EC April 2013

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

9 participants
18 discussions

Fwd: Coal companies don't want you to see this:
by Paul Wilson 09 Apr '13

09 Apr '13

check out the report and the "Ask the Scientist" question. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Union of Concerned Scientists <action(a)ucsusa.org> Date: Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:38 AM Subject: Coal companies don't want you to see this: To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com *Read this issue on the UCS website.<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=rZCgHspScqPPufjdGDp9lw> * [image: The Pulse: Facts you need from experts you trust] Dear Paul, <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Ad5DalomdqPfV5Qr38dw2A> Coal-fired power plants pollute our air and water and are one of our nation's largest sources of global warming emissions. But times are changing. People like you and me have been working to advance cleaner, more sustainable energy solutions—and it's starting to pay off. Our new report, *Ramping Up Renewables <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=LDXoUktQ4dX4zK1Xfrm4iQ>*, shows that renewable energy is *already* providing reliable power to consumers and that we can dramatically expand our renewable energy use. *Unfortunately, the fossil-fuel industry doesn't want the rest of the country to catch on.*They're working day in and day out to roll back policies that support our transition to a cleaner, renewable future. It's up to us to fight back, so read on! —*Karla* Science in Action [image: Billowing Smokestack] *Take action for more renewable energy in West Virginia* In 2012, new wind power capacity outpaced coal and natural gas for the first time, a success made possible in part by 29 states and the District of Columbia, which require power companies to generate a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources like the wind and sun. These states are demonstrating that we can transition away from dirty, coal-burning power plants toward cleaner sources of electricity while maintaining a reliable and affordable electricity system. This progress threatens the fossil-fuel industry, and they're fighting back—opposing efforts to pass renewable electricity standards in states across the country. *Don't let the fossil-fuel industry stop clean energy progress! Contact your elected officials now to let them know you support a renewable electricity standard in your community!*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=AtCaQiaOGPIZmkX4sagPrg> [image: Click Here to Take Action]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=uELl9yU7Ls7PmGwauNo_DA> *Share:* [image: Share on Facebook]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=oDnkYrJzCIJU9tAiEomfmg> [image: Share on Twitter]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=27wytFY38s3xL7mnFi8DWw> Cartoon of the Month Links for Paul [image: Cartoon: Solar Power]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=j8NT8msZWlDGFpqjmhIFvw> *Click to view larger image.*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=YOT8bPx9M0o_lQGRjLPT_A> *Share:* [image: Share on Facebook]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=0v4HB6VDjil40qasC3ECWQ> [image: Share on Twitter]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=mebnlvTwNYW0CMqjdXFewQ> You know renewable energy is good, but how good? Dive into the details!<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=o7kVutqOmX3lUjkdGEIoCA> What does energy use have to do with our water supply? Find out!<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=sI-V4KHUc5pIejdl9E3HBw> Stay on top of important clean energy updates. Follow our *Ramping Up Renewables* blog series.<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Ua28lieo9Q1150Gyf-0q5A> INFOGRAPHIC: What *science* says about climate change and extreme weather.<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=jR6SeAvDDFjnyp8pChzvxQ> Ask the Scientist [image: David Wright]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=XsD-mRXdd66-JqQa53zv_A> Laura Wisland Senior Energy Analyst, Climate and Energy Program *Follow Laura's blog >>* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=kOmgh3dR6g-nkhLocEnjmg> *A friend of mine claims that if all direct and indirect government subsidies were eliminated, the cheapest electricity source would be coal and that renewables of any kind would be most expensive. Can you clarify how the cost of renewables actually stacks up against other sources? —George E. Milkowski, Chicago, IL* The most important thing to emphasize in answering your question is the fact that renewable sources of electricity are providing clean, safe electricity at competitive prices *right now* across the country. That's a big reason why electricity suppliers are making record-level investments in resources like wind and solar. In fact, the latest data indicate the U.S. wind industry installed more electric generation capacity in 2012 than any other energy source, beating even natural gas. And, thanks in part to government incentives and a maturing industry, renewable sources are getting substantially cheaper. But let's try to unpack some of your friend's claims and assumptions to gain a fuller understanding of how the cost of renewables compares to other sources of electricity. *MORE*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=mM5hZaqbci0VuG_pP9J06g> *Share:* [image: Share on Facebook]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=n6v8saQT42I-rItnuX_nTg> [image: Share on Twitter]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=7PuEoI9UMK96LY4S5M1lFg> Do you have a question for UCS scientists? *Submit your question today.