EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: Membership
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

Mark I represented the Highlands Conservancy in the first wind turbine case ever filed with the Public Service Commission in 2005 [CORRECTION 2000], and I represent them (and the Sierra Club) now in proceedings at the PSC relating to AEP/Allegheny's proposed construction of PATH, a high voltage electric transmission line from the John Amos coal-fired electric plant in Winfield to Maryland -- through 225 miles of West Virginia, including vast swaths of forest. I think it is inaccurate to state the Sierra has stated a blanket policy in favor of absolutely any and all wind turbines. There clearly is a strong desire to build them, and as many as possible, but there is no blank check. HC dropped its opposition to the first wind turbine in 2005 [CORRECTION 2000] when the developer agreed to make changes moving the turbines further away from Dolly Sod. See the attached agreement. The Highlands Conservancy has adopted what I regard as an impossible standard for wind turbines, in effect, the exact opposite of blanket approval. HC's requirement that wind turbines demonstrate that they will result in the shut down of some equivalent MW of coal or other fossil fuel plant is just unrealistic, especially in a world where more generation capacity is being built all of the time. The reality is that no wind turbine, in the absence of the authority as the owner of a coal fired plant to shut down the plant, could ever meet that standard. None would be approved, ever, anywhere. Can you show me a single wind turbine project the HC is currently supporting under its recently announced standard? Of any size, in any location? I hope you can. Honestly. Best regards, Bill On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net>wrote: > Thanks Bill for the effort to help me understand the issueI am fully > aware of all You bring to this issue but the relevant point I make and will > repeat > is A Blank policy that all WInd projects are good without close examination > of the details and the effects on individuals and communities will only lead > to a watered down effort . There are thousands of citizens and much animal > life that will be negatively effected by this local Beach Ridge project and > without compensation for property devaluation etc. and will reap nothing > from it except more power for the grid so the Pittsburgh suburbs can > flourish . And the green credits mean more pollution by a dirty industry > that buys or owns them! Yes there are many negative issues you did not > address in your email > I dont care to argue the fine points . > > Just look at the WV Highland Conservancy turn around position on Wind > projects in WV > Their reversal on this is an epic decision for an environmental org of WV > and is very commendable ! > So I would suggest that the WV SC also have a closer l@@K at its position > ALL WIND PROJECTS ARE NOT GOOD and therefore a blanket statement endorsing > these only hurts the membership issue > as in my case and the image of the org. > > Thanks for the consideration > Mark > > On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:29 PM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. wrote: > > But trust me when I tell you that uninformed moral fervor will not deter > the Sierra Club from aggressively pursuing realistic energy and > environmental solutions. > > > > > * > Mark Blumenstein* > > *HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910* > > *304 445 7822* > > * * > > * markb(a)mountain.net* > > > > -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email. -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

