EC February 2011

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

9 participants
36 discussions

Fwd: Public hearing on Marcellus bill
by James Kotcon 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

>>> Leslee McCarty <lesleemac1(a)frontier.com> 2/14/2011 11:47 AM >>> Thursday 3:30 house chamber--rally the troops,please! Sent from leslee's iphone

1 0

venting methane from gas wells
by Jim Sconyers 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

FYI Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Joe Jarrell <earthlingprimate(a)suddenlink.net> To: truthseeker23(a)hotmail.com; "Matt Wasson, iLoveMountains.org" <matt.wasson(a)ilovemountains.org>; Sierra Club - West Virginia Chapter <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>; Cindy Rank <clrank(a)hughes.net> Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 1:07:26 AM Subject: more hard on the planet industrial stuff as a late night ramble. Random quote from the news: "Composting releases methane," said . . . and methane gas, as even the most warming-conscious among us have to admit, traps atmospheric heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide, the usual bugaboo of the climate-change crowd. End quote. You know, they blow their wells. This means they open a pipe to the atmosphere and let natural gas out, which gets the crap out of the pipes. The valve has a two inch diameter; the pressure is over a hundred psi. I live a few hundred yards from one. When they vent it, it sounds like a jet engine (not a little whine, but a resounding throaty roar that goes out over the landscape, across the valleys and maybe to the next mountain past the adjacent one). This continues for (several) minutes at a time; I think it is done once a month. I am of the opinion that they do this tens of thousands of times per year across this country. Natural gas is methane. The waste is large. The damage to the environment may be enormous. An administrator from the local gas company told me this is legal. Why is this legal? How can this be efficient? [rhetorical questions] Years ago I read the the Mexican oil industry vented vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere, but I read later that they stopped this behavior. I'm sure at least some other countries did and likely still do vent the methane (maybe not so much now that it is worth at least a bit), but I guess I can't do much about that. Maybe I can sound an alarm that there may be room for improvement here. Without encouragement to change, the gas production companies do not want to stop doing this. If any of the recipients of this email have time and extra energy, please forward the text to someone who cares, in case this is under the radar of both the regulators and the environmentalists. jj

1 0

Fw: Allowing Utilities to Earn More for Helping Customers to Consume Less Benefits Both
by James Kotcon 12 Feb '11

12 Feb '11

Important new study looks at the effectiveness of policies to encourage energy efficiency. definitely worth a look. JBK >>> Paula Carrell <Paula.Carrell(a)sierraclub.org> 1/24/2011 3:22 PM >>> NEWS RELEASE Contact: Dan York, 608-243-1123 Sara Hayes, 202-507-4747 Media Contact: Glee Murray, 202-507-4010 Allowing Utilities to Earn More for Helping Customers to Consume Less Benefits Both Washington, D.C. (January 24, 2011): The ability for utilities to profit from their energy efficiency programs provides strong motivation to create, support, and deliver successful programs according to a report released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Research conducted by ACEEE found that electric and natural gas utilities able to earn a financial return on their achievements with customer energy efficiency programs are likely to be industry leaders in terms of their financial support for customer energy efficiency programs. "The traditional utility business model doesn't provide opportunities to earn financial returns on energy efficiency comparable to the opportunities that exist for investments in new power plants," observes Dan York, ACEEE Utilities Program Director and a co-author of the study. Sara Hayes, ACEEE Senior Associate and primary author of the study, notes: "These companies are responsible to their shareholders for earning profits. States that are still using the traditional utility business model have policies that discourage utility investments in customer energy efficiency programs." To address this fundamental problem, regulators and policymakers in a growing number of states have revised the traditional utility business model and adopted "shareholder incentive mechanisms" that allow utilities to earn financial rewards from successful energy efficiency programs. ACEEE's new report, Carrots for Utilities: Providing Financial Returns for Utility Investments in Energy Efficiency, highlights 18 states that have adopted and implemented shareholder incentive policies and also provides guidelines for what is working and what isn't. Some of the key findings include: When states have set energy savings goals for utilities under a shareholder incentive structure, the utilities have thus far consistently met or exceeded them; There is widespread agreement among industry experts that shareholder incentives are making efficiency programs a more attractive investment opportunity for utility decision-makers; and States are rewarding utility programs that are cost-effectively producing energy savings. While a shareholder incentive policy does increase earnings opportunities for utility shareholders, the data to date indicates that these incentives are not excessive relative to the benefits provided by the programs. Steven Nadel, ACEEE Executive Director and co-author of the report, points out: "In states where the amount of the incentive a utility may earn is based on program benefits, such as energy savings, utility shareholder incentives are equivalent to an average of 11% of program benefits. That means that the vast majority of the benefits of these programs are passed on to utility ratepayers." While these types of policies are very important, the report stresses that a suite of complementary policies need to be in place to properly encourage utility commitment to energy efficiency. "Shareholder incentives are a powerful and important tool available to states. However, capturing the full economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency requires policymakers to look carefully at how all of their regulations combine to influence utilities," concludes Martin Kushler, ACEEE Senior Fellow and co-author of the study. The full report includes detailed discussion of the trends, successes, and challenges states have faced in the implementation of shareholder incentives. It draws upon the expertise of industry experts across the nation and makes recommendations for policymakers seeking to design or modify shareholder incentives in their states. States surveyed in the report include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. ### About ACEEE: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency as a means of promoting economic prosperity, energy security, and environmental protection. For information about ACEEE and its programs, publications, and conferences, visit www.aceee.org. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Flickr! If you no longer wish to receive electronic communications from ACEEE, please contact us at: aceeeinfo(a)aceee.org Forward email This email was sent to paula.carrell(a)sierraclub.org by aceeenews(a)aceee.org | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. ACEEE | 529 14th Street., N.W. | Suite 600 | Washington | DC | 20045

