EC July 2014

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

5 participants
12 discussions

Sen. Manchin’s brother sues him, other brother over $1.7 million loan
by James Kotcon 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Can someone forward this to the PA Chapter, and whoever was doing the lawsuit there? What is the best way to use this to highlight the self-interest in Manchin's opposition to EPA rules? Jim Kotcon Sen. Manchin’s brother sues him, other brother over $1.7 million loan Thursday, July 24, 2014 By Kate White, Staff writer FAIRMONT, W.Va. — U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin’s brother has sued the senator and another brother over more than $1.7 million that allegedly was loaned to keep a family business afloat decades ago. The lawsuit was filed Wednesday by Dr. John Manchin against his brothers, Joe and Roch Manchin, in Marion County Circuit Court.According to the lawsuit, Joe and Roch Manchin requested the money in the 1980s from their brother “in response to Manchin Carpet Center’s distressed financial condition. ”John Manchin loaned them more than $1.7 million, all of which was provided to the business’ primary creditor, Community Bank and Trust, according to the lawsuit. Joe and Roch Manchin promised to repay their brother on repeated occasions, most recently in July 2012, according to the lawsuit. The loan does not appear on Sen. Manchin’s financial disclosure forms, filed with the U.S. Senate. The Senate Ethics Committee requires disclosure of any debt valued at more than $10,000, but there is an exemption for a “personal liability” owed to a close family member, including a brother. The July 2012 “funds sharing agreement” attached to the lawsuit describes how money from a proposed power plant in Greene County, Pennsylvania, would be split among the three Manchin brothers. The Nemacolin plant was being developed by Wellington Development, a Fairmont-based company. Under the 2012 agreement, Sen. Manchin would deduct what he put into the project, and then John Manchin would get the first $1 million of profit. Any subsequent profit would be divided among all three brothers for as long as they survive. The agreement was signed by Joe and Roch Manchin, and sent by Kirtan Mehta, chief counsel to the senator. It was dated July 25, 2012, with a U.S. Senate letterhead. Jonathan Kott, a spokesman in Manchin’s Senate office, said Friday afternoon that Mehta did the personal work for Manchin at home, after hours. It was a mistake that the agreement was printed on Senate letterhead, Kott said. “The senator feels it was a mistake, and we’ve notified the Ethics Committee to see if there’s anything we need to do,” Kott said. “They haven’t responded, but we already self-reported it.” Morgantown lawyer Michael Benninger, who filed the lawsuit on John Manchin’s behalf, did not return multiple phone calls Thursday or Friday. Reached at his clinic in Fairmont on Thursday, John Manchin referred questions about the lawsuit to his attorney, Since at least the early 2000s, Wellington had been working on a proposal to build a 525-megawatt power plant along the Monongahela River at Nemacolin. According to court records, the facility was being designed to burn a mixture of newly mined coal and coal wastes that would have been recovered from “gob” piles from the former Nemacolin Coal/Buckeye Coal facility. Promoters touted their belief that the project would clean up nearly 3,000 acres of degraded former mining property. Court records say the plant, if built, would have been “the largest waste-coal-fired facility” of this type in the country. A challenge from the Sierra Club and other groups was thrown out and, as recently as December 2012, the company was trying to obtain required Clean Water Act authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In early February of this year, though, Wellington wrote to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to withdraw its state permit. Wellington official Stanley Sears wrote that “present conditions, as witnessed throughout the U.S., make it virtually impossible to finance and construct this kind of facility.” The letter complained about environmental groups that opposed the project and thanked “all of the many citizens, groups and local government agencies that supported this project over the years.” In his lawsuit, John Manchin also claims that: | According to the July 2012 agreement, if there was a delay in paying him back, he was entitled to one-third interest in coal reserves and brokerage businesses and other incorporated businesses owned by Joe and Roch Manchin. | Manchin Brothers, a company formed by the three brothers, was terminated without John Manchin’s knowledge or consent. According to the lawsuit, John Manchin believes its funds, assets and property were transferred to Wholesale Carpet Inc., which Manchin Carpet Center was reorganized into in the early 1990s. John Manchin claims that assets from Manchin Brothers were transferred to Manchin Enterprises — controlled by Joe Manchin and his son, Joseph Manchin IV — and others. | On numerous occasions, John Manchin’s brothers falsely represented to him that he was one-third owner of Transcom Inc., which was incorporated in 1988. Transcom is now Farmington Resources. Sen. Manchin owns stock and accounts in Farmington Resources worth between $200,000 and $500,000, according to financial disclosure forms filed in May with the Senate. Sen. Manchin’s net worth is between $3.8 million and $11.5 million, according to his most recent financial disclosure forms. The wide range is because the forms require only a broad estimate of the value of each asset owned by the senator, not an exact amount. The lawsuit asks that John Manchin be compensated for what he’s lost and awarded one-third ownership interest in all coal reserves and businesses incorporated, formed and owned by his brothers during the time Manchin Brothers’ and Manchin Carpet Center’s funds, property and assets were being used. - See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20140724/GZ01/140729522#sthash.IPQDwDKp.dp… http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20140724/GZ01/140729522

2 1

FW: Why The Fossil Fuel Industry Hates Wind Power
by James Kotcon 27 Jul '14

27 Jul '14

This article from Australia has some important concepts for the economics of renewables versus coal in America. JBK ________________________________ From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 11:09 AM To: James Kotcon Subject: Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] Why The Fossil Fuel Industry Hates Wind Power http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/20/fossil-fuel-industry-hates-wind-power/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Spike Lewis <spike.lewis(a)gmail.com<mailto:spike.lewis@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] Why The Fossil Fuel Industry Hates Wind Power To: "LA Beyond Coal Team/Energy Activists." <COAL-LA-ENERGY-ACTIVISTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org<mailto:COAL-LA-ENERGY-ACTIVISTS@lists.sierraclub.org>>, Coal Alerts <coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:coal-volunteers-list@sierraclub.org>>, coal no new <nonewcoalplants(a)energyjustice.net<mailto:nonewcoalplants@energyjustice.net>> Happy Tuesday, Coal Fighters! Opponents of clean energy are quick to tell you the myth of how expensive energy efficiency, solar, and wind are. What they are really worried about is how clean energy causes the price of dirty energy to decrease when fossil fuels make their most profits. Thanks to LA Beyond Coal Campaign Volunteer Leader Kent Minault for first bringing this concept to our attention. Today's inspiration is from Cleantechnica<http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/20/fossil-fuel-industry-hates-wind-power/>. Thank you for your time and consideration, Spike -- Spike Lewis -- 310.487.8160<tel:310.487.8160> Volunteer Organizer, LA Beyond Coal Campaign -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ To sign up for this list, email neha.mathew(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:neha.mathew@sierraclub.org> with the subject and message "SUBSCRIBE #coal-volunteer" --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe@sierraclub.org>. To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:coal-volunteers-list@sierraclub.org>.

