EC April 2017

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

1 participants
7 discussions

Start a nNew thread

(no subject)
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. via EC 29 Apr '17

29 Apr '17

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-colorado-wells-20170428-story…

1 0

Fw: more first eneryg problems
by James Kotcon via EC 24 Apr '17

24 Apr '17

This news story suggests that court verdicts expected in Pennsylvania Tuesday could lead to a bankruptcy filing by First Energy. Should we be following this? I tend to agree that FE's closure of the Hatfields Ferry plant, and perhaps others, was an effort to blame EPA's mercury rules for the closure, when it was, in reality, poor management decisions. The mercury rules would not have required closure before 2015, so why were those plants closed in 2012. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: johnbird(a)frontier.com <johnbird(a)frontier.com> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:02 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: more first eneryg problems Jim, article on first energy http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies/2017/04/24/FirstE… John

2 1

Fw: Judge slams FERC's climate review
by James Kotcon via EC 19 Apr '17

19 Apr '17

Very important case, as this will set precedents here for the MVP and ACP. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: stop-pipelines-wvva(a)googlegroups.com <stop-pipelines-wvva(a)googlegroups.com> on behalf of Lorne Stockman <lorne(a)priceofoil.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:33 AM To: Stop The Pipelines WVVA Subject: Judge slams FERC's climate review Judge slams FERC's climate review Ellen M. Gilmer<https://www.eenews.net/staff/Ellen_M_Gilmer>, E&E News reporter Published: Tuesday, April 18, 2017[Pipelines] Judges have questioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s climate analysis approach for pipelines. Photo by Bilfinger SE, courtesy of Flickr. A panel of judges grilled the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today on its approach to studying climate impacts from natural gas pipelines. The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit centered on a project in the Southeast, but Judge Judith Rogers spent much of today's oral arguments airing broader concerns about FERC's typical treatment of downstream greenhouse gas emissions. "FERC just doesn't have to do its duty because it thinks someone else will," she said, responding to the agency's argument that many downstream impacts fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups filed the lawsuit last year, challenging FERC's decision to issue certificates for the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, which includes the Florida Southeast, Hillabee Expansion and Sabal Trail projects. The groups say FERC violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately consider downstream climate impacts and the effects on environmental justice for communities along the project's route. Sierra Club attorney Elly Benson argued today that FERC had tools available to conduct the downstream greenhouse gas analysis — and was prodded by U.S. EPA to use them — but ultimately opted for a less-detailed approach. "There's no reason to not engage in reasonable forecasting," she told the panel, which included Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith, both George W. Bush appointees. FERC attorney Ross Fulton pushed back, noting that the agency conducted a more general downstream analysis that concluded the project would not significantly contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas impacts because power plants receiving natural gas from the pipelines were switching from coal, which emits more carbon dioxide. "And the commission found that it could rely upon the plants being subject to federal and state air permitting processes for pertinent emissions and mitigation requirements and that these permitting bodies are best positioned to receive relevant air quality information," FERC told the court in a brief earlier this year. Moreover, he said, the agency determined that the linkage between the pipelines and the power plants was not direct enough to merit closer FERC review, as the commission has no control over how the natural gas is used. Brown seemed receptive to that argument, but Rogers jumped on it, noting that contracts with end-users have already been signed. "When would FERC ever have enough information and enough certainty" to look more closely at downstream greenhouse gas emissions, she asked. She also rejected the notion that the case was analogous to other D.C. Circuit decisions that held FERC had no obligation to conduct in-depth downstream analyses because other agencies held the keys to final approval. In last year's EarthReports Inc. v. FERC, for example, the D.C. Circuit ruled that FERC was not required to consider indirect effects of increased liquefied natural gas exports from a FERC-licensed facility because the Department of Energy alone has authority to increase exports. In today's case, Rogers said, FERC has final authority over the Southeast projects. Griffith also appeared skeptical of FERC's position, asking Fulton and counsel for industry intervenors why they were so resistant to the idea of attempting to quantify downstream emissions. "It wouldn't have been hard to do, right, with all that information available?" he asked Fulton. Fulton responded that "it would not have been hard to do, but it would have been hard to do in a meaningfully informative way," because it is difficult to estimate how much of the project's natural gas would be used to replace coal in power plants. The environmental groups are asking the court to vacate the certificates and remand to FERC. Twitter: @ellengilmer<https://twitter.com/ellengilmer> Email: egilmer(a)eenews.net<mailto:egilmer@eenews.net> Lorne Stockman Senior Research Analyst Oil Change International 714 G Street SE, Suite 202 Washington, DC 20003 P: 1 540 679 1097 W: priceofoil.org<http://www.priceofoil.org/> FB: /priceofoil<http://www.facebook.com/priceofoil> T: @priceofoil<https://twitter.com/priceofoil> -- @LorneStockman<https://twitter.com/LorneStockman> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stop The Pipelines WVVA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stop-pipelines-wvva+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:stop-pipelines-wvva+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to stop-pipelines-wvva(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:stop-pipelines-wvva@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/stop-pipelines-wvva/CAJjkHJD61UMx4a6s%2Ba…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/stop-pipelines-wvva/CAJjkHJD61UMx4a6s%2Ba…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