1 0

Flier for environmental justice program
by James Kotcon 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Attached is a flyer for the Mon Group Program meeting next Thursday, Feb. 17. Please circulate widely, I am hoping for a big crowd, so let's beat the bushed. Leslie Field is the Sierra Club's National Director for Environmental Justice, and she will be speaking Thursday evening at 7 PM on EJ and Mountaintop removal. Hope to see you there. (Bring a friend). Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

1 0

Republican Congressmen Vote Away Scientific Facts
by James Kotcon 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

The link takes you to a blog by David Hawkins of NRDC. I first met him almost 20 years ago, and he has always impressed me as a pretty knowledgeable expert on Clean Air issues. This should be required reading for the Energy Committee. JBK http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-09-republican-congressmen-vote-away-sc…

1 0

Fwd: Power Plant Pollution strategy meeting February 12
by James Kotcon 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

The WV Chapter of Sierra Club recently filed a Notice of Intent to sue Allegheny Energy over pollution discharges from their Albright power plant. The initial issue deals with water pollution violations from their coal ash impoundments, resulting in excessive discharges of arsenic into tributaries of the Cheat River. While a few of us have been discussing this quietly for a couple weeks, now that the NOI is public, we want to expand our interest group, and identify what issues and opportunities could be obtained to improve our air and water. Coal ash activists will recognize this as another ash impoundment in our back yards. We are also collecting data on mercury emissions. There are issues related to new fine particulate and toxics emissions rules. Oh, and did we mention global warming, and more. This region is home to one of the largest concentrations of Sierra Club members in West Virginia. The meeting Saturday is intended to set goals and start planning for what will almost certainly be major issues in the next year or two regarding Albright. The Albright Power plant is one of the oldest and dirtiest in the Allegheny Energy fleet. No scrubbers, limited emissions controls, etc. Yet Allegheny is proposing to use this plant to meet its requirements for "Renewable and Alternative Energy" under former Governor Manchin's Alternative and Renewable energy standard. But retrofitting this plant would be enormously expensive, and the most fiscally sound option for ratepayers may well be to shut it down and invest in energy efficiency instead. At a minimum, we want Allegheny to clean up their arsenic discharges to the Cheat. But that is not likely to be the last issue for this old plant. Please plan to join us if you are in the region Saturday. If so, bring a friend. If not, please suggest names of others who might want to get involved. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> Sally Wilts <sallywilts(a)yahoo.com> 2/6/2011 10:55 AM >>> WV Chapter of Sierra Club will hold a strategy meeting about our campaign on pollution from Albright Power Station on Saturday February 12 at 1 pm. We have reserved a room in the basement of the Morgantown Public Library (no food or drinks allowed). The library is located on Spruce Street with parking across the street. We apologize for the short notice. Jim Sconyers and Jim Kotcon will be coming loaded with information.