*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=yNOiW375VDRad2pL2bCttw> This Just In [image: Clean Energy Works]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=tVQed4BMVfjnE1YNqibU1A> *Don't believe the critics. Renewable energy works!* When it comes to America's energy future, there's a lot of crosstalk and deception, and the fossil-fuel industry and its allies just want us to keep swallowing their misinformation. Citing inaccurate data, they falsely claim that renewable energy provides few benefits to the environment and assert it must cost more. *That's where science steps in.* To fight their distortion, UCS has released a new report, *Ramping Up Renewables<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=4S6fuDpNEkyl5jlm-4eqgQ> *, which shows how renewable energy solutions are already delivering reliable power to homes and businesses in the United States. The report also describes how the United States can transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future if we take the right steps. Read this exciting new report and share it with your family and friends. *MORE*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=ENrRA_NOfl4T1DtJ2w9RBg> * Share:* [image: Share on Facebook]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=nMN4sNr47jv6a6-NQbtgMA> [image: Share on Twitter]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=6VxfeWwPAvPsBeb-kjGVPA> [image: Got Science]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=ownY3QWe7WJcEtLveO1qkg> *For more than a year, officials in South Carolina tried to suppress a science-based report about the impacts of climate change in the state. Here's how science and sunlight finally won the day...* * * *MORE* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Z6vAaEHLKZIX1FcMuz186g> [image: Buzz from the UCS Blog: The Equation]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=ESQOEWJbwiMLyoRX9VZ-pQ> *Doug Gurian-Sherman:* *Biotech Rider* a Threat to Farmers and the Environment <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=va3bnAehwCVNbNKvf1CRZg> *Francesca Grifo:* Who Keeps an Eye on *EPA* Science?<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=aWhmv4abfJDcdEaUtDypRw> *Jeremy Martin:* The Future of *Biofuels* in 10 Charts and Maps<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=MR7cC1NWJxjqtAT10JOo2g> *Michael Halpern:* Four Hours after UCS Report Release, *United States Geological Survey* Takes a Step Forward<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=kJxJnb1VMjdmeR_Wof17eg> *MORE* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=aUTPvgrPZRUT6n-dwe12Bg> [image: UCS on Twitter]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=PWM0U3bj6BXjCS2SQkgVBw> Absurd: #Ohio Senator compares renewable #energy policy he voted for to "Joseph Stalin's 5-year plan" http://ow.ly/jzPfA <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=oaCKNe3ZnIYV6HkRaORz9A> The 2012 figures on US #solar installations have just come in, and things are looking, well, sunny.ow.ly/jiry3<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=YB9zTo7k7ASSu5jTlLJ-jQ> "Detroit Voices" by @FairFoodNetwork--inspiring look at how city is coming together to expand access to healthy food! http://ow.ly/juYZb<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=upGcBTKyCnBxKEteX3k5Jg> #science groups too! http://bit.ly/14tdSGG MT @cleanairfrank: Health & enviro grps praise EPA #driveclean proposal: http://bit.ly/11WNyAG<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=ilARWLUB8Xcs0JTKl8qncg> *MORE* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=zA_s0MfL2E0z7HHmOtYjoQ> DEFEND SCIENCE! Your commitment to UCS ensures that scientific facts inform decisions that affect our environment, our health, and our security. *Donate today.*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=R-mVKBp56wI-JjYFXqilTQ> [image: Make a Donation]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=qIIbaQhUSTgfS7FcgQJEvw> *STAY CONNECTED TO UCS* [image: You Tube]<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=hqbO8o1ZNH6SaT9jFfnfsw> [image: RSS] <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=g_khx0X-BaZKX2Pkr8hlOA> [image: Facebook] <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=_AZWSC7HAmUqt5LAWnLrHQ> [image: twitter] <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=fHo4r1EVtkEAfIJTScBWlw> The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 phone: 800-666-8276 | Fax: 617-864-9405 | ucsaction(a)ucsusa.org | www.ucsusa.org <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=sLvJsSMdwCn3vkpkYGOEHQ> UCS is a 501(c)(3) organization. All gifts are tax deductible. You can be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely. About UCS<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=rj2MAEqeULOXwMxmpNoNgA>| Take Action <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=0lceNMQMEdvTNQvX4tAcZw> | Donate<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=8N4Iuc3OngQkugAOKhmIKw>| Contact Us <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=VnwNq4h8Ab0VXAw5hDCKIQ> | Privacy Policy <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=CPPgUotHseGpmHCoJAqW7Q> | Unsubscribe<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/CO?i=XM83aok9p4T3Oq0AusnbBvP5pCu0CIwc&cid=1786>| Update your profile <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=gc_vSLB0M-252jilZ19Zqg> © Union of Concerned Scientists. All rights reserved. [image: powered by CONVIO] <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=nx_2F2n9oMi4Ir5fZBE2nQ> nonprofit software <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=kJ4eTkiV8MGK61gj1Ea6Qg> -- 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

