EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: PATH meeting in Berkeley County
by James Kotcon 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

Route for PATH Causes Static Morgan residents voice concern over proposed power line By Jenni Vincent / Journal Staff Writer POSTED: August 15, 2008 (javascript:PopupPic('Photo=509411_1.jpg')) Citizen activist Jerry Berman receives many positive responses Thursday night from people who share his concerns about the proposed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline. Berman is shown seated at right while talking to people at an open house in Morgan County. (Journal photo by Jenni Vincent) Editor's note: An article with the response of electric utility officials who attended Thursday night's open house on the proposed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline is scheduled to be published in Saturday's edition of The Journal. BERKELEY SPRINGS - Citizen activist Jerry Berman was constantly busy at Thursday night's informational session on the proposed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, handing out cards to others who share his concerns about the new high-voltage power line. "You know, the electric utilities may have thought that they could just schedule this meeting at the last minute and slip it through - that no one living here would have much to say about this power line," Berman said. "But they thought wrong. We are not going to the take the path of least resistance, we're not going to take the PATH at all," he said, pausing as he gestured toward a large pile of cards filled out by people asking for additional information on the power line. Berman, who was wearing a name card that read "Citizens Against PATH," wasn't the only citizen protesting at the event. Organizers said people started arriving well before the event officially began at 5 p.m. The Homestead Restaurant - where the open house took place - was quickly filled up and folks parked all the way down the long driveway to where it meets U.S. 522. There was a line of residents waiting to enter the restaurant, with many people waiting 45 minutes or more outside as they waited their turn. Abby Chapple of the Friends of the Cacapon River worked alongside Berman, giving out literature highlighting the region's historical and natural resources. Working together, the pair urged dozens of folks to sign an online petition against the proposed power line that would run from St. Albans, near Charleston, to the Bedington substation northeast of Martinsburg. It would then continue from Bedington to a new substation to be built at Kemptown, southeast of Frederick, Md. PATH, at an estimated cost of $1.8 billion, is a joint venture by Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power. Chapple, former president and current vice president/treasurer of the Friends of the Cacapon River, said she's seen enough about the power line's possible route to be worried about its impact. "The way it may go up along the west side of Cacapon Mountain would be a disaster because it would hit something like 50 little streams. That would be just disastrous for the Cacapon River," Chapple said. "Also Route 9 is the Washington Heritage Trail, so it is historic and they shouldn't be allowed to impact that in any way," she said. "Beyond that, all the way over to Sidling Hill, it will impact the viewshed and be absolutely a disaster." If a new power line is constructed, the "corridor" of an existing line should be used, Chapple said. "We are going to demand that PATH stay on its present path. No new path for PATH," she said. Although pleased with Thursday night's response, Chapple said that she's working to get 5,000 signatures, "to show the company that we know what's going on with their proposal." The online petition can be found at _www.thepetitionsite.com._ (http://www.thepetitionsite.com./) Under search petitions, "PATH" can be typed in, in order to find the one sponsored by Friends of the Cacapon River. Close by on Thursday, protester Laura Steepleton of Berkeley Springs held a sign that read "Keep West Virginia Wild and Wonderful." Steepleton said she has a wide range of concerns, including the proposed power line's impact on nature as well as people's homes. She agreed that it represents a potential threat to the Cacapon River, especially since construction work may send sediment into its waters. "And I can't help but have my concerns about the electromagnetic field associated with a high-voltage line like this one," she said. "They say it's no more than your household appliance but I have a hard time believing that." Vernon Estel, Allegheny Energy's director of transmission projects, said it is important to remember that no final decisions have been made on PATH's route. His counterpart, Ron Poff of American Electric Power, said that might not happen until late this year. The utility officials hope to file an application with the state Public Service Commission, including the "preferred route," in December. "But the final decision, including the route for PATH, will be up to the commission members," Poff said. **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-Volkswagen-Jetta-2009/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00… )

1 0

Updatd ExCom agenda 8.2008
by Jim Sconyers 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

Here is an updated agenda for the upcoming ExCom meeting. Note that it's a pretty full agenda. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Excom: Resolutions and State of Chapter
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