Fw: [MVCAC] EPA Should Not Be Allowed to Dodge Clean Power Plan Ruling, Cities and States Tell Court | InsideClimate News
by James Kotcon via EC 09 Apr '17

09 Apr '17

Very important story on the on-going appeal of the Clean Power Plan. Click the link to read the Environmental Intervenors" brief. Thank you Duane for posting this. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: MVCAC <mvcac-bounces(a)osenergy.org> on behalf of Duane via MVCAC <mvcac(a)osenergy.org> Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 12:11 AM To: MVCAC(a)osenergy.org Subject: [MVCAC] EPA Should Not Be Allowed to Dodge Clean Power Plan Ruling, Cities and States Tell Court | InsideClimate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06042017/epa-clean-power-plan-donald-tru… [http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/DonaldTrump7GettyImages.jpg]<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06042017/epa-clean-power-plan-donald-tru…> EPA should not be allowed to dodge clean power plan ruling, cities and states tell court<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06042017/epa-clean-power-plan-donald-tru…> insideclimatenews.org Coalition of states, cities and green groups urges D.C. Court of Appeals to reject Trump administration request to stall decision on cornerstone climate regulations. EPA Should Not Be Allowed to Dodge Clean Power Plan Ruling, Cities and States Tell Court Coalition of states, cities and green groups urges D.C. Court of Appeals to reject Trump administration request to stall decision on cornerstone climate regulations. By John Cushman, Inside Climate News, April 6, 2017 The Trump Administration is seeking to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's climate policies. A coalition of states, cities and environmental groups filed twin briefs on Wednesday accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of trying to "perpetually dodge" court decisions that could keep alive the Clean Power Plan<https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/clean-power-plan>, which the Trump Administration wants to dismantle. They urged the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the administration's new petition to put the Clean Power Plan<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032017/clean-power-plan-climate-change…>, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's climate policies, into an indefinite state of limbo, while the EPA<https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/epa> sends the rule back to the drawing board. The appeals court heard oral arguments in the case months ago and should be ready to rule at any time. A quick ruling could, within a year, put the regulations on the docket of the Supreme Court, which issued a stay in 2016. The tussle over how to proceed now that President Donald Trump<https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/donald-trump> has ordered the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/trump-executive-order-climate-c…> suggests that those who favor the rule are more eager for an appeals court verdict than those who oppose it. A prolonged delay would "concretely harm" people living in their states, the brief said<https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2017.04.05_states_opp_to_ab…>—"many of whom have sought for more than a decade to compel EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants." The brief even made a veiled threat that if the courts ultimately rule that states have no recourse under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2, they might fall back on a tactic that worked for them in the past: suing polluters under common law for the "nuisance" of intense storms, rising seas and damage to public health. That was a reference to an earlier lawsuit, Connecticut v. American Electric Power, which was tossed out when the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act pre-empted common law. The brief noted that it's not clear how the EPA could even conduct a thorough review of the Clean Power Plan under Trump's latest budget proposals. Recently leaked draft documents<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03042017/donald-trump-environmental-prot…> describe deep cuts to staff working on climate change, including the score of lawyers working on the Clean Power Plan for the agency's general counsel. In a companion brief<https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2017.04.05_ngo_opp_to_abeya…>, several environmental groups made similar complaints. The Trump team's motion to put the case in abeyance, they wrote, is an atttempt "to do what it could not do otherwise: effectively and indefinitely suspend a duly promulgated rule without proposing, taking comment on, justifying, or defending in court any legal or factual premises that might support such a result." The briefs cited extensive precedents for rejecting the Trump argument. But one might carry particular weight: a ruling on April 3, when the Supreme Court itself rejected a comparable request for an abeyance on a different rule, under the Clean Water Act. "An order mothballing this case would leave our millions of members with no federal protections in place from this dangerous pollution with long-term impacts," the green groups pleaded. "Moreover, the combination of the judicial stay and abeyance would leave scant incentive for EPA to act." Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net<http://www.FrackCheckWV.net>