1 0

Re: [EC] Membership
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

Mark Jim Kotcon is a very polite guy, and both courteous and elegant in his communications. I would rather open your eyes. First, the easy one. Carbon offsets are, by definition, required only of energy generated by sources relying up a carbon based fuel, like coal, petroleum, natural gas, and other fossil fuels (methane, butane, propane, the list goes on). Wind, which is roughly 90% nitrogen and 10% oxygen, has no carbon content. There is no predicate, therefore, for requiring a "carbon" offset. That would be making green energy sources offset the damage caused by other, non-green energy sources. That makes no sense as a matter of public policy. Period. View shed issues are more difficult. They are inherently subjective. What upsets one, pleases another, or may leave them indifferent. I am largely indifferent to wind turbines; I don't think of them as visual phenomena any more than I assess the aesthetics of an Exxon station when I pull into a gas station to fill up my gas tank (lacking as I do an electric car that could be charged at night by electricity generated by a wind turbine or solar panel). It's true, wind turbines frequently, if not always, require trees to be cut down. So does toilet paper, in significantly greater numbers....what did the wise man say? DETOGT (don't even think of going there). If you wanna see a LOT of trees cut down go look at the 10,000 acre wasteland that surrounds Kayford Mountain, 20 miles south of Charleston, the legacy of a fifteen year, ongoing mountain top removal project. At the same time I find the visual image of thousands of 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 year-old soldiers -- returning to the United States in caskets -- upsetting. *Very* god damned upsetting. I blame the fact that we are now engaged in wars in three countries in the Middle East on the fact that the oil companies were able to prevail upon their fraudulently elected lap dogs to embark on a war in Iraq primarily -- if not exclusively -- to control Iraqi oil fields. And that was not done as a "favor" to US citizens; it was the war crime known as aggressive war. I also react negatively (yeah, angry, exasperated, pissed off, pick any phrase you like, they all fit) when serious efforts to end American economic imperialism, and the squandering of environmental resources, are frustrated by misguided efforts -- however well intended -- to obstruct increases in domestically generated, and environmentally sustainable, energy sources. Like wind turbines. There are no risk or cost free choices in life. Either we continue to purchase (and steal) tremendous volumes of foreign crude oil, or we produce energy here in volumes sufficient to substitute for it. Or, even more difficult, we embark on the virtually impossible political task of persuading people to dramatically reduce their life styles. A footnote: China's per capita ownership of automobiles right now is about where the US's per capita ownership was in, buckle your seat belt, 1906. They are not going to accept that as a standard of living; they not about to *reduce* anything. They are going to *increase* vehicular use, geometrically. And there are 1.2 billion Chinese. Ditto for 1 billion residents of India, who in fact have a faster growing population. Either we find a way -- worldwide -- to generate electricity for electric cars, and simultaneously avoid both coal and petroleum, or we're going to be literally underwater. And the population displacements caused by rising sea levels will wreck civilization as we know it. Should we encourage on a wholesale basis conservation in every possible way? Of course, from the use of efficient appliances and cars, to constructing efficient buildings, and lighting them with compact flourescent lights (or better yet, even more efficient by several orders of magnitude, LED's, which hopefully with mass production will drop dramatically in price). Yes, all of these are desperately needed. But energy use is still going to go up, not down, under any realistic scenario. So we have got to find additional energy sources that don't require delivery routes guaranteed by the Pentagon's Central Command, or the generation of unlimited amounts of CO2. If you start out recognizing that 50-55% of electricity in this country is generated from coal, and that a very substantial majority of petroleum is imported, it becomes very difficult to find realistic alternative fuels in any volume that offers relief from either of those problems. Wind and solar, in vast quantities, are the only candidates for substitution, although many serious environmentalists now advocate greatly increased use of nuclear power. Got any thoughts on that alternative? Some advocate greatly increased use of natural gas, which has its own environmental problems related to water use (at least in the largest domestic discovery known as the Marcellus Shale), and only cuts the carbon generation by about half of that generated from coal. But there's lots of it. Wanna punch holes all over Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and parts of Virginia? There