I am the Delegate for WVSC to the Annual Sierra Club Council Meeting this September. Attached are two documents. The first, INFO_ResolutionsProcess.pdf describes the procedure to apply in writing a Resolution that would be submitted to National at the meeting. If there is a resolution you'd really like to see passed on a National level, this is a great opportunity, so please bring it to the next ExCom, and email it to both Jim Sconyers and me, regardless of whether or not you can attend the ExCom. The second, State-of-the-Chapter.pdf, explains what information National wants about the State of our Chapter, i.e., Conservation Goals, Working Relationships, Budget & Finances, and Other Resource Needs. Please bring input on the various areas that apply to you at the next ExCom meeting, and email both Jim and me regardless of whether or not you can attend the ExCom. This is another great opportunity to express to National what we as a Chapter need in order to succeed. Thanks! -Jonathan

1 0

FW: [wvec-board] APCO to buy electricity from Greenbrier wind farm
by Grubb, Karen 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

From: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Young Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:56 AM To: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com; WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Cc: Duane330(a)aol.com; Bill DePaulo Subject: [wvec-board] APCO to buy electricity from Greenbrier wind farm APCO to buy electricity from Greenbrier wind farm By The Associated Press <mailto:> CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Appalachian Power Co. plans to buy electricity from a wind farm that's being developed in Greenbrier County. Appalachian Power's parent, Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power, announced the 20-year purchase agreement with Beech Ridge Energy LLC on Thursday. AEP says Appalachian Power plans to buy between and 100 and 147 megawatts, the entire output of the 186-megawatt project's first phase. The deal is subject to approval from the state Public Service Commission. AEP says it also hinges on renewal of the federal production tax credit for renewable energy for 2009. http://www.wvgazette.com/latest/200808140288

1 0

Mitchell plant "declarants"
by Jim Sconyers 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Hi folks- We (WVSC) need "declarants" for the Mitchell plant lawsuit - power plant violating selenium limits. Declarant means someone reasonably local who could be affected by the violation - in essence anyone residing nearby. The Mitchell plant is in Cresap, WV, which is about 5 miles from Moundsville. Question: do you know anyone who fits the above description? If so could you let me know please? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