Coal squeezed by Nat gas?
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 09 Apr '13

09 Apr '13

Fuel Prices, Emission Standards, and Generation Costs for Coal vs Natural Gas Power Plants <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es4001642> Lincoln F. Pratson<http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&author=Pratson%2C+L+F&qsS…> * <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021%2Fes4001642#cor1>, Drew Haerer<http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&author=Haerer%2C+D&qsSear…> , and Dalia Patiño-Echeverri<http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&author=Pati%C3%B1o%5C-Ech…> Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, United States Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP *DOI: *10.1021/es4001642 Publication Date (Web): March 15, 2013 Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society *Phone: (919) 681-8077; fax: (919) 684-5833; e-mail:lincoln.pratson@du<lincoln.pratson(a)duke.edu> ke.edu <lincoln.pratson(a)duke.edu>. ABSTRACT [image: Abstract Image] Low natural gas prices and stricter, federal emission regulations are promoting a shift away from coal power plants and toward natural gas plants as the lowest-cost means of generating electricity in the United States. By estimating the cost of electricity generation (COE) for 304 coal and 358 natural gas plants, we show that the economic viability of 9% of current coal capacity is challenged by low natural gas prices, while another 56% would be challenged by the stricter emission regulations. Under the current regulations, coal plants would again become the dominant least-cost generation option should the ratio of average natural gas to coal prices (NG2CP) rise to 1.8 (it was 1.42 in February 2012). If the more stringent emission standards are enforced, however, natural gas plants would remain cost competitive with a majority of coal plants for NG2CPs up to 4.3. Print<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/study-the-coal-i…> ------------------------------ Study: The coal industry is in far more trouble than anyone realizesBy Brad Plumer, Updated: April 8, 2013 Here’s some bleak news for the coal industry: As much as 65 percent of the U.S. coal fleet could find itself under threat in the years ahead, thanks to cheap natural gas and stricter air-pollution regulations. That’s according to a new peer-reviewed study<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021%2Fes4001642> by three researchers at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, who take a detailed look at the costs of operating both coal-fired power plants and natural-gas plants around the United States. Their conclusion? Coal power is far more economically vulnerable than most analysts have realized to date. Here’s why: *Cheap natural gas is crowding out coal: *Already, a glut of cheap natural gas from shale deposits in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere is upending the electricity sector. The researchers found that around 9 percent of the U.S. coal fleet has become uneconomical — it’s now cheaper to burn natural gas for electricity than to keep running those coal plants, which are now slated for retirement. The chart below sums up the ongoing shift quite vividly. Many coal plants are now operating at far lower capacity in 2012 than they were back in 2007: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/coal-capacity.png> *And new pollution rules could accelerate that shift: *But the shift to gas could become even more dramatic in the years ahead. Under the Obama administration, the EPA has been tightening various standards for air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury. By 2016, power-plant operators will have to start installing costly new emissions controls at their coal units to comply with these rules. And that will further sway the economics of power generation. By looking carefully at operating costs, the Duke researchers found that an additional 56 percent of the U.S. coal fleet could become more expensive than natural gas, assuming the ratio of gas prices to coal stayed around its current level. That poses a huge challenge to the coal industry — far bigger than previous analyses have suggested. “That was the most surprising thing to come out of this analysis,” says Duke’s Lincoln Pratson, who led the study. “There has been a lot of focus on those 9 percent of coal plants set for retirement — mostly smaller, older plants. But what were seeing is that there are a very large number of younger plants that would become more costly to run than the median natural-gas plant if they were to upgrade their emissions controls.” *That said, there are some caveats: *That doesn’t mean 65 percent of the coal fleet is set to shut down in the years ahead. This analysis all depends on a number of assumptions. First and most obviously, natural gas prices could start rising again — the early glut of gas from the fracking boom already appears to be leveling off<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/what-happens-whe…>. That would help many coal plants hang on. Yet, surprisingly, Pratson and his colleagues found that natural gas would stay competitive even if the ratio of natural gas to coal prices