are gas exploration companies dying to enlist your support. So don't get me wrong. It's good you're thinking about this stuff, and it's laudable that you make decisions based on principal. But trust me when I tell you that uninformed moral fervor will not deter the Sierra Club from aggressively pursuing realistic energy and environmental solutions. If you want to impact policy -- whether of the US or the Sierra Club -- you need to answer the question of what alternative offers any prospect for relief from our dilemmas. When you find an answer better than wind turbines, call us. We'll waive your dues to get back in. Seeya. Bill -- 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 On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net>wrote: > Dear JimWithout a plan that mandates a cut in carbon for every Turbine > built > We will only > be just adding a new source of power without reducing the current input > and future inputs of carbon > I can see that a turbine might offset slightly the power needed to generate > but we have no comprehensive plan > that cut emissions as we add generation > AND MY OBJECTION is directly linked to the endorsement of what I see as a > DAMAGING > installation of giant turbines on our southeastern ridges > I THING THE WV SC NEEDS TO BE MORE SELECTIVE IN THEIR ENDORSEMENT > for this is just a shell game for the GREEN CREDITS might just bring us > more pollution > in the future > Mark > > On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:33 PM, James Kotcon wrote: > > Mark: > > I respectfully disagree with your assessment of wind farms. By their very > nature, wind farms generate electricity that offsets carbon emissions. I > am aware of some wind opponents who deny that this is true, but the hard > data make it very clear that wind offsets fossil fuel emissions. While it > is not a 100 % kilowatt for kilowatt offset, it is still one of the least > carbon-emitting sources of energy available. > > I also recognize that the scenic impact is a concern, but that is an issue > that should be handled by county planning ordinances. I would have no > object to a scenic restriction on windfarms if it also applied to coal-fired > power plants, transmission lines, ski resorts and second home development. > But to restrict one type of development, in this case wind, is to > indirectly subsidize fossil fuel power instead. There is no perfect > source of energy, but any objective evaluation would have to conclude that > wind is cleaner than most. > > I also have no objection to compensating the parties affected by energy > generation, but this rule has to be applied to all power sources. As long > as it is required of wind farms but not coal mines or power plants, it > becomes, again, an indirect subsidy for coal and a barrier to the cleaner > sources we claim to want. > > I agree that there are adverse impacts to some birds and bats, but there is > no credible evidence that this has an adverse effect on the "populations". > Until we can compare the effect of a wind farm against the impacts of a > strip mine, there is no basis for singling out one energy source for > additional restrictions, but allow other energy sources to operate without > restriction. > > The Sierra Club would be easily dismissed if we oppose every form of > energy. We need a more rational energy policy to get support from a > majority of Americans. We do not support every wind farm application, but > we also would not be credible if we opposed them all. > > I hope you will reconsider your membership. Feel free to contact me if > you wish to discuss this in more detail. > > Jim Kotcon, Chair > Energy Committee > 304-293-8822 (office) > 304-594-3322 (home) > > P.S. We are currently compiling a subcommittee of Club members to review > additional wind farm permit applications in West Virginia. Let me know if > you are interested in being part of that evaluation. > > Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net> 8/12/2009 4:11 PM >>> > > > Since the WV SC has taken a position on wind turbines on our historic > ridges in WV especially without WITHOUT a carbon offset > I will not be renewing my membership. > Wind turbines have their place but cutting down mountaintops and > deforesting ridgetops > and forever changing our historic ridges in eastern WV in site of > farms and families > WITHOUT any compensation to the effected parties is a poor decision > and these poorly located devices are BAT and Migrant Bird Killers > > I believe THE WV & NATIONAL SIERRA CLUB should reevaluate their > position > > If this only reaches the membership committee in this email I wish > for you to pass along > this those that make policy > > Mark Blumenstein > HC 73 BX 11 > Alderson WV 24910 > > ps. I think Whale Wars has shown that action not banners change policy > Stop the Whaling by stopping the Whalers! > > > > Mark Blumenstein > HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910 > 304 445 7822 > > markb(a)mountain.net > > > > > > * > Mark Blumenstein* > > *HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910* > > *304 445 7822* > > *http://www.markblumenstein.com* > > * markb(a)mountain.net* > > > >