2 1

Fw: Hobet 22 lawsuit - good news!
by Jim Sconyers 12 Aug '08

12 Aug '08

<note from SC attorney Aaron Isherwood - we need letters to editors, online comments, etc. about this important victory in the MTR battles> Hey gang, Many comments have already been posted online reacting to Ken Ward's story about our TRO. From what I've seen, a lot are angry rants. It would be great if folks could submit comments. Naturally, we want to avoid the "jobs vs the envt" frame, and instead advocate solutions (like the Coal River Wind project). Aaron 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 Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org" <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> To: Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>; regina1936(a)verizon.net; Bill DePaulo <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> Cc: bpricesc(a)earthlink.net; bill.mccabe(a)sierraclub.org; vafw(a)naxs.net; oliverbernstein(a)austin.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:36:27 PM Subject: Hobet 22 lawsuit - good news! Dear Jim, Regina and Bill: Sorry for the delay in giving you a report - yesterday was more than a little crazy - but in case you haven't heard, some good news in our case...! This will be tricky because of the threatened union worker lay-offs. Oliver Bernstein with our media team is working with Bill Price and our allies on a press strategy. Also, thought you'd enjoy the article at the bottom - from Virginia. Best, Aaron 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. http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200808111074 Judge blocks Hobet mine expansion A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a permit to expand the Hobet 21 mountaintop removal mine along the Boone-Lincoln county line. By Ken Ward Jr. Staff writer A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a permit to expand the Hobet 21 mountaintop removal mine along the Boone-Lincoln county line. U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers issued a temporary retraining order requested by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and other groups. Chambers blocked the permit to allow more time to consider evidence and legal arguments in the latest federal court lawsuit over mountaintop removal coal mining. The judge set a hearing for Aug. 20 to consider whether his ruling should be extended to a longer preliminary injunction. "These are serious and substantial questions and this court is required to consider that," Chambers said during a telephone hearing Monday afternoon. Late last week, environmental group lawyers filed a new suit to try to block the Hobet expansion project, known as Hobet 22. They challenged a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit issued under the federal Clean Water Act, arguing that the corps did not properly consider the mine's impacts or give the public adequate opportunities to comment on the proposal. Corps officials held a 30-day comment period on the mine in late 2006. But key parts of the mine plan - especially details of how Hobet will mitigate the loss of streams harmed by the operation - were not available until a year later. A final version of that mitigation plan was not available until March 2008. "Until the permit is issued, no one knows what is going on," said Joe Lovett, a lawyer for the citizen groups. "The public doesn't have a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns." Corps attorney Ann Navaro told Chambers that the Hobet permit is different from other agency mining authorizations that have been challenged in court. Hobet has not proposed traditional valley fills that typically bury streams at strip-mining operations. A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a permit to expand the Hobet 21 mountaintop removal mine along the Boone-Lincoln county line. U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers issued a temporary retraining order requested by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and other groups. Chambers blocked the permit to allow more time to consider evidence and legal arguments in the latest federal court lawsuit over mountaintop removal coal mining. The judge set a hearing for Aug. 20 to consider whether his ruling should be extended to a longer preliminary injunction. "These are serious and substantial questions and this court is required to consider that," Chambers said during a telephone hearing Monday afternoon. Late last week, environmental group lawyers filed a new suit to try to block the Hobet expansion project, known as Hobet 22. They challenged a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit issued under the federal Clean Water Act, arguing that the corps did not properly consider the mine's impacts or give the public adequate opportunities to comment on the proposal. Corps officials held a 30-day comment period on the mine in late 2006. But key parts of the mine plan - especially details of how Hobet will mitigate the loss of streams harmed by the operation - were not available until a year later. A final version of that mitigation plan was not available until March 2008. "Until the permit is issued, no one knows what is going on," said Joe Lovett, a lawyer for the citizen groups. "The public doesn't have a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns." Corps attorney Ann Navaro told Chambers that the Hobet permit is different from other agency mining authorizations that have been challenged in court. Hobet has not proposed traditional valley fills that typically bury streams at strip-mining operations. The mine would generate about 30.5 million cubic yards of waste rock and dirt. Most of it would be returned to the mined area, to restore it to its approximate original contour. About 3 million cubic yards of excess rock and dirt would be dumped into existing valley fills on adjacent permits. But the Hobet 22 operation would still "permanently eliminate" more than 4.2 miles of streams, according to corps permit documents. Company officials proposed to mitigate this damage with a plan to "reconstruct" and "create" streams once the mining is done. In a previous case, Chambers has found little evidence that such plans work. Hobet lawyer Bob McLusky told Chambers that Hobet the mining complex involved is the largest United Mine Workers operation in West Virginia. McLusky said that up to 300 UMW jobs could be at stake, but did not provide details as to how long mining could continue without the new permit. "I can't tell you there will be people laid off in 10 days, but at some point in an injunction procedure, people will lose their jobs," McLusky said. A UMW lawyer noted a formal appearance at Monday's hearing, but did not otherwise speak. Corps permit records say that Hobet 22 would employ 75 workers, and mine 2.4 million tons of coal over a three-year period. McLusky also told Chambers that "significant work" has already been done at the site, under a state mining permit issued in June 2007 and the corps permit issued Aug. 1. "This site is already substantially disturbed," McLusky said. "You can't un-ring the bell here." August 12, 2008 Judge blocks Hobet mine expansion A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a permit to expand the Hobet 21 mountaintop removal mine along the Boone-Lincoln county line. The mine would generate about 30.5 million cubic yards of waste rock and dirt. Most of it would be returned to the mined area, to restore it to its approximate original contour. About 3 million cubic yards of excess rock and dirt would be dumped into existing valley fills on adjacent permits. But the Hobet 22 operation would still "permanently eliminate" more than 4.2 miles of streams, according to corps permit documents. Company officials proposed to mitigate this damage with a plan to "reconstruct" and "create" streams once the mining is done. In a previous case, Chambers has found little evidence that such plans work. Hobet lawyer Bob McLusky told Chambers that Hobet the mining complex involved is the largest United Mine Workers operation in West Virginia. McLusky said that up to 300 UMW jobs could be at stake, but did not provide details as to how long mining could continue without the new permit. "I can't tell you there will be people laid off in 10 days, but at some point in an injunction procedure, people will lose their jobs," McLusky said. A UMW lawyer noted a formal appearance at Monday's hearing, but did not otherwise speak. Corps permit records say that Hobet 22 would employ 75 workers, and mine 2.4 million tons of coal over a three-year period. McLusky also told Chambers that "significant work" has already been done at the site, under a state mining permit issued in June 2007 and the corps permit issued Aug. 1. "This site is already substantially disturbed," McLusky said. "You can't un-ring the bell here." Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...(a)wvgazette.comor 348-1702. August 11, 2008 Bristol Herald Courier An End To Mountaintop Removal Mining? By Debra McCown ABINGDON, Va. – Mountaintop removal could be ended by as early as next year, said a leader in an environmental group working to halt the destructive mining practices. “Now there is an increasingly powerful and vocal national movement to stop mountaintop removal,” said Matt Wasson, an ecologist and director of programs for Appalachian Voices. “I’m saying we’re going to have it stopped by the end of next year ... the end of 2009.” “Mountaintop removal” is, to some, a controversial term. It refers to the blasting away of mountain ridges to get to the coal underneath, a process that evolved with technological advancements over the decades from traditional contour mining. What makes this type of mining cost-effective is a valley-fill permit, which allows the overburden – dirt and rock removed to expose the coal – to be dumped into adjacent valleys. The practice has been criticized as degrading to the environment and hazardous to nearby residents, who must endure the noise, dust and danger of blasting on the mountains above their homes, as well as flooding when stream courses are changed. “Mountaintop removal mining is a national disgrace,” said Aaron Isherwood, staff attorney for the Sierra Club. “If the American people knew what was happening in Appalachia, I feel certain that they would demand an end to this practice.” Coal producers argue that their industry is one of the nation’s most regulated – and as long as they follow regulations, they should be allowed to extract the fuel that fires half of the nation’s electricity generation. Wasson pins his hopes on two distinct possibilities – a pending U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on a West Virginia court case and the election of a new U.S. president who will take office in January. Other activists agree that both have the potential to put a stop to the issuance of new permits for mountaintop removal mining. “I think if we get a new president, It’ll be stopped, and I guess we’re going to get a new president by next year,” said Joe Lovett, director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. Legal ramifications With a long list of plaintiffs and defendants, the West Virginia lawsuit seeks to put a stop to valley-fill permits, which are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Central to the issue is the question of whether the discard from mining should be considered waste under the 1977 Clean Water Act, which limits the release of pollutants into streams. “I don’t know what will happen in the future,” Lovett said. “I can tell you we haven’t had any significant permits issued since March 2007 because the court found that the federal government was illegally issuing permits at that time.” When a federal court in West Virginia issued an order rescinding permits in question, the permits were sent back to the Corps. The Corps of Engineers contested the ruling in the Richmond appellate court. The case also includes an issue related to sediment discharge. Lovett said three different decisions on valley fills have been overturned by the 4th Circuit since 2000, “but we’re much more optimistic this time.” He said if the appeals court upholds the decision, the federal government, which he said loosened its regulations during the current administration, would have to completely change its permitting processes. “How can they approve the filling of hundreds and a couple thousand miles of mountain streams in this region and say that’s not significantly degrading the water?” Lovett said. “All I can say is the Corps hasn’t been doing its job up until now.” He said in addition to the West Virginia case, which will also affect Virginia, legal action also is under way in Kentucky, and the proposed Ison Rock Ridge mining permit in Wise County, Va., is being watched closely as it moves through the regulatory process, as is the court ruling expected soon in a lawsuit over logging on the site. Andrew Ames, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, said the four permits remanded back to the Corps were not stopped; they were just sent back for review. “I wouldn’t be able to comment on what we think the 4th Circuit’s going to rule, but that appeal and those four individual permits do not affect the Army Corps’ ability to issue further individual permits, and they have been doing that,” Ames said. “The plaintiffs again have filed suit over those, and that is still in litigation.” Surface mining’s future Mark Taylor, chief of the energy resource section in the regulatory branch for the Corps, said several valley-fill projects have been authorized by his Huntington, W.Va., district since the West Virginia ruling. “Have we issued any coal mining permits since the ruling? Yes, we have. Do we feel it complies with the judge’s ruling? Yes, we do,” Taylor said. “In the regulatory department, we follow the rules and regulations as passed on to us by Congress and ... the judges. … Whatever they decide is what we will do. We are neither for projects nor against projects.” David Spears, policy manager for the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, said even a ruling from the 4th Circuit favorable to the plaintiffs would not stop all surface mining here. “They would still be able to do traditional surface mining, which is what we call contour surface mining, where they mine around the mountains and reclaim the land when they’re done,” Spears said. “They put the material back up into the mined area.” Barbara Altizer, executive director of the Eastern Coal Council, said if surface mining were stopped, the effect would be catastrophic for the region. “It would be devastating, and not just to Southwest Virginia counties. It would impact Washington County, it would impact the Tri-Cities area. The coal dollar flows in lots of directions,” she said. “There’s so many things that coal is used for.” She said coal has helped the entire nation to grow and prosper, and, along with providing relatively inexpensive energy, it could be the key to future energy independence with the help of technology. She said the extraction of coal by surface mining also has tangible local benefits. “When you live in a mountainous region, sometimes you appreciate the flat land,” she said. “We’ve got airports. We’ve got housing developments. We’ve got shopping centers [because of land flattened by mining].” Jim Norvelle, spokesman for Dominion Virginia Power, which is building a new coal-fired power plant in Wise County, said he would not speculate on the future of valley-fill permits. But, he said, the plant will be able to use a wide variety of fuels. “One of the reasons we pushed so hard for circulating fluidized bed clean-coal technology for this power station is its ability to burn a wide variety of fuels,” Norvelle said. “We will be able to design our fuel plan around a wide range of coal, waste coal and biomass, and can make adjustments as the market for those fuels changes.” Activists say that while opposition to mountaintop removal is reaching critical mass, it will ultimately take action by a new administration in Washington to clarify Clean Water Act regulations to define mine spoil as waste or prohibit mountaintop removal outright. “The next administration could clarify the federal regulations and make it clear that mountaintop removal mining was never foreseen when the surface mining laws were passed and is not permitted under those laws,” Lovett said. “We can fight with agencies all we want, but it’s going to take some will in Washington to get things done.” dmccown(a)bristolnews.com| (276) 791-0701