1 0

Fw: Fwd: A PATH/ FERC Comments offer - to save a stamp and some time
by Jim Sconyers 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Tina Rappaport <tinazipp(a)gmail.com> Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 4:26:53 PM Subject: Fwd: A PATH/ FERC Comments offer - to save a stamp and some time Dear PATH opposers, If you haven't been following Ali Haverty and Keryn Newman's challenge to PATH's accounting procedures, see the link below, as it makes great reading and your help to support this challenge is needed. FERC (Federal Energy Regulation Commission) has received Ali & Keryn's formal complaint and we have until noon Feb. 10 to submit our support for FERC to look into the charges raised. Please read Ali's email below and follow her instructions. Please also follow all the PATH news on Bill Howley's blog: http://calhounpowerline.com/ >and Keryn Newman's blog: http://www.stoppathwv.com/ If you have any questions, please direct them to Ali at almahaverty(a)gmail.com Thanks for your "energy"! My best always, Tina Rappaport 304-655-0003 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alison Haverty <almahaverty(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:46 PM Subject: A PATH/ FERC Comments offer - to save a stamp and some time To: Hello again, There have been many people who have already taken the time to send in their comments to FERC about the PATH Challenge. http://www.stoppathwv.com/documents/formalchallenge.pdf Keryn and I thank every one of you! Just yesterday I found out I could file other folks' comments electronically, saving a long trip to the post office. So for those of you who would still like to speak your mind regarding the millions of dollars PATH has collected from us rate payers to fund their advertising and astroturf campaigns, but have not put their comments in the mail yet here is the offer: Email me your comments making sure to use the FERC address, docket nos, title used in the attached "comment template". Comments need to be as a "word doc" or a "PDF". The way you can sign your doc is - for example /S/ Alison Haverty Alison Haverty address...etc. This will make scanning unnecessary also. One other quick step that you need to take for me to eFile your comments is - you have to eRegister your email address w/FERC. It takes a minute just go to this link! https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eRegistration.aspx That's it - easy as pie, especially with this beautiful weather we have been having! And we might still yet get some one's attention over there at FERC!! DEADLINE for me to receive your comments is before noon on Thurs. FEB.10th Please do forward this offer to anyone it might help! Thank you all, Ali

1 0

fracking shale gas- From hydro-fracking to petro-fracking?
by Frank Young 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

----- Original Message ----- From: Beth Little To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 2:27 PM Subject: RE: [WVHCBOARD] Wall Street Journal on "The Shale Revolution" E-gads! About the worst part of fracking is that they use diesel fuel or some other form of petroleum distillates in the water, which contain benzene, among other nasties, and benzene is carcinogenic at 5 parts per billion. Now they are going to use just oil? The irony of all this is: we used to be pumping oil out of the ground. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:WVHCBOARD@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Shoenfeld Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 7:02 PM To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [WVHCBOARD] Wall Street Journal on "The Shale Revolution" I get email every day from stock market touts focused on energy companies. With Marcellus Shale, the environmental problems are generally mentioned as the economic downside. At least one of these guys is now talking about a new process called "petro-fracking" that would replace hydro-fracking and supposedly avoid some of the problems. This process uses oil instead of water as the basic element of the fracking fluid. On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Hugh Rogers <hugh.rogers(a)gmail.com> wrote: FYI: This opinion piece was forwarded to me by a high school classmate (as an investment opportunity?). Typically for the WSJ, it completely ignores environmental effects, concentrating instead on shale gas development as an example of entrepreneurial bravado. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405274870470930457612413348780… -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3426 - Release Date: 02/06/11 __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Oil and Gas Group Urges Oscar Judges to Steer Clear of 'Gasland'
by Frank Young 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

BlankOil and Gas Group Urges Oscar Judges to Steer Clear of 'Gasland' By MIKE SORAGHAN of Greenwire Greenwire Published: February 1, 2011 The oil and gas industry doesn't want a golden Oscar statuette to grace the mantel of "Gasland" filmmaker Josh Fox. "The filmmaker alternates between misstating and outright ignoring basic and verifiable facts related to the impact of these activities on the health and welfare of humans, wildlife and the environment," said Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy in Depth (EID), in a letter (pdf) today to the academy. Complete article: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/01/01greenwire-ioil-and-gas-group-urge…

1 0

Fwd: Re: polling: Americans Oppose Upton and Gingrich-style Attacks on Pollution Safeguards
by James Kotcon 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