2 1

Fwd: Bruce's Blog: VICTORY: Dynegy Out of the New Coal Business
by Paul Wilson 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nithin Coca <nithin.coca(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM Subject: Bruce's Blog: VICTORY: Dynegy Out of the New Coal Business To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org *Please comment and Recommend - and forward to your local lists.* Grist - *http://www.grist.org/member/11566/*<http://www.grist.org/member/11566/> Daily Kos - *http://www.dailykos.com/user/Bruce%20Nilles*<http://www.dailykos.com/user/Bruce%20Nilles> Huffington Post - *http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-nilles*<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-nilles> Compass - *http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/coal-director/*<http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/coal-director/> Opposing Views - *http://www.opposingviews.com/tags/environment*<http://www.opposingviews.com/tags/environment> SF Green - * http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?plckPersonaPage=Persona… *<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?plckPersonaPage=Persona…> Climate Crossroads - http://connect.sierraclub.org/post/ClimateCrossroadsBlog/victory_dynegy_out… Also posted on - SE Green, Alltop Green, and Alternet _________________________ Nithin Coca Grassroots Media Coordinator * Sierra Club (o) 415.977.5761 (m) 913.940.1571 nithin.coca(a)sierraclub.org follow me on Twitter - twitter.com/excinit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- 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

1 0

Fw: re: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting
by Jim Sconyers 11 Aug '09

11 Aug '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net> wrote: From: Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net> Subject: re: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting To: "Undisclosed Recipients" <fslider(a)verizon.net> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 1:45 PM FW: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Hall Meeting August 10, 2009 – Congressman Alan B. Mollohan announced today that he will be having a town hall meeting 6:00 PM on Friday, August 14, 2009 at Wheeling Jesuit University, Troy Theater in Swint Hall. He will be available to listen to his constituents on matters that are of concern to them.

1 0

Monday: Transmission Tax on Interim Agenda
by James Kotcon 10 Aug '09

10 Aug '09

The August Legislative Interim committee meetings schedule and agendas were posted very late Friday. The most notable (and important) meeting this month is on Monday, Aug. 10, when Finance Subcommittee B, chaired by Senator Walt Helmick, will take up SCR 57- requesting the Joint Committee on Government and Finance study the proposed new state business and occupation tax on high-voltage electric power transmission lines. The committee will have a presentation on the Governor's proposed transmission line tax from Jonathan Deem, the Governor's General Counsel. The meeting is from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM in the Senate Finance Committee meeting room. This is an incredible opportunity. Those who are in town for the status hearing should make every effort to get to the Capitol at 4 PM in massive numbers. The Legislature needs to hear about the problems with the Transmission line process, and be told in no uncertain terms that a vote for this tax is a vote to take people homes and farms! Instead of a transmission tax, the PSC siting process needs to be reformed by: 1) Mandate that applicants provide written notification to all affected property owners, 2) Direct the PSC to balance the needs of ratepayers against the need for transmission lines; 3) Direct the PSC to evaluate alternatives to new transmission lines (including demand-side management alternatives) where feasible, less-impacting alternatives exist. 4) Protect designated scenic areas; and 5) Consider indirect as well as direct impacts. Currently, only those property directly crossed by the line are compensated, neighbors suffer real losses, but get nothing. 6) Consider the increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from plants producing the electricity to be carried by these lines. Make sure the Legislature knows that phony fixes are not acceptable, and the transmission tax is a fraudulent "bait-and-switch". I suspect that even the Governor knows it is unconstitutional, but it would allow the Governor and the PSC to claim that the line benefits West Virginia, and then, by the time it is challenged in court and tossed out, the line will have been built. I plan to attend the hearing, and urge anyone else to attend. Attached is a draft fact sheet that we put together for our alternative, the PSC Reform Act. Please let me have comments before noon Monday. JBK

1 0

Monday: Transmission Tax on Interim Agenda
by James Kotcon 10 Aug '09

10 Aug '09

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Summary of allocation of revenues from allowances under climate bill
by James Kotcon 07 Aug '09