rose from its current level of 1.7 to 4. ”Even in that case, we wouldn’t see the situation we had [in the early 2000s] where every coal plant was cheaper to run than every single natural gas plant,” Pratson says. The study makes a few other debatable assumptions as well. For one, it assumes that power plant operators will comply with the EPA rules by installing new emissions controls — rather than, say, buying allowances under cap-and-trade systems like the acid-rain program. On the flip side, the study doesn’t take into account further potential EPA regulations on cooling water or coal ash. As such, says Pratson, the analysis is offering a “mid-range estimate” on coal’s vulnerability. As a side note, the study also helps referee a contentious political debate. During the 2012 campaign, there were two big theories for what, exactly, was killing the U.S. coal industry. Many conservatives blamed the EPA’s air pollution rules, part of President Obama’s “war on coal.” Other analysts largely chalked it up to cheap natural gas — this was just the market at work. This new study suggests that *both* are crucial factors, and tries to look at how, precisely, natural gas and the EPA will interact with each other in the years ahead. *Further reading:* –The decline of coal, in three charts<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/the-decline-of-u…> . –The shift from coal to natural gas has helped drive down U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions. But natural gas will only be effective in tackling climate change if the industry gets a handle on methane leaks<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/04/methane-leaks-ar…> . –What happens to America’s coal if we don’t burn it? Mining companies will try to ship it abroad<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/what-happens-to-us-coal-i…>, mainly to China. But that all depends on whether they can build new export facilities<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/can-the-united-states-inf…> in the Pacific Northwest. © The Washington Post Company -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: Halliburton's Dirty Secrets Pumped Into WV?
by Paul Wilson 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Chuck is quoted in this WVNS story. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:25 AM Subject: WVNS story: Halliburton's Dirty Secrets Pumped Into WV? To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Halliburton's Dirty Secrets Pumped Into WV? Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31805-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (04/08/13) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Landowners, citizen groups and environmentalists are concerned about legislation now before the House of Delegates that would allow drilling companies to keep secret the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Outreach coordinator Chuck Wyrostok, West Virginia Sierra Club, said the industry, led by the huge oilfield service company, Halliburton Corp., has convinced lawmakers in several states to treat the chemical formulas as trade secrets. The drilling service company wants to do the same thing is West Virginia, Wyrostok warned. That is acting with contempt for the people living around Marcellus natural gas drilling, he said. "It's pretty ludicrous to say, 'We're gonna pump secret chemicals into the ground, and we're gonna transport them through your towns, past your schools. And I'm sorry, you just can't know what they are,'" Wyrostok said. Senate Bill 243 <http://goo.gl/DpM0w> inserts what Wyrostok and others call the "Halliburton dirty-secrets amendment" into a bundle of rules proposed by the Department of Environmental Protection. It has passed the Senate and is now before the House Judiciary Committee. Drillers use hundreds of chemicals to help break up the rock deep underground and get the gas out. Halliburton spokesmen have said the company wants to keep competitors from learning its formulas. But critics say it is more likely they don't want landowners and residents to know. There are practical reasons for not treating the fracking formulas like CIA secrets, Wyrostok pointed out. "Say a truck going through a town in West Virginia crashes or ruptures, and no one knows what the chemicals are. How do the first responders react to that? They don't know what's in that truck." Landowners have a hard time testing their well water for contaminates if they don't know what they're looking for, he said, noting that doctors would have to ask the companies what chemicals might be making their patients sick. No one knows how long the company might take to respond, Wyrostok said, or even if it would. Plus, if the doctors find out what the chemicals are, the new rule would forbid them from telling anyone, he added. "Basically, it's a gag order," he said. "I don't think the medical community is gonna go along with that. Doctors in Pennsylvania are suing the state over it." Information about the status of SB 243 is available at http://www.legis.state.wv.us <http://goo.gl/DpM0w>. 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/31805-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31805-1> --- 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