1 0

Re: [EC] WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE WE DONT KNOW ABOUT THIS GUY? A GOB PLANT? YOU'RE KIDDING. AND EPA, THAT MEANIE.....
by James Kotcon 27 Jul '14

27 Jul '14

Actually, Pennsylvania's Standard was adopted a few years before West Virginia's, and had two standards, one for "renewable" energy sources and one for "alternative". Then-Gov. Manchin adopted this approach with his bill, but weakened it further by making the sources interchangeable. Thus, WV utilities did not have to add ANY renewable sources to meet the WV standard, whereas PA utilities did have to add some wind and solar. But FBC gob burners do qualify as "alternative" under WV law, so they would obviously like to be included in PA as well. JBK PS. The fact sheet below is a little dated, as most of the 1950's era plants have already been or will be shut down next year by the new Mercury and Air Toxics standards. Coal plants with scrubbers will meet the MATS, and therefore are cleaner than FBC plants for most pollutants. PPS. We were somewhat involved in the Nemacolin plant permitting some years ago. I still have the files from when the sent me a subpoena for all records and communications on their air permit. So I sent the about 500 pages of stuff, but since all we did was cite facts, they never followed up (apparently "facts" were not helpful to their legal case). :-) ________________________________ From: Gary Zuckett <garyz(a)wvcag.org> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:47 PM To: 'William V. DePaulo, Esq.'; 'Emmett Pepper'; '5811253# Cathy'; 'David Schlissel'; 'Elise Keaton'; 'Brown Paul Corbit'; 'Sconyers Jim'; 'Price Bill'; 'Chad Cordell'; 'Jim Waggy'; 'William Hall'; 'Doug Wood'; maya(a)chemsafety.org; 'WV Chapter Energy Committee'; duane330(a)aol.com; daniel.chiotos(a)gmail.com; 'Mark Kresowik'; 'David Muhly'; 'Zachary Fabish'; James Kotcon Subject: RE: WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE WE DONT KNOW ABOUT THIS GUY? A GOB PLANT? YOU'RE KIDDING. AND EPA, THAT MEANIE..... “The waste coal industry is pushing aggressively to include their proposed facilities in the Pennsylvania Renewable Portfolio Standard<http://www.actionpa.org/cleanenergy/>, despite the fact that waste coal is not renewable energy and that waste coal power plants are dirtier than coal power plants.” From end of Waste Coal article. Tell me if I’m wrong but I think it was Gov Manchin’s that pushed through waste coal into our WV Renewable Porfolio… GZ From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. [mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 8:43 AM To: Emmett Pepper; 5811253# Cathy; Gary Zuckett; David Schlissel; Elise Keaton; Brown Paul Corbit; Sconyers Jim; Price Bill; Chad Cordell; Jim Waggy; William Hall; Doug Wood; maya(a)chemsafety.org; WV Chapter Energy Committee; duane330(a)aol.com; daniel.chiotos(a)gmail.com; Mark Kresowik; David Muhly; Zachary Fabish; James Kotcon Subject: Re: WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE WE DONT KNOW ABOUT THIS GUY? A GOB PLANT? YOU'RE KIDDING. AND EPA, THAT MEANIE..... Jim Kotcon in North and the rest of you down here.....I agree we need to seize the moment to go after Manchin on this....a short version of this story has gone around the country already.....the gazette article is far more detailed.....i sent it to a new york times reporter who covered west va in january.....we already knew Manchin was making millions from what in the past was described as a coal brokerage business.....this is way beyond brokering.....it relates directly to the motives for his opposition to EPA standards.......one opening appears to be the Senate reporting requirements.....there may be a reporting exemption for loans from a family member, but i'll be fifty cents that at least some of these loans/debts were to a corporate entity of some type--and were NOT exempt from reporting..... LEGAL FOOTNOTE: The West Virginia Constitution provides for impeachment of an "officer of the state" as follows: 4-9. Impeachment of officials. Any officer of the state may be impeached for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor. The House of Delegates shall have the sole power of impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members elected thereto. When sitting as a court of impeachment, the president of the supreme court of appeals, or, if from any cause it be improper for him to act, then any other judge of that court, to be designated by it, shall preside; and the senators shall be on oath or affirmation, to do justice according to law and evidence. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit, under the state; but the party convicted shall be liable to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. The Senate may sit during the recess of the Legislature for the trial of impeachment BOTTOM LINE: WE CANT LET THIS MOMENT PASS WITHOUT EMPTYING ALL AVAILABLE CARTRIDGES. SEE BELOW FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WEB PAGE ON COAL GOB -- THE WORST OF THE WORST -------------------- Waste Coal Burning Waste Coal is Much More Polluting than Burning Coal [Printable PDF factsheet on waste coal<http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/factsheet.pdf>] [Nemacolin Gob Pile in Greene County, PA] Nemacolin Gob Pile in Greene County, PA What is waste coal? Waste coals are the low-energy-value discards of the coal mining industry. Waste coal is called "culm" in the eastern Pennsylvania anthracite coal region and "gob" or "boney" in the bitiminous coal mining regions (western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and elsewhere). Waste coal piles accumulated mostly between 1900 and 1970. The piles look like hills or small mountains that are dark and barren. Hundreds of millions of tons of waste coal and rock litter the landscape in mining states. Why is it a problem? Waste coal piles leach iron, manganese and aluminum pollution into waterways and cause acid drainage that kills neighboring streams. These piles sometimes even catch fire, releasing toxic pollution into the air. <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/facilities>[Map of Waste Coal plants in the U.S.]<http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/facilities><http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/facilities> Click here for a list of existing and proposed waste coal facilities<http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/facilities> Where is waste coal being burned? There are currently 18 waste coal burning power plants, and 13 more that use it as a secondary fuel, with bituminous coal as their primary fuel. Fourteen of the 18 waste coal plants are in Pennsylvania. Over a dozen more are proposed, mostly in PA, WV and KY. There are also now proposals for coal-to-oil<http://www.ultradirtyfuels.com> refineries, some of which would use waste coal to produce liquid fuels. [http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/c-btuchart.gif]Low energy value Nationally, waste coal has an average of 60% of the BTU value (British Thermal Units, a unit of energy) of normal coals. It can take up to twice as much waste coal to produce the same amount of electricity. This means that -- in most places -- waste coal burners can only be economically built where huge volumes of waste coal exist. It would cost too much to truck far-away low-BTU fuel to a centralized burner. Consequently, even if waste coal burning were a clean solution, it wouldn't deal with the problem of more isolated waste coal piles. [http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/c-hgconc.gif] Waste Coal has More Mercury Waste coal has higher concentration of mercury than normal coals. In West Virginia and nationally, gob has 4 times more mercury than bituminous coal. In Pennsylvania, gob has 3.5 times more mercury than bituminous coal. Culm has 19% more mercury than anthracite coal. Bituminous waste coal also has higher levels of sulfur (see chart below<http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal#sulfur>). [This is based on thousands of samples collected in 1999 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Click here for more details on mercury content in coals and waste coals<http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/epa-icrdata.html>.] Data on other metals in waste coal is sparse, but evidence from