07 Aug '09

To: Energy Committee This report identifies the funding allocated by state for energy efficiency in the Cap and Trade Bill (ACES). They estimate that West Virginia would get over $2.7 billion for energy efficiency during the 2012 to 2019 period. This would create an estimated 24,000 jobs. And since each dollar spent on energy efficiency generates three dollars n savings for the consumer, that means the bill saves consumers in West Virginia an estimated $8 billion dollars!!!!! We need to get this story our there. How do we do it? JBK >>> Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> 8/6/2009 1:52 AM >>> A group called Environment Northeast has developed an analysis of the ASES (climate) legislation which passed the House on Micheal Jackson/Farrah Fawcett day (June 25th). The allocation of allowances to the states for different purposes identifies four areas in which funding will be provided, in hundreds of millions of dollars, to billions of dollars, depending on formulae in the bill. The majority of this money will save three dollars for each dollar spent. Those of you who are meeting with Senators and staff may want to be familiar with this or present the report. It is a huge amount of money. http://www.env-ne.org/resources/open/p/id/895. Both funding levels and estimates of benefits are included. - Ned - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fw: WInd turbines on Allegheny Mtn in VA
by Frank Young 07 Aug '09

07 Aug '09

This communication, just below, is about a wind farm proposed for Highland County, VA- just east of Pendleton County, WV. I have no other information about this proposed wind facility. Frank Young ----- Original Message ----- From: Martinjul(a)aol.com To: dawn(a)brightsideacres.com Cc: wvhcboard(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:51 PM Subject: [WVHCBOARD] Re: WInd turbines on Allegheny Mtn In a message dated 8/7/2009 12:26:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dawn(a)brightsideacres.com writes: Hello Martin, I am writing to ask you and The Highlands Voice to look into what is going on in Highland County Virginia regarding the county's recent approval of Highland County Wind Development, LLC to erect a 19-tower wind generating facility on Tamarack Ridge (the highest point in Highland County and approximately 1600 feet from the West Virginia line. These 19 towers will each be 400 feet tall, and will be in clear view from the Camp Allegheny Battlefield, which is on the National Register of Historic Places; as well as from multiple sites on County Route 3 (the Old Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, which is a National Historic Backway.) Apparently, Highland County's Technical Review Committee simply approved the site plan submitted yesterday, eventhough environmental reviews, impact statements or permits normally required by the federal government have neither been obtained nor formally waived. No photo-simulation to evaluate the visual impact of the turbines on the Camp Allegheny Battlefield and historic surrounds has been conducted. >From everything I have read in The Recorder, the impact of this wind farm on West Virginia has not been considered whatsoever. Perhaps it is a matter for the Department of Interior? Perhaps, if brought to Nick Rahall's attention, a cease and desist order could be issued by a Federal Court? I believe that the Pocahontas County Commission is looking into this as of their meeting yesterday. Do you know Commissioners David Fleming or Martin Saffir? Could The Highland's Voice be of help to them? According to yesterday's Recorder, Highland County Wind Development intends to break ground next week. Please see the link below for articles regarding this issue. Swift action is required to preserve the natural and historic integrity of an historically significant and environmentally pristine area of WV. http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/08/06/wind-utility-headed-into-construc… Thank You, Dawn Baldwin "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, things aren't going to get better, they're not!" From The Lorax by Dr. Suess For The Mountains Julian Martin Vice-President for State Affairs West Virginia Highlands Conservancy www.wvhighlands.org 1525 Hampton Road, Charleston, WV 25314 Contact me(martinjul(a)aol.com) for a trip to Kayford Mountain to see active and so-called reclaimed mountain top removal. Go to www.wvhighlands.org for I Love Mountains t-shirts, hats, I Love Mountains and Friends Of The Mountains bumper stickers and for speakers on environmental issues in West Virginia.

1 0

PSC Procedural Order of August 4, 2009
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 07 Aug '09