You all need to take a close look at this new report, because many in Congress are moving in a direction opposed by most Americans. Last night's conference call with Executive Director Michael Brune was refreshing in that the Club leadership is finally recognizing the threat of the new Congress and is gearing up to oppose Congressional limits on EPA. But West Virginia's delegation is almost uniformly on the anti-EPA side of this issue, and we need to put some pressure on them, or risk losing to the Friends of Coal. JBK >>> Anne Woiwode <anne.woiwode(a)sierraclub.org> 2/2/2011 4:52 PM >>> --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >From Michigan, the state the brought you John Dingell during the auto regulatory era, my profound apologies for now bringing you Mr. Fred "Never Seen a Fossil Fuel I Didn't Like" Upton. Sorry. Anne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anne Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter 109 E. Grand River Ave, Lansing, MI 48906 517-484-2372 anne.woiwode(a)sierraclub.org Support Sierra Club Michigan Chapter! Go to <http://tiny.cc/MISierraClubSupport> http://tiny.cc/MISierraClubSupport to make your donation! "Is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual? Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable." Paul Krugman, NYT, 6.29.09 _____ From: FRED [mailto:CONS-FRED@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Paula Carrell Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:19 PM To: CONS-FRED(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Fw: polling: Americans Oppose Upton and Gingrich-style Attacks on Pollution Safeguards --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apologies for duplication, but I thought this was useful info for ALL the state lobby corps, not just chapter directors paula -----Forwarded by Paula Carrell/Sierraclub on 02/02/2011 01:18PM ----- FROM Peter Altman, NRDC Climate Campaign Director <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/americans_oppose_upton_and_gin.ht ml> http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/americans_oppose_upton_and_gin.htm l Americans Oppose Upton and Gingrich-style Attacks on Pollution Safeguards There has been a lot of talk - and bills - from politicians who think that the EPA shouldn't be allowed to do its job of protecting our health from air pollution. Last week, <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/who_loses_if_gingrich_gets_his.ht ml> Newt Gingrich proposed eliminating the EPA and putting in its place a bureaucracy that would cater to polluters. Some in Congress want to eliminate the EPA's ability to update Clean Air Act standards in order to reduce life-threatening pollution like carbon dioxide, soot, smog and toxic pollution. And today, one of the more anticipated bills is supposed to make its appearance: The Hill reports <http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/141635-upton-inhofe-to-float-p lan-wednesday-that-blocks-epa-climate-rules> today that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton will unveil a bill to block the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting life-threatenting carbon pollution. Thing is, Americans just don't support the Gingrich - Upton agenda. Public opinion polling released today by the Opinion Research Corporation finds that Americans don't want to eliminate the EPA as Gingrich suggests, nor do they want Congress to stop it from doing its job of protecting public health, as Chairman Upton and others want to do. Health professionals take such proposals seriously. As Health Care Without Harm's Climate Policy Coordinator Brenda Afzal, MS, RN, says: "Chairman Upton's bill, which is expected to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating the Clean Air Act to limit carbon pollution, puts our nation's health at risk. Leading health organizations and experts consider carbon dioxide pollution to be a wide-ranging threat to public health, which contributes to the same air pollution problems that worsen asthma and other chronic respiratory illnesses that affect millions of Americans and children. Our health should not suffer so that members of Congress can put corporate profits ahead of the public's health." Here's the bottom line: More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) - including a clear majority of Republicans (61 percent) - oppose efforts in Congress to block Clean Air Act updates for carbon, smog and other pollution, according to a national opinion survey by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) International for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). You can find the full report <http://bit.ly/fXmFyX.> here. And here are some more details: * Americans want the EPA to do more, not less. Almost two thirds of Americans (63 percent) say "the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water," versus under a third (29 percent) who think the EPA already "does too much and places too many costly restrictions on businesses and individuals." Well under half of Republicans (44 percent), less than a third of Independents (29 percent) and under a fifth of Democrats (16 percent) think the EPA is going too far today. * Americans do not want Congress to kill the EPA's anti-pollution updates. Only 18 percent of Americans - including fewer than a third of Republicans (32 percent) -- believe that "Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards," after being told: "Some members of Congress are proposing to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating safeguards to protect our health from dangerous air pollution, saying they will cost businesses too much money." By contrast, more than three out of four Americans (77 percent) -- including 61 percent of Republicans - say "Congress (should) let the EPA do its job." * The vast majority of Republicans - and all Americans - oppose the Newt Gingrich plan to dismantle the EPA. Overall, only 25 percent of Americans agree with Newt Gingrich's call to eliminate the EPA. More than two out of three Americans (67 percent) oppose abolishing the EPA, including half (49 percent) who strongly oppose it. Among those opposing the Gingrich plan: 61 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats. You can get the full news release and other materials here. ======================= Peter Altman Climate Campaign Director Natural Resources Defense Council Phone: 202-289-2435 Email: <mailto:paltman@nrdc.org> paltman(a)nrdc.org Blog: <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/> http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/ Twitter: <http://twitter.com/PeteatNRDC> http://twitter.com/PeteatNRDC Web: <http://www.nrdc.org/> http://www.nrdc.org_________________________________________________________ ___ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: stationary-clean(a)lists.usclimatenetwork.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: stationary-clean-unsubscribe(a)lists.usclimatenetwork.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.usclimatenetwork.org/lists/info/stationary-clean - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to: LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CONS-FRED

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC February 2011