single metals tests on Pennsylvania culm and gob show both to have about 4 times as much chromium and 3 times as much lead. [http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/c-hgperbtu.gif]More Mercury Per Megawatt Since more waste coal must be burned to produce the same amount of electricity as normal coal would, this means that -- in the states most affected by waste coal burning -- over 6 times as much mercury must be fed into a waste coal burner to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional coal power plant. For culm vs. anthracite coal, it takes nearly twice as much mercury. Where Does the Mercury Go? Older coal power plants could not handle waste coal. In the late 1980's "circulating fluidized bed" (CFB) style power plants were built which could burn the low-energy waste coal. Because they were built after the 1970 Clean Air Act, these CFB power plants have pollution control equipment that the old ones don't have. This makes it easy for the waste coal industry to make the claim that their air emissions are cleaner than 1950s-era coal power plants. Comparing apples to apples, it is more accurate to compare air emissions from waste coal burners to the new coal power plants being proposed. The currently proposed Longview<http://www.nolongview.org> bituminous coal power plant in Fort Martin (near Morgantown, WV) would have lower emissions than the currently proposed gob burner in nearby Nemacolin<http://www.truthaboutgob.org> (Greene County, PA). Other Air Emissions Combustion creates problems that simply don't exist if the waste coal is left unburned. Anytime you burn coal or waste coal, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)<http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/eh/ChemFS/fs/PAH.htm> are created that were not present in the unburned waste coal. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons<http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail-print.asp?Ma…> have a range of toxicity. Any time you burn anything with less than complete combustion, you also create nitrogen oxides (NOx)<http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=EDF…> and products of incomplete combustion (PICs). Since the number of possible PICs is unlimited, the potential toxicity of the PICs is uncertain. [See studies on how fluidized bed waste coal burners release more cancer-causing PAH's<http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/pah/> as well as 15% more global warming pollution and increased carbon monoxide than conventional burners.] Toxic Ash Burning waste coal doesn't make the waste go away. If 100 tons of waste coal are burned, 85 tons will remain as waste coal ash. Since far more mercury and other toxic contaminants enter a waste coal burner to produce a given amount of electricity, these high levels of toxic contaminants have to come out somewhere. Toxic metals cannot be destroyed by burning them. To the extent that they are captured in pollution controls (protecting the air), they are then concentrated in the highly toxic ash that ultimately threatens the groundwater wherever this ash is dumped. Waste coal burners have cleaner air emissions than antiquated coal plants due to their better pollution controls, but this only means that the ash is far more toxic, since the highly toxic particulates captured in pollution control equipment end up in the ash. The industry claims that 99.8% of the mercury in the fuel is captured and ends up in their ash. Waste coal ash is dumped in communities not far from the waste coal burners, threatening the groundwater with leaching lead, mercury and other poisons. Power plant waste is allowed to be dumped without the basic protections (landfill<http://www.ejnet.org/landfills/> liners) that are required for dumping household trash. When burning any solid fuel, the resulting ash has a higher surface area than the raw, unburned material. The dangers of toxic leaching from ash can be expected to be greater than from the unburned waste coal. Just like with coffee, running water over coffee grounds leaches far more coffee out than if you ran water over whole coffee beans. The industry claims that by injecting limestone into the ash, the ash becomes impervious to leaching. However, this has not been proven and it seems likely that the alkaline affects of the lime would afford only temporary protection, especially since the region where most of the waste coal burners are (Pennsylvania, West Virginia) suffers from the nation's worst acid rain<http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001/phlab.gif>. The waste coal burning industry's own data shows that waste coal ash does in fact leach metals into groundwater, despite their public assertions. Ash at 2 of 12 facilities studied in Pennsylvania were shown to contain levels of arsenic higher than the maximum allowable concentration set forth for land application of sewage sludge<http://www.ejnet.org/sludge/>. Of 221 samples of leachate from waste coal ash at the ash dumps, lead contamination in 23 samples (10.4%) exceeded a level 10 times higher than EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water. Six samples exceeded this "10 times the drinking water standard" level for cadmium, as did single samples for chromium and selenium. Click here for a list of waste coal ash dumps in the U.S.<http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/ashdumps> <http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html>[http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/beachgrass-before.jpg]<http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html><http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html> Beach Grass: the Safe and Affordable Alternative to Burning Waste Coal Researchers at the Natural Resources Conservation Service found a very cheap and viable alternative to the conventional waste coal pile remediation method of grading, topsoiling, seeding and mulching. They found that beach grass, native to sandy beaches, thrives in waste coal piles and can establish enough plant cover to enable native plants to take root. This method has been shown to bring life back to long-dead waste coal piles for only 6-10% of the cost of conventional methods. Within a few years, beach grass enabled native plants to take over, allowing organic matter to accumulate around plants, forming a plant layer that stopped erosion, held water, cooled the surface, and looked better. <http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html>[http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/beachgrass-after.jpg]<http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html><http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html> Gob Pile Recovered by Planting Beach Grass For more details, read: * Beach Grass: Bringing the Seashore to the Mountains<http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html> (Erosion Control Feature Article, July/August 2000). * Succession on a Coal Mine Gob Pile Stabilized With 'Cape' American Beachgrass<http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/beachgrass> The waste coal industry is pushing aggressively to include their proposed facilities in the Pennsylvania Renewable Portfolio Standard<http://www.actionpa.org/cleanenergy/>, despite the fact that waste coal is not renewable energy and that waste coal power plants are dirtier than coal power plants. The waste coal industry argues that the best solution to waste coal piles is burning them, while other cleaner and safer alternatives exist. Rather than liberate the toxic contaminants by burning them, it is preferable to remediate the waste coal piles in a way that reduces the problems associated with the piles without creating new problems. ________________________________ [http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/c-sulfurchart.gif] Energy Justice Network, 1434 Elbridge St, Philadelphia, PA 19149 | 215-743-4884<tel:215-743-4884> | niaby(a)energyjustice.net<mailto:niaby@energyjustice.net> | Site Map<http://www.energyjustice.net/sitemap> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:59 AM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com>> wrote: [Print] <http://www.wvgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140724/GZ01/140729522…> Thursday, July 24, 2014 Sen. Manchin’s brother sues him, other brother over $1.7 million loan By Kate White<http://www.wvgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=staff&template=staf…>, Staff writer [http://www.wvgazette.