07 Aug '09

Dear Mr. Watkins: I am forwarding this email to you for distribution to the Commission, and in response to the Commission's August 4 procedural order. I am forwarding it in advance of the hearing on August 10, in an attempt to convey some thoughts that might assist the Commission in resolving the issues surrounding the manner and level of participation by the 200+ would-be intervenors in the PATH proceeding. I also convey these thoughts now, in advance of the August 10 hearing, so that the idea of breaking the Jefferson County and Ashton Woods groups down into more effective groups can percolate within the Commission before Monday. I recognize that it is possible that the idea, if it has any merit at all, could be lost in the sea of advocates that will appear Monday. I acknowledge that this email does not conform with the requirements of a formal pleading before the Commission, and I do not request that it be accorded any formal status. At the same time, I have copied it by email to counsel for PATH and as many of the Allegheny Energy personnel as I can; I have no email addresses for AEP personnel. Additionally, I have copied other intervenors whose email addresses I know, and by this email request that two persons, Patience Wait and Tom Hildebrand, forward the email to the two large groups whom they are associated with, respectively, Jefferson County intervenors and Ashton Woods intervenors. In light of this dissemination, I would submit that it is not an ex parte communication. I have blind-copied the email to a much larger list in the interest of allowing as many people as possible have the benefit, however minimal, of these thoughts in advance of Monday. I will file a hard copy with the Executive Secretary for service on others as soon as the email list is disseminated. Of the 200+ intervenors, I am advised that fully 140+ are from Jefferson County and 40+/- are from Ashton Woods. Stated otherwise, fully 180 of the 200 intervenors -- no less than 90% -- are by the terms of the August 4 order to be represented by 2 persons. The remaining 20+/- intervenors will be represented, presumably, by 20+/- attorneys or others spokesmen, for a total of 22 representatives. I do not know if the Commission was aware of this statistical breakdown at the time the August 4 order was entered. However, I believe the statistically disproportionate representation of Jefferson County and Ashton Woods intervenors in the total suggests that the Commission might achieve its legitimate objective of making the PATH proceeding manageable in a more effective fashion. Specifically, if the Commission did nothing more than allow the 140+ intervenors from Jefferson County break themselves down into 5 groups, the effectiveness of the representation of the intervenors would increase dramatically, while the incremental burden on the Commission in dealing with the PATH proceeding would be minimal. That is, the number of spokesmen would only increase from 22 to 27. Why would this be more effective for the participants from Jefferson County? Because they are, apparently, themselves geographically diverse. And they will absorb a disproportionate impact in total from the PATH line's passage through their community. For instance, I am advised that there is a geographically segregable group from a neighborhood called "Blue Ridge" which has an interest in the proceeding that is very localized to them, and runs the risk of being lost in the background noise of a pleading, written or verbal, on behalf of 140 people. Similarly, there is another identifiable group interested in the impact not on their residence or business, per se, but on the schools they send their children to. There are undoubtedly other readily identifiable subgroups in the 140 who could rationally be separated from the 140 aggregation and who, as a result, would have a much more effective representation before the Commission, again with a minimal incremental impact on the efficiency of the PATH proceeding. I apologize for not getting this to the Commission earlier, but I have only come by the facts I relate here since August 4. I want to emphasize that I do not represent anyone in their capacity as a resident of Jefferson County or Ashton Woods (although I assume there must be some Sierra Club and/or Highlands Conservancy members in one or both communities, whether or not they have intervened individually). I make these suggestions merely as one lawyer among many with an interest in assisting the Commission achieve its stated goals. I convey these thoughts now only because it strikes me that the disproportionate representation of these two communities in the total intervenor group might be more rationally dealt with in a manner other than aggregation by County, and that the alternative of disaggregating these two large groups can achieve the Commission's stated goal of efficiency while making the intervenors' participation more effective, another goal which the Commission clearly wanted to achieve, within the bounds of practicality, in its August 4 order. Best regards, 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

1 0

Fw: MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) on fraudulent coal lobby letter and MTR
by Jim Sconyers 06 Aug '09

06 Aug '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) on fraudulent coal lobby letter and MTR To: "Jim Sconyers" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>, "Regina Hendrix" <reginahendrix999(a)gmail.com>, "William DePaulo" <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 1:25 PM This is a must-see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32307765 Aaron Isherwood Senior Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second Street, 2d Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Phone: (415) 977-5680 Fax: (415) 977-5793 CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. If you receive this e-mail inadvertently, please reply to the sender and delete all versions on your system. Thank you.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC