds, we surely don't. As climate campaigners wait however long it takes to get another shot at legislation, there is important work to be done. Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. have been dropping — and not just because of the recession. The task is to build on this trend during the economic recovery. Changes in our energy infrastructure are making this possible. In Texas, our highest-emitting state and a bastion of climate skepticism, carbon emissions have been declining since 2004 thanks in part to a renewable energy standard — signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush — that accelerated the installation of wind power and created thousands of jobs along the way. The Department of Energy now has 7,000 clean energy projects across the country — projects that save money, create jobs, and reduce emissions. According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute, by leveraging existing authority over the next ten years the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent to 12 percent below 2005 levels. This is far short of the 17 percent reduction Obama promised in Copenhagen and nothing close to what needs to be done. But if we continue cutting emissions before asking voters to embrace a cap, we prove that cuts are both technologically feasible and economically sustainable. And we'll be in a better position when the next legislative opportunity comes. Until then, the climate war will be waged by cities, states, regional cap-and-trade programs, and, above all, the EPA, which early next year is set to begin regulating stationary sources of CO2 — power plants and large factories. Welcome to the "glorious mess" — Michigan Rep. John Dingell's phrase for the tangle of regulation and litigation that will follow when Congress fails to act. We are about to experience precisely the sort of costly, protracted, plant-by-plant trench warfare the cap was intended to avoid. Since the utilities and the manufacturers weren't willing to cut a deal, this is what they get. The fragile period of compromise and cooperation between environmentalists and big business may now be coming to an end. Green groups that have invested time and money into the legislative process are now putting on their war paint and returning to the courts, with a renewed focus on stopping new coal- fired power plants and shutting down the oldest and dirtiest ones. Tough new EPA rules for conventional pollutants will help, and so will new EPA carbon regulations. Perhaps these strict new regulations will refresh the power bosses' appetite for a cap. But they have plenty of lawyers, and the long, ugly battles over implementation of EPA regulations could extend the current period of uncertainty by many years. Republicans (and some Democrats) will try to strip EPA of its authority over carbon, or at least delay implementation of its new rules. In effect, the Senate will be saying that Congress alone should have the power to act — so that it can then not exercise that power. Obama's aides say the president will be fully engaged in the battle to save EPA authority over carbon. It is a fight that he can't possibly duck, because it is our last line of defense. As Gore reminded me in Copenhagen, "The fact that this is extremely hard doesn't mean we should quit." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SC CNRCC CONST Climate & Energy" group. To post to this group, send email to sc-cnrcc-const-climate--energy(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sc-cnrcc-const-climate--energy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sc-cnrcc-const-climate--energy?hl=en. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fw: Register TODAY for EPA's Coal Ash Webinar: Aug 5 and Aug 12
by Jim Sconyers 02 Aug '10

02 Aug '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Lisa Evans <levans(a)EARTHJUSTICE.ORG> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:26:37 AM Subject: Register TODAY for EPA's Coal Ash Webinar: Aug 5 and Aug 12 All- Please participate in EPA's webinars THIS WEEK and NEXT WEEK on Aug 5 and Aug 12. The information is pasted below (See http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-webina…): -- Thursday, August 5, 2010, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm EDT - Environmental/Health, Environmental Justice, and Community impacts -- Thursday, August 12, 2010, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm EDT - Industry and Beneficial Use impacts All stakeholders are welcome to attend both webinars - the presentation by EPA staff will be identical. To register for the webinars: After registering you will be given a phone number that can be used to listen to the webinar. If you plan to ask a question during the webinar, you will need to use the GoToWebinar chat feature and not the phone line. The phone line is for listening purposes only. For August 5th: To register, go to GoToWebinar: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/993822802 For August 12th: To register, go to GoToWebinar: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/709912418 Thanks. Lisa Evans Senior Administrative Counsel Earthjustice 21 Ocean Ave. Marblehead, MA 01945 T: (781) 631-4119 F: (212) 918-1556 www.earthjustice.org *please consider the environment before printing The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

kentucky coverage of coal 527
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 01 Aug '10

01 Aug '10

coal money to candidates<http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/07/27/coal-execs-hope-to-spend-b…>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC August 2010