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CH/20140724/GZ01/1407295…] Gazette file photo Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., talks during a meeting in Charleston in January 2013. The senator and his brother were sued by another brother this week over an allegedly unpaid loan of more than $1.7 million. * Manchin v Manchin Complaint pdf file<http://www.wvgazette.com/assets/PDF/CH6201725.pdf> FAIRMONT, W.Va. — U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin’s brother has sued the senator and another brother over more than $1.7 million that allegedly was loaned to keep a family business afloat decades ago. The lawsuit was filed Wednesday by Dr. John Manchin against his brothers, Joe and Roch Manchin, in Marion County Circuit Court. According to the lawsuit, Joe and Roch Manchin requested the money in the 1980s from their brother “in response to Manchin Carpet Center’s distressed financial condition.” John Manchin loaned them more than $1.7 million, all of which was provided to the business’ primary creditor, Community Bank and Trust, according to the lawsuit. Joe and Roch Manchin promised to repay their brother on repeated occasions, most recently in July 2012, according to the lawsuit. The loan does not appear on Sen. Manchin’s financial disclosure forms<https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/annual/a50e409b-350b-4056-b0bf-165…>, filed with the U.S. Senate. The Senate Ethics Committee requires disclosure<http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=60916d73-…> of any debt valued at more than $10,000, but there is an exemption for a “personal liability” owed to a close family member, including a brother. The July 2012 “funds sharing agreement” attached to the lawsuit describes how money from a proposed power plant in Greene County, Pennsylvania, would be split among the three Manchin brothers. The Nemacolin plant was being developed by Wellington Development, a Fairmont-based company. Under the 2012 agreement, Sen. Manchin would deduct what he put into the project, and then John Manchin would get the first $1 million of profit. Any subsequent profit would be divided among all three brothers for as long as they survive. The agreement was signed by Joe and Roch Manchin, and sent by Kirtan Mehta, chief counsel to the senator. It was dated July 25, 2012, with a U.S. Senate letterhead. Jonathan Kott, a spokesman in Manchin’s Senate office, said Friday afternoon that Mehta did the personal work for Manchin at home, after hours. It was a mistake that the agreement was printed on Senate letterhead, Kott said. “The senator feels it was a mistake, and we’ve notified the Ethics Committee to see if there’s anything we need to do,” Kott said. “They haven’t responded, but we already self-reported it.” Morgantown lawyer Michael Benninger, who filed the lawsuit on John Manchin’s behalf, did not return multiple phone calls Thursday or Friday. Reached at his clinic in Fairmont on Thursday, John Manchin referred questions about the lawsuit to his attorney, Since at least the early 2000s, Wellington had been working on a proposal to build a 525-megawatt power plant along the Monongahela River at Nemacolin. According to court records, the facility was being designed to burn a mixture of newly mined coal and coal wastes that would have been recovered from “gob” piles from the former Nemacolin Coal/Buckeye Coal facility. Promoters touted their belief that the project would clean up nearly 3,000 acres of degraded former mining property. Court records say the plant, if built, would have been “the largest waste-coal-fired facility” of this type in the country. A challenge from the Sierra Club and other groups was thrown out and, as recently as December 2012, the company was trying to obtain required Clean Water Act authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In early February of this year, though, Wellington wrote to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to withdraw its state permit. Wellington official Stanley Sears wrote that “present conditions, as witnessed throughout the U.S., make it virtually impossible to finance and construct this kind of facility.” The letter complained about environmental groups that opposed the project and thanked “all of the many citizens, groups and local government agencies that supported this project over the years.” In his lawsuit, John Manchin also claims that: | According to the July 2012 agreement, if there was a delay in paying him back, he was entitled to one-third interest in coal reserves and brokerage businesses and other incorporated businesses owned by Joe and Roch Manchin. | Manchin Brothers, a company formed by the three brothers, was terminated without John Manchin’s knowledge or consent. According to the lawsuit, John Manchin believes its funds, assets and property were transferred to Wholesale Carpet Inc., which Manchin Carpet Center was reorganized into in the early 1990s. John Manchin claims that assets from Manchin Brothers were transferred to Manchin Enterprises — controlled by Joe Manchin and his son, Joseph Manchin IV — and others. | On numerous occasions, John Manchin’s brothers falsely represented to him that he was one-third owner of Transcom Inc., which was incorporated in 1988. Transcom is now Farmington Resources. Sen. Manchin owns stock and accounts in Farmington Resources worth between $200,000 and $500,000, according to financial disclosure forms filed in May with the Senate. Sen. Manchin’s net worth is between $3.8 million and $11.5 million, according to his most recent financial disclosure forms. The wide range is because the forms require only a broad estimate of the value of each asset owned by the senator, not an exact amount. The lawsuit asks that John Manchin be compensated for what he’s lost and awarded one-third ownership interest in all coal reserves and businesses incorporated, formed and owned by his brothers during the time Manchin Brothers’ and Manchin Carpet Center’s funds, property and assets were being used. Mary Manchin, mother of the brothers, died in May at age 91. The family is from Marion County. A Gazette reporter obtained a copy of the lawsuit from the Marion County Courthouse on Friday. The previous day, employees in Marion County Circuit Clerk Rhonda Starn’s office had refused to provide a copy of the lawsuit. Starn told her employees “to transfer all incoming calls regarding this case directly to her,” a clerk in Starn’s office said Thursday morning. Starn did not return a phone message and did not answer several phone calls throughout Thursday. Starn’s office has a policy that lawsuits remain private until a defendant is served, according to the clerk. Another clerk in Starn’s office had said Thursday that the lawsuit might not be public for 20 to 30 days. The Gazette notified officials with the West Virginia Supreme Court about the county’s policy. Officials with the Supreme Court, which oversees all circuit courts in West Virginia, contacted Starn’s office. At about 4:45 p.m., Robin Tucker, Starn’s deputy clerk, called the Gazette and said the clerk’s office had closed at 4:30 p.m. and that a reporter could obtain a copy of the lawsuit at 8:30 a.m. Friday for $1 a page. The amount must be paid by cash or money order before a copy is provided, Tucker said. Circuit clerk offices throughout the state usually provide information and, if they charge anything, send a bill. “Honey, we don’t bill. We have no way to bill,” Tucker said. “All of the information is in our system. You’re welcome to look at it in the morning.” Staff writers David Gutman and Ken Ward Jr. contributed to this report. Reach Kate White at kate.white(a)wvgazette.com<mailto:kate.white@wvgazette.com>, 304-348-1723<tel:304-348-1723> or follow @KateLWhite on Twitter. - See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20140724/GZ01/140729522/1419#sthash.RA5uey… -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588<tel:304-342-5588> Fax 304-342-5505<tel:304-342-5505> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com> www.passeggiata.com<http://www.passeggiata.com> -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com> www.passeggiata.com<http://www.passeggiata.com>

1 0

Re: [EC] WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE WE DONT KNOW ABOUT THIS GUY? A GOB PLANT? YOU'RE KIDDING. AND EPA, THAT MEANIE.....
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 26 Jul '14

26 Jul '14

Jim Kotcon in North and the rest of you down here.....I agree we need to seize the moment to go after Manchin on this....a short version of this story has gone around the country already.....the gazette article is far more detailed.....i sent it to a new york times reporter who covered west va in january.....we already knew Manchin was making millions from what in the past was described as a coal brokerage business.....this is way beyond brokering.....it relates directly to the motives for his opposition to EPA standards.......one opening appears to be the Senate reporting requirements.....there may be a reporting exemption for loans from a family member, but i'll be fifty cents that at least some of these loans/debts were to a corporate entity of some type--and were NOT exempt from reporting..... *LEGAL FOOTNOTE: * The West Virginia Constitution provides for impeachment of an "officer of the state" as follows: *4-9. Impeachment of officials. * Any officer of the state may be impeached for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor. The House of Delegates shall have the sole power of impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members elected thereto. When sitting as a court of impeachment, the president of the supreme court of appeals, or, if from any cause it be improper for him to act, then any other judge of that court, to be designated by it, shall preside; and the senators shall be on oath or affirmation, to do justice according to law and evidence. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit, under the state; but the party convicted shall be liable to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. The Senate may sit during the recess of the Legislature for the trial of impeachment *BOTTOM LINE: WE CANT LET THIS MOMENT PASS WITHOUT EMPTYING ALL AVAILABLE CARTRIDGES*. *SEE BELOW FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WEB PAGE ON COAL GOB -- THE WORST OF THE WORST* -------------------- Waste Coal Burning Waste Coal is Much More Polluting than Burning Coal [Printable PDF factsheet on waste coal <http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/wastecoal/factsheet.pdf>] [image: Nemacolin Gob Pile in Greene County, PA] Nemacolin Gob Pile in Greene County, PA What is waste coal? Waste coals are the low-energy-value discards of the coal mining industry. Waste coal is called "culm" in the eastern Pennsylvania anthracite coal region and "gob" or "boney" in the bitiminous coal mining regions (western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and elsewhere). Waste coal piles accumulated mostly between 1900 and 1970. The piles look like hills or small mountains that are dark and barren. Hundreds of millions of tons of waste coal and rock litter the landscape in mining states. Why is it a problem? Waste coal piles leach iron, manganese and aluminum pollution into waterways and cause acid drainage that kills neighboring streams. These piles sometimes even catch fire, releasing toxic pollution into the air. [image: Map of Waste Coal plants in the U.S.] <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/facilities> Click here for a list of existing and proposed waste coal facilities <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/facilities> Where is waste coal being burned? There are currently 18 waste coal burning power plants, and 13 more that use it as a secondary fuel, with bituminous coal as their primary fuel. Fourteen of the 18 waste coal plants are in Pennsylvania. Over a dozen more are proposed, mostly in PA, WV and KY. There are also now proposals for coal-to-oil <http://www.ultradirtyfuels.com> refineries, some of which would use waste coal to produce liquid fuels. Low energy value Nationally, waste coal has an average of 60% of the BTU value (British Thermal Units, a unit of energy) of normal coals. It can take up to twice as much waste coal to produce the same amount of electricity. This means that -- in most places -- waste coal burners can only be economically built where huge volumes of waste coal exist. It would cost too much to truck far-away low-BTU fuel to a centralized burner. Consequently, even if waste coal burning were a clean solution, it wouldn't deal with the problem of more isolated waste coal piles. Waste Coal has More Mercury Waste coal has higher concentration of mercury than normal coals. In West Virginia and nationally, gob has 4 times more mercury than bituminous coal. In Pennsylvania, gob has 3.5 times more mercury than bituminous coal. Culm has 19% more mercury than anthracite coal. Bituminous waste coal also has higher levels of sulfur (see chart below <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal#sulfur>). [This is based on thousands of samples collected in 1999 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Click here for more details on mercury content in coals and waste coals <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/epa-icrdata.html>.] Data on other metals in waste coal is sparse, but evidence from single metals tests on Pennsylvania culm and gob show both to have about 4 times as much chromium and 3 times as much lead. More Mercury Per Megawatt Since more waste coal must be burned to produce the same amount of electricity as normal coal would, this means that -- in the states most affected by waste coal burning -- *over 6 times as much mercury must be fed into a waste coal burner to produce the same amount of energy* as a traditional coal power plant. For culm vs. anthracite coal, it takes nearly twice as much mercury. Where Does the Mercury Go? Older coal power plants could not handle waste coal. In the late 1980's "circulating fluidized bed" (CFB) style power plants were built which could burn the low-energy waste coal. Because they were built after the 1970 Clean Air Act, these CFB power plants have pollution control equipment that the old ones don't have. This makes it easy for the waste coal industry to make the claim that their air emissions are cleaner than 1950s-era coal power plants. Comparing apples to apples, it is more accurate to compare air emissions from waste coal burners to the new coal power plants being proposed. The currently proposed Longview <http://www.nolongview.org> bituminous coal power plant in Fort Martin (near Morgantown, WV) would have lower emissions than the currently proposed gob burner in nearby Nemacolin <http://www.truthaboutgob.org> (Greene County, PA). Other Air Emissions Combustion creates problems that simply don't exist if the waste coal is left unburned. Anytime you burn coal or waste coal, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) <http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/eh/ChemFS/fs/PAH.htm> are created that were not present in the unburned waste coal. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons <http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail-print.asp?Ma…> have a range of toxicity. Any time you burn anything with less than complete combustion, you also create nitrogen oxides (NOx) <http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=EDF…> and products of incomplete combustion (PICs). Since the number of possible PICs is unlimited, the potential toxicity of the PICs is uncertain. [See studies on how fluidized bed waste coal burners release more cancer-causing PAH's <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/pah/> as well as 15% more global warming pollution and increased carbon monoxide than conventional burners.] Toxic Ash Burning waste coal doesn't make the waste go away. If 100 tons of waste coal are burned, 85 tons will remain as waste coal ash. Since far more mercury and other toxic contaminants enter a waste coal burner to produce a given amount of electricity, these high levels of toxic contaminants have to come out somewhere. Toxic metals cannot be destroyed by burning them. To the extent that they are captured in pollution controls (protecting the air), they are then concentrated in the highly toxic ash that ultimately threatens the groundwater wherever this ash is dumped. Waste coal burners have cleaner air emissions than antiquated coal plants due to their better pollution controls, but this only means that the ash is far more toxic, since the highly toxic particulates captured in pollution control equipment end up in the ash. The industry claims that 99.8% of the mercury in the fuel is captured and ends up in their ash. Waste coal ash is dumped in communities not far from the waste coal burners, threatening the groundwater with leaching lead, mercury and other poisons. Power plant waste is allowed to be dumped without the basic protections (landfill <http://www.ejnet.org/landfills/> liners) that are required for dumping household trash. When burning any solid fuel, the resulting ash has a higher surface area than the raw, unburned material. The dangers of toxic leaching from ash can be expected to be greater than from the unburned waste coal. Just like with coffee, running water over coffee grounds leaches far more coffee out than if you ran water over whole coffee beans. The industry claims that by injecting limestone into the ash, the ash becomes impervious to leaching. However, this has not been proven and it seems likely that the alkaline affects of the lime would afford only temporary protection, especially since the region where most of the waste coal burners are (Pennsylvania, West Virginia) suffers from the nation's worst acid rain <http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001/phlab.gif>. The waste coal burning industry's own data shows that waste coal ash does in fact leach metals into groundwater, despite their public assertions. Ash at 2 of 12 facilities studied in Pennsylvania were shown to contain levels of arsenic higher than the maximum allowable concentration set forth for land application of sewage sludge <http://www.ejnet.org/sludge/>. Of 221 samples of leachate from waste coal ash at the ash dumps, lead contamination in 23 samples (10.4%) exceeded a level 10 times higher than EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water. Six samples exceeded this "10 times the drinking water standard" level for cadmium, as did single samples for chromium and selenium. Click here for a list of waste coal ash dumps in the U.S. <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/ashdumps> <http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html> Beach Grass: the Safe and Affordable Alternative to Burning Waste Coal