2 1

Fwd: WVNS story: Justice Loughry: Public Financing Offers An Alternative To Cynicism
by Paul Wilson 04 Apr '13

04 Apr '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 AM Subject: WVNS story: Justice Loughry: Public Financing Offers An Alternative To Cynicism To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Justice Loughry: Public Financing Offers An Alternative To Cynicism Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31726-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (04/04/13) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - As lawmakers consider two bills<http://goo.gl/54PU9>making public financing for State Supreme Court elections permanent, the justice elected under the pilot program says it worked because it gave people a chance to feel good about politics for a change. Justice Allen Loughry accepted public financing for his campaign last year and won, astounding many seasoned political observers. The justice said he cannot endorse legislation, but he added that it is vital that people get a chance not to feel cynical about judicial elections. "You should not be able to buy a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court like you go into a convenience store and buy a candy bar off the shelf," Loughry said. When he accepted public financing, Loughry also accepted strict limits on how much he could spend. That meant he faced opponents with a lot more money, which caused most observers to dismiss his chances. Loughry noted one thing his election proved: You do not have to match your opponents dollar for dollar. "We were still able to reach average West Virginians," he said, "and part of that was because we ran a very positive campaign." To qualify for public financing, Loughry had to raise hundreds of small donations from registered voters across the state's congressional districts. He said that was hard to do, but stressed that it should be hard, to make sure only candidates with a real shot at being elected get a chance at public money. "I don't want to see that change," he said. "You have to be able to show that enough average West Virginia voters would support your campaign. Only at that point should you qualify for that funding." House Bill 2805 would make the pilot program permanent. It has passed the house and is now awaiting action in the senate. HB 2805 and its companion bill in the senate, SB 413, are available at http://www.legis.state.wv.us<http://goo.gl/54PU9> . 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/31726-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31726-1> --- 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: Re: AEP utilities seek incentive for energy efficiency programs
by James Kotcon 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

This looks like one we should examine carefully, as we may want to support AEP on this case, or perhaps even urge a more aggressive EE target. Jim Kotcon >>> Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net> 4/3/2013 9:17 AM >>> I haven't studied their incentive plan, because I'm out of town. But incentives are absolutely vital for expanded efficiency programs. When power companies sell less power, they still have to cover their basic overhead costs. Unless they can still cover those costs, they have no interest in selling less power. Even with the incentives, EE will save people money in fuel costs and operating costs. Bill Howley Research -- PO Box 3 -- Chloe, WV 25235 -- 304-655-8255 On 4/2/2013 4:14 PM, Daniel Chiotos wrote: AEP utilities seek incentive for energy efficiency programs ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857235/aep-utilities-seek-incentive-for… ) Posted: Apr 02, 2013 2:39 PM EDTUpdated: Apr 02, 2013 2:48 PM EDT By Pam Kasey - email ( mailto:pkasey@statejournal.com?body=http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857235/aep-utilities-seek-incentive-for-energy-efficiency-programs ) Energy What does Patriot propose for escaping bankruptcy? ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857934/what-does-patriot-propose-for-es… )WV House votes to expand Mine Safety Technology Tax Credit ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857500/wv-house-votes-to-expand )Coal Association supporting transfer of Harrison to Mon Power ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857653/coal-association-supporting-tran… )AEP utilities seek incentive for energy efficiency programs ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857235/aep-utilities-seek-incentive-for… )Two WV AEP subsidiaries not seeking rate increases ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21854023/two-wv-aep-subsidiaries-not-seek… ) More>> ( http://www.statejournal.com/category/222501/energy ) Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power want a financial incentive for the energy efficiency programs they offer customers. The companies made their case in an April 1 filing ( http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI… ) with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. Both AEP's Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power and FirstEnergy's Mon Power and Potomac Edison have in recent years established basic energy efficiency programs for their customers, ordered and approved by the PSC. The AEP companies' programs include, for residential customers, subsidized sales of compact fluorescent light bulbs, home energy audits with recommendations for improvements and offers of rebates, and support for the state's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. To commercial and industrial customers, the companies offer rebates for more efficient lighting and heating and cooling. In 2012, the programs saved 51 million kilowatt-hours, up from 22 million in 2011. The AEP companies take in about $6.1 million a year in customer rates to support the programs, and propose to continue that for the coming year. But they also seek an incentive. A challenge in asking utilities to promote energy efficiency among their customers is that utilities make a return on investments that increase supply but they lose money on energy efficiency investments that decrease demand: not only do they get no return on the investments, but, by reducing demand, the programs also cut sales. The companies propose to receive 5 percent of the pre-tax net benefits of the programs as their incentive, up to a total of 12 percent of program cost. The incentive for 2012 would come to about $605,000, according to the filing. The companies said in the filing that regulators in other jurisdictions have allowed their sister companies incentives for energy efficiency efforts and that, as a result, those companies have much larger energy efficiency programs, both in terms of spending and of kilowatt-hour savings achieved for participating customers. An incentive, or lack of an incentive, will figure into the companies' future plans for expanding their energy efficiency programs, they said. To follow the case, subscribe to case number 13-0462 on the Public Service Commission's website ( http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/CaseSubscriptions/SubscriberLogin.cfm ).

4 3

Fwd: Major tar sands oil spill in Arkansas
by Jim Sconyers 02 Apr '13

02 Apr '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vanessa Kritzer <feedback(a)lcv.org> Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM Subject: Major tar sands oil spill in Arkansas To: jimscon(a)gmail.com [image: LCV logo header] *Enough is enough! Join us in saying NO to more tar sands spills. Help us reach one million comments against the dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=YSpaol2X6uByoV4T0a89mw>* Jim, * <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=f0CfeDHryI_732JC-dMuIg>* *[image: Arkansas oil spill large]<http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=6ij8fMTNox5wfguVPR8CLA> * *More than 500,000 gallons of tar sands oil and water just spilled in Arkansas. Don’t let this dirty oil nightmare ooze across America. * *Help us gather 1 million comments to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline! Submit your comment here >><http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=NCmCSdaIdRIiSQm9IrTcYQ> * Imagine coming home to this: Oil oozing down your driveway, pooling in your back yard, and filling up your local waterways. Sounds like a nightmare, right? This is the reality that families in Mayflower, Arkansas, have had to deal with since more than 500,000 gallons of dirty tar sands oil and water spilled out of a ruptured Exxon Mobil pipeline this past Friday. This spill is terrible and our hearts go out to the community in Mayflower affected by this disaster. This shouldn’t have happened. That’s why it’s critical that President Obama and Secretary Kerry reject the construction of a much bigger pipeline, Keystone XL, which could cause even more devastating spills of tar sands crude in waterways and lands across America. *We need you to raise your voice now. Tell the State Department to keep us safe from more tar sands spills by rejecting the dangerous Keystone XL pipeline! <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=I2xAhD4B16VzpIeBIfYMtg>* Unfortunately, the spill in Arkansas repeats a story we know too well. In 2010, an Enbridge Energy pipeline in Michigan broke and spilled more than 800,000 gallons of toxic tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River -- and it still hasn’t been fully cleaned up. That same year, TransCanada, the company that wants to build the Keystone XL pipeline now, built a pipeline that experienced 12 separate spills in a single year. In 2011, one of Exxon Mobil’s pipelines in Montana ruptured and contaminated the Yellowstone River. And even just last week, a train derailed in Minnesota and spilled 30,000 gallons of tar sands crude. If these stories make your stomach churn, I know how you feel. It’s absolutely infuriating that we keep allowing Big Oil to put our lands, water, and wildlife at risk, when we have seen over and over how it ends. *The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be a monster -- carrying 20 times more oil than the Exxon pipeline that burst in the Yellowstone River two years ago. If we have any hope of stopping it, we need you to tell Secretary of State John Kerry that this dirty pipeline is all risk and no reward. Send a message asking him to reject it here >><http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=EUQrqZvtSk6V_BwT-zwWsg> * Right now, the State Department is accepting comments on its review of the potential environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline. The initial draft of this review was completely off-base, downplaying the risks of spills and the devastating impact that this dirty oil would have in fueling climate change. Luckily, we have the chance to weigh in on this draft and push them to change it to recommend what many scientists have attested to -- that this pipeline is too dangerous to build and the tar sands oil needs to stay in the ground. *So we’re joining with groups across the environmental movement to gather one million comments opposing the dirty Keystone XL pipeline by the end of the comment period on April 22. With only 20 days to go, we need you to send a message now. <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=WLCqlKdGJk5pIotkzABNww>* Thanks to contributions from more than 3,000 LCV members, we hit our goal in our fundraising drive for this campaign and now we’ve got all the resources we need to win this fight. But we can’t do it without your help. So thanks for taking a moment to make your voice heard today<http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=ouNexmqd2GvWguXc0DtedA> . Let’s do this, [image: Vanessa] Vanessa Kritzer Online Campaigns Manager League of Conservation Voters Update Your Profile <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=NR9awocIis0FyYJZTj9_IA> To Unsubscribe Click Here<http://action.lcv.org/site/CO?i=ma1nN4n3fm81MDSdw0YRmIdfNA9o-eo8&cid=0> 1920 L Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202-785-8683 [image: powered by CONVIO] <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=nWJcPOJ6rfOEmr81Bo2qRA> nonprofit software <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=mxgUgD0DkbYc6b2ThDv75Q> -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last. *There is no Planet B!*