1 0

FE Sells part of Hatfields Ferry for a gas plant
by James Kotcon via EC 07 Apr '17

07 Apr '17

First Energy announced, April 5, the sale of 33 acres and the two cooling towers at the Hatfields Ferry power plant for $40 million to APV Renaissance Partners of New Jersey. APV announced plans to build a 1000 MW gas-fired power plant at the site. http://www.observer-reporter.com/20170405/company_reveals_plans_for_natural… http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/prnewswire/press_releases/Pennsylvani… I suspect that, if the cooling towers are gone, FE will not be re-opening Hatfields Ferry for coal. But Allegheny Energy had spent $650 million for scrubbers in 2009, then closed the plant in 2013, so we ratepayers will still be paying off those scrubbers for years to come! There had been rumors that FE would re-start the plant, but it appears that additional mercury controls would be needed, and those would not be cost-effective. Jim Kotcon

1 0

U.S. coal companies ask Trump to stick with Paris climate deal
by James Kotcon via EC 06 Apr '17

06 Apr '17

Who'd a thunk it! JBK Remaining in the global deal to combat climate change will give U.S. negotiators a chance to advocate for coal in the future of the global energy mix, coal companies like Cloud Peak Energy Inc and Peabody Energy Corp told White House officials over the past few weeks, according to executives and a U.S. official familiar with the discussions. "The future is foreign markets, so the last thing you want to do if you are a coal company is to give up a U.S. seat in the international climate discussions and let the Europeans control the agenda," said the official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. See full story at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-coal-companies-ask-trump-stick-paris-climate-2…

1 0

Fw: PJM
by James Kotcon via EC 03 Apr '17

03 Apr '17

Interesting article from John. This will have implications for the Pleasants transfer. Comments from Cathy Kunkel at last week's event in Morgantown. Although FE is projecting a "Capacity shortfall", PJM apparently does not. It would be helpful to understand the source of that, but I did not get a chance to talk to Cathy about the technical details. Second comment, at a recent talk to the Morgantown Rotary Club, one audience member (with strong gas industry connections) insisted that more gas pipelines and power plants were needed to maintain grid reliability because renewables were "intermittent" and could not be relied upon without keeping a series of backup gas plants running. I replied that (based on EPA's Clean Power Plan analysis last year) America already has enough gas plants, and that additional investments in infrastructure were not needed. But we will likely need better sources than that to back up our assertions. Any advice? Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: johnbird(a)frontier.com <johnbird(a)frontier.com> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 11:56 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: PJM Jim Some information on the PJM study. John https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mid-atlantic-grid-can-stay-rel… [https://www.greentechmedia.com/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/art…]<https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mid-atlantic-grid-can-stay-rel…> Mid-Atlantic Grid Can Lose Coal and Nuclear, and Remain Reliable With Natural Gas and Renewables<https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mid-atlantic-grid-can-stay-rel…> www.greentechmedia.com PJM’s study does set boundaries for wind and solar penetration, but maintains that a mix of resources can keep the future grid stable.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC April 2017