Researchers at the Natural Resources Conservation Service found a very cheap and viable alternative to the conventional waste coal pile remediation method of grading, topsoiling, seeding and mulching. They found that beach grass, native to sandy beaches, thrives in waste coal piles and can establish enough plant cover to enable native plants to take root. This method has been shown to bring life back to long-dead waste coal piles for only 6-10% of the cost of conventional methods. Within a few years, beach grass enabled native plants to take over, allowing organic matter to accumulate around plants, forming a plant layer that stopped erosion, held water, cooled the surface, and looked better. <http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html> Gob Pile Recovered by Planting Beach Grass For more details, read: - Beach Grass: Bringing the Seashore to the Mountains <http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ec_0007_beach.html> (*Erosion Control* Feature Article, July/August 2000). - Succession on a Coal Mine Gob Pile Stabilized With 'Cape' American Beachgrass <http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal/beachgrass> The waste coal industry is pushing aggressively to include their proposed facilities in the Pennsylvania Renewable Portfolio Standard <http://www.actionpa.org/cleanenergy/>, despite the fact that waste coal is not renewable energy and that waste coal power plants are dirtier than coal power plants. The waste coal industry argues that the best solution to waste coal piles is burning them, while other cleaner and safer alternatives exist. Rather than liberate the toxic contaminants by burning them, it is preferable to remediate the waste coal piles in a way that reduces the problems associated with the piles without creating new problems. ------------------------------ Energy Justice Network, 1434 Elbridge St, Philadelphia, PA 19149 | 215-743-4884 | niaby(a)energyjustice.net | Site Map <http://www.energyjustice.net/sitemap> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:59 AM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. < william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [image: Print] > <http://www.wvgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140724/GZ01/140729522…> > Thursday, July 24, 2014 > Sen. Manchin’s brother sues him, other brother over $1.7 million loan > By Kate White > <http://www.wvgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=staff&template=staf…>, > Staff writer > Gazette file photo > Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., talks during a meeting in Charleston in January > 2013. The senator and his brother were sued by another brother this week > over an allegedly unpaid loan of more than $1.7 million. > > - Manchin v Manchin Complaint pdf file > <http://www.wvgazette.com/assets/PDF/CH6201725.pdf> > > FAIRMONT, W.Va. — U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin’s brother has sued the senator > and another brother over more than $1.7 million that allegedly was loaned > to keep a family business afloat decades ago. > > The lawsuit was filed Wednesday by Dr. John Manchin against his brothers, > Joe and Roch Manchin, in Marion County Circuit Court. > > According to the lawsuit, Joe and Roch Manchin requested the money in the > 1980s from their brother “in response to Manchin Carpet Center’s distressed > financial condition.” > > John Manchin loaned them more than $1.7 million, all of which was provided > to the business’ primary creditor, Community Bank and Trust, according to > the lawsuit. > > Joe and Roch Manchin promised to repay their brother on repeated > occasions, most recently in July 2012, according to the lawsuit. > > The loan does not appear on Sen. Manchin’s financial disclosure forms > <https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/annual/a50e409b-350b-4056-b0bf-165…>, > filed with the U.S. Senate. The Senate Ethics Committee requires > disclosure > <http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=60916d73-…> > of any debt valued at more than $10,000, but there is an exemption for a > “personal liability” owed to a close family member, including a brother. > > The July 2012 “funds sharing agreement” attached to the lawsuit describes > how money from a proposed power plant in Greene County, Pennsylvania, would > be split among the three Manchin brothers. The Nemacolin plant was being > developed by Wellington Development, a Fairmont-based company. > > Under the 2012 agreement, Sen. Manchin would deduct what he put into the > project, and then John Manchin would get the first $1 million of profit. > Any subsequent profit would be divided among all three brothers for as long > as they survive. > > The agreement was signed by Joe and Roch Manchin, and sent by Kirtan > Mehta, chief counsel to the senator. It was dated July 25, 2012, with a > U.S. Senate letterhead. > > Jonathan Kott, a spokesman in Manchin’s Senate office, said Friday > afternoon that Mehta did the personal work for Manchin at home, after > hours. It was a mistake that the agreement was printed on Senate > letterhead, Kott said. > > “The senator feels it was a mistake, and we’ve notified the Ethics > Committee to see if there’s anything we need to do,” Kott said. “They > haven’t responded, but we already self-reported it.” > > Morgantown lawyer Michael Benninger, who filed the lawsuit on John > Manchin’s behalf, did not return multiple phone calls Thursday or Friday. > Reached at his clinic in Fairmont on Thursday, John Manchin referred > questions about the lawsuit to his attorney, > > Since at least the early 2000s, Wellington had been working on a proposal > to build a 525-megawatt power plant along the Monongahela River at > Nemacolin. According to court records, the facility was being designed to > burn a mixture of newly mined coal and coal wastes that would have been > recovered from “gob” piles from the former Nemacolin Coal/Buckeye Coal > facility. Promoters touted their belief that the project would clean up > nearly 3,000 acres of degraded former mining property. Court records say > the plant, if built, would have been “the largest waste-coal-fired > facility” of this type in the country. A challenge from the Sierra Club and > other groups was thrown out and, as recently as December 2012, the company > was trying to obtain required Clean Water Act authorization from the U.S. > Army Corps of Engineers. > > In early February of this year, though, Wellington wrote to the > Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to withdraw its state > permit. Wellington official Stanley Sears wrote that “present conditions, > as witnessed throughout the U.S., make it virtually impossible to finance > and construct this kind of facility.” The letter complained about > environmental groups that opposed the project and thanked “all of the many > citizens, groups and local government agencies that supported this project > over the years.” > > In his lawsuit, John Manchin also claims that: > > | According to the July 2012 agreement, if there was a delay in paying him > back, he was entitled to one-third interest in coal reserves and brokerage > businesses and other incorporated businesses owned by Joe and Roch Manchin. > > | Manchin Brothers, a company formed by the three brothers, was terminated > without John Manchin’s knowledge or consent. According to the lawsuit, John > Manchin believes its funds, assets and property were transferred to > Wholesale Carpet Inc., which Manchin Carpet Center was reorganized into in > the early 1990s. John Manchin claims that assets from Manchin Brothers were > transferred to Manchin Enterprises — controlled by Joe Manchin and his son, > Joseph Manchin IV — and others. > > | On numerous occasions, John Manchin’s brothers falsely represented to > him that he was one-third owner of Transcom Inc., which was incorporated in > 1988. Transcom is now Farmington Resources. > > Sen. Manchin owns stock and accounts in Farmington Resources worth between > $200,000 and $500,000, according to financial disclosure forms filed in May > with the Senate. > > Sen. Manchin’s net worth is between $3.8 million and $11.5 million, > according to his most recent financial disclosure forms. The wide range is > because the forms require only a broad estimate of the value of each asset > owned by the senator, not an exact amount. > > The lawsuit asks that John Manchin be compensated for what he’s lost and > awarded one-third ownership interest in all coal reserves and businesses > incorporated, formed and owned by his brothers during the time Manchin > Brothers’ and Manchin Carpet Center’s funds, property and assets were being > used. > > Mary Manchin, mother of the brothers, died in May at age 91. The family is > from Marion County. > > A Gazette reporter obtained a copy of the lawsuit from the Marion County > Courthouse on Friday. The previous day, employees in Marion County Circuit > Clerk Rhonda Starn’s office had refused to provide a copy of the lawsuit. > Starn told her employees “to transfer all incoming calls regarding this > case directly to her,” a clerk in Starn’s office said Thursday morning. > > Starn did not return a phone message and did not answer several phone > calls throughout Thursday. > > Starn’s office has a policy that lawsuits remain private until a defendant > is served, according to the clerk. Another clerk in Starn’s office had said > Thursday that the lawsuit might not be public for 20 to 30 days. > > The Gazette notified officials with the West Virginia Supreme Court about > the county’s policy. Officials with the Supreme Court, which oversees all > circuit courts in West Virginia, contacted Starn’s office. > > At about 4:45 p.m., Robin Tucker, Starn’s deputy clerk, called the Gazette > and said the clerk’s office had closed at 4:30 p.m. and that a reporter > could obtain a copy of the lawsuit at 8:30 a.m. Friday for $1 a page. The > amount must be paid by cash or money order before a copy is provided, > Tucker said. Circuit clerk offices throughout the state usually provide > information and, if they charge anything, send a bill. > > “Honey, we don’t bill. We have no way to bill,” Tucker said. “All of the > information is in our system. You’re welcome to look at it in the morning.” > > Staff writers David Gutman and Ken Ward Jr. contributed to this report. > > Reach Kate White at kate.white(a)wvgazette.com, 304-348-1723 or follow > @KateLWhite on Twitter. > - See more at: > http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20140724/GZ01/140729522/1419#sthash.RA5uey… > > -- > 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 > > -- 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

from ScienceDaily e-newsletter: How to power California with wind, water and sun
by Paul Wilson 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

How to power California with wind, water and sun <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/v6m…> Posted: 24 Jul 2014 11:43 AM PDT New research outlines the path to a possible future for California in which renewable energy creates a healthier environment, generates jobs and stabilizes energy prices. <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=v6m…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=v6m…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=v6m…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=v6m…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=v6m…> -- 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

Mitchel Plant transfer piostponed (was: WV Team called-CANCEL
by James Kotcon 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

FYI. JBK ________________________________ From: Zachary Fabish <zachary.fabish(a)sierraclub.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:09 AM To: Bill Price Cc: James Kotcon; David W. Sturm; Gary Nelson; David Muhly; Seth Long; Emmett McKinney; Adam Beitman; Mark Kresowik; Daniel Chiotos Subject: Re: WV Team called-CANCEL One small piece of news for email, though: the AEP Mitchell asset transfer hearing has been postponed until September 17. The deadline for submitting testimony has been similarly pushed back to August 29. So we will have more time to put together some solid testimony on how saddling APCo-Wheeling's ratepayers with the Mitchell plant is a very bad idea under the carbon rule. -Zack

1 0

from ScienceDaily e-newsletter: Replacing coal, oil with natural gas will not help fight global warming, expert argues
by Paul Wilson 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

Replacing coal, oil with natural gas will not help fight global warming, expert argues <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/GZ2…> Posted: 21 Jul 2014 09:39 AM PDT Both shale gas and conventional natural gas have a larger greenhouse gas footprint than do coal or oil, especially for the primary uses of residential and commercial heating. "While emissions of carbon dioxide are less from natural gas than from coal and oil, methane emissions are far greater. Methane is such a potent greenhouse gas that these emissions make natural gas a dangerous fuel from the standpoint of global warming over the next several decades," said the author of a new article. <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=GZ2…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=GZ2…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=GZ2…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=GZ2…> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment?a=GZ2…> -- 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

MTR
by Allan Tweddle 20 Jul '14

20 Jul '14

How can anyone who lives in West Virginia, and loves or even just likes this beautiful State, who saw the photo of the horrors of so called Mountain Top Removal "mining" on the front page of the Sunday Business Section, not be absolutely furious, incensed and willing to join in the effort to stop MTR. It is rape of this state to no advantage of anyone except industry supported politicians, coal company executives, and their non resident owners. As a resident and taxpayer I am disgusted, and angry at the greed driven power they have over us all. When is enough enough? Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Re: [EC] FW: LEEP Interim Study Outreach
by James Kotcon 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