1 0

Washington Post headline: Top climate activist to retire from NASA
by Paul Wilson 02 Apr '13

02 Apr '13

*Top climate activist to retire from NASA<http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/LI37JS/26TJ9O/DSHOZO/WPDJQ7/FX2FEW/8…> * Outspoken scientist James Hansen will turn to full-time activism after 46 years at the space agency. ( by Juliet Eilperin , The Washington Post) -- 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: Should Fracking Waste be Barged on Ohio River?
by Paul Wilson 01 Apr '13

01 Apr '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:45 AM Subject: WVNS story: Should Fracking Waste be Barged on Ohio River? To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Should Fracking Waste be Barged on Ohio River? Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31636-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (04/01/13) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Toxic waste from fracking could soon travel the Ohio River, if the U.S. Coast Guard gives the green light to a proposal by a Texas company. GreenHunter Water, which owns a fracking waste facility in Washington County Ohio, wants approval to ship the waste by barge at a rate of up to a half-million gallons per load. Environmental groups, including Appalachia Resist!, called it a dangerous idea that could threaten the drinking water source for more than 5 million people. Sasha White, an organizer with the group, explained why. "Frack waste is showing pretty significant levels of carcinogens, toxic heavy metals, radioactive particles," White said, "and the fact that it has been dispersed in a watery medium makes it particularly frightening that they would be shipping it on our waterways." According to GreenHunter, barge transport is safer and more cost-efficient than hauling the waste by truck. The Coast Guard is investigating and has not said when a decision is expected. Some have advised that a safer approach would be to recycle more of the fracking fluids and brine through what is called a "closed loop system." Don Garvin, legislative coordinator with the West Virginia Environmental Council, said the state legislature recently killed a bill that would have made that mandatory in West Virginia. However, he noted, several of the state's largest drilling companies already use a closed loop, because it's cheaper. "It decreases the amount of water that has to be disposed of and decreases the risks from spills and it facilitates the reduction in waste at a drilling site," Garvin said. White said environmental groups are also concerned that if the Ohio barge plans are approved, it could encourage more waste to be produced and injected into wells, a practice that has been linked to small earthquakes. "According to the company that proposed it, one barge could contain the same volume as over 1,000 truckloads," White explained. "If you're able to ship that off to one place, you can increase how much waste you're actually producing." It is estimated that millions of barrels of fracking waste, often from operations in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, are injected each year into more than 170 wells in Ohio. 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/31636-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31636-1> --- 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC April 2013