While LEEP programs vary from state to state, that appears to be the essence of what EEWV is proposing. The commercial or business property applies to the local government for financing for EE investments. This usually requires an energy audit from an energy services company which guarantees the energy cost savings. The investment cost is paid off by an assessment with local property taxes, which assures that the local government makes its money back on the loan, even if the business is sold. The local business gets reductions in energy bills that exceed the increase in property taxes, so the business benefits too. "PACE" legislation offers the same program for residential properties, but these programs have run into problems with home mortgage lenders, so there is less interest in offering the programs to residential customers. Another approach that is widely used is to have the local utility pay for the EE investments, and recoup them from the difference in electric savings. This would be useful for a distribution utility, especially in deregulated states, but in WV, the distribution company is a subsidiary of the generation company, so there is less incentive to save money. JBK ________________________________ From: Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:07 AM To: James Kotcon Subject: Re: [EC] FW: LEEP Interim Study Outreach I'd need to understand it better. Local government funds energy project? Then recoup the cost via tax bills? Is that it On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:21 AM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu>> wrote: An emerging issue with EEWV (Cathy Kunkel, et al.) is their proposal for a "PACE" or LEEP legislation (see description below). They are looking at an interim legislative study, with a bill to be introduced in 2015. EEWV contacted Bill and Danny, but since this is legislation, it cannot be a c-3 campaign. Is there interest in the WV Chapter working on such a bill? Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:bill.price@sierraclub.org>> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:28 AM To: James Kotcon; David Muhly; Zachary Fabish; Mark Kresowik; Daniel Chiotos Subject: Fwd: LEEP Interim Study Outreach I spoke to Emmett yesterday, and here's what he wrote up about LEED. Jim Kotcon said he would talk with Chapter leaders. Bill Price, Organizing Representative Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign Phone: 304-389-8822<tel:304-389-8822> (Cell) Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:bill.price@sierraclub.org> "If there's no struggle, there's no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet renounce controversy are people who want crops without plowing the ground..." Frederick Douglass 1817-1895 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emmett Pepper <emmett(a)eewv.org<mailto:emmett@eewv.org>> Date: Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:00 AM Subject: LEEP Interim Study Outreach To: arthur hallstrom <art(a)ahallstrom.com<mailto:art@ahallstrom.com>>, Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:bill.price@sierraclub.org>>, Daniel Chiotos <daniel.chiotos(a)gmail.com<mailto:daniel.chiotos@gmail.com>>, Reggie Jones <reggie(a)prideinlogan.com<mailto:reggie@prideinlogan.com>> Cc: Dan Taylor <dan(a)ohvec.org<mailto:dan@ohvec.org>>, Cathy Kunkel <cathykunkel(a)gmail.com<mailto:cathykunkel@gmail.com>>, Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net<mailto:billhowley@hughes.net>> Dear energy efficiency allies, As you know, LEEP (also known as PACE) is being studied by the legislature. LEEP is a really great way to spur growth in the energy efficiency sector by having some property owners pay back loans for energy efficiency upgrades over tie. In most programs, the upgrades can be paid back over a number of years (up to 20 years). While LEEP laws vary from state-to-state, the main aspects that define them are that the repayments are done with the property tax and the loan stays with the property no matter who owns it. In many of the upgrades that have happened through LEEP/PACE programs, companies have been able to reduce energy use by half, so the impacts have been huge. Here is our page about the LEEP program, which includes our fact sheet. http://www.eewv.org/leep This interim study is the way the legislature will form its thinking about how to proceed with LEEP. At this time there is no specific legislation being considered, though the legislators may decide to introduce a bill as a committee. We want to make sure that the voices of the members of the subcommittee studying the issue hear from cities in or near their districts. 23 local governments have asked to be given home rule permission, and 15 of those are in or near districts of subcommittee members or other prominent state legislators. Of the 15, I have identified six top targets (Huntington, Martinsburg, Charles Town, Oak Hill, Weirton, and Parkersburg) based on the number of key legislators with districts in those areas. I have attached a list of all of the subcommittee members, and listed all 15 of the towns by region. The highest concentrations of committee members are in the Eastern Panhandle, Northern Panhandle, and Huntington area, but the chairs are from Fayette County and Logan County. You will notice that there is absolutely no one on the subcommittee from the Charleston area. If you are not able to contact any of these local governments, if you have a connection to the subcommittee members, it would be much appreciated for you to reach out to them. We need your help letting local government officials know about this study and have them inform our legislators about how energy efficiency can help local economies. This is likely to be one of the few energy efficiency initiatives that will go forward in the 2015 session, so it is important that the legislators studying it are well-versed and understand local support for it. Thank you and I welcome any feedback you have! -- Emmett Pepper Executive Director Energy Efficient WV 304-346-5891<tel:304-346-5891> emmett(a)eewv.org<mailto:emmett@eewv.org> www.eewv.org<http://www.eewv.org> @eewv _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org<mailto:EC@osenergy.org> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com<mailto:jimscon@gmail.com> 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

FW: LEEP Interim Study Outreach
by James Kotcon 16 Jul '14

16 Jul '14

An emerging issue with EEWV (Cathy Kunkel, et al.) is their proposal for a "PACE" or LEEP legislation (see description below). They are looking at an interim legislative study, with a bill to be introduced in 2015. EEWV contacted Bill and Danny, but since this is legislation, it cannot be a c-3 campaign. Is there interest in the WV Chapter working on such a bill? Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:28 AM To: James Kotcon; David Muhly; Zachary Fabish; Mark Kresowik; Daniel Chiotos Subject: Fwd: LEEP Interim Study Outreach I spoke to Emmett yesterday, and here's what he wrote up about LEED. Jim Kotcon said he would talk with Chapter leaders. Bill Price, Organizing Representative Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign Phone: 304-389-8822 (Cell) Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:bill.price@sierraclub.org> "If there's no struggle, there's no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet renounce controversy are people who want crops without plowing the ground..." Frederick Douglass 1817-1895 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emmett Pepper <emmett(a)eewv.org<mailto:emmett@eewv.org>> Date: Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:00 AM Subject: LEEP Interim Study Outreach To: arthur hallstrom <art(a)ahallstrom.com<mailto:art@ahallstrom.com>>, Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:bill.price@sierraclub.org>>, Daniel Chiotos <daniel.chiotos(a)gmail.com<mailto:daniel.chiotos@gmail.com>>, Reggie Jones <reggie(a)prideinlogan.com<mailto:reggie@prideinlogan.com>> Cc: Dan Taylor <dan(a)ohvec.org<mailto:dan@ohvec.org>>, Cathy Kunkel <cathykunkel(a)gmail.com<mailto:cathykunkel@gmail.com>>, Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net<mailto:billhowley@hughes.net>> Dear energy efficiency allies, As you know, LEEP (also known as PACE) is being studied by the legislature. LEEP is a really great way to spur growth in the energy efficiency sector by having some property owners pay back loans for energy efficiency upgrades over tie. In most programs, the upgrades can be paid back over a number of years (up to 20 years). While LEEP laws vary from state-to-state, the main aspects that define them are that the repayments are done with the property tax and the loan stays with the property no matter who owns it. In many of the upgrades that have happened through LEEP/PACE programs, companies have been able to reduce energy use by half, so the impacts have been huge. Here is our page about the LEEP program, which includes our fact sheet. http://www.eewv.org/leep This interim study is the way the legislature will form its thinking about how to proceed with LEEP. At this time there is no specific legislation being considered, though the legislators may decide to introduce a bill as a committee. We want to make sure that the voices of the members of the subcommittee studying the issue hear from cities in or near their districts. 23 local governments have asked to be given home rule permission, and 15 of those are in or near districts of subcommittee members or other prominent state legislators. Of the 15, I have identified six top targets (Huntington, Martinsburg, Charles Town, Oak Hill, Weirton, and Parkersburg) based on the number of key legislators with districts in those areas. I have attached a list of all of the subcommittee members, and listed all 15 of the towns by region. The highest concentrations of committee members are in the Eastern Panhandle, Northern Panhandle, and Huntington area, but the chairs are from Fayette County and Logan County. You will notice that there is absolutely no one on the subcommittee from the Charleston area. If you are not able to contact any of these local governments, if you have a connection to the subcommittee members, it would be much appreciated for you to reach out to them. We need your help letting local government officials know about this study and have them inform our legislators about how energy efficiency can help local economies. This is likely to be one of the few energy efficiency initiatives that will go forward in the 2015 session, so it is important that the legislators studying it are well-versed and understand local support for it. Thank you and I welcome any feedback you have! -- Emmett Pepper Executive Director Energy Efficient WV 304-346-5891<tel:304-346-5891> emmett(a)eewv.org<mailto:emmett@eewv.org> www.eewv.org<http://www.eewv.org> @eewv

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC July 2014