1 0

FW: See this
by Grubb, Karen 12 Aug '08

12 Aug '08

-----Original Message----- From: mountainpartyexcom(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:mountainpartyexcom@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of unclesteve197(a)yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:29 AM To: mountainpartyexcom(a)googlegroups.com Cc: Daniel Chiotos; Mr. Jeremy Brannon; Aimee Cobb; Heather Sprouse; Leah Devine; Malyka Knapp-Smith; jesse4wvgov(a)yahoo.com; braingymslp(a)yahoo.com; jennieks1(a)yahoo.com; glassamulet(a)hotmail.com; joelbrown88(a)yahoo.com; paulb(a)mc.net; braindeadkid(a)gmail.com; mendelkramer(a)comcast.net; genny_judge(a)yahoo.com; scooter(a)the-exchange-us.com; blkcloud(a)sonic.net; ronnells_mom(a)yahoo.com; Rose Edington; mar3356(a)citynet.net; dmitchell7327(a)suddenlink.net; jerrygrady(a)hotmail.com; hickok6(a)verizon.net; jack.l.hickok(a)wv.gov; mcmillian9(a)yahoo.com; sarapearlbird(a)hotmail.com; xkatwalkx(a)aol.com; angelaplu(a)yahoo.com; 'Marian Keyes'; zroom910(a)aol.com; unclesteve197(a)yahoo.com; wilgerca(a)suddenlink.net; priustech(a)merc.com; Williamson, Gabby; Jeremy Brannan Subject: See this ON MTR - worth reading the comments!!! http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/11/10933/

1 0

Re: [EC] [Fwd: TrAIL decision]
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 11 Aug '08

11 Aug '08

Jim I spoke to the guy at the Dominion Post and another guy at WVMetroNews. I plan to file a petition for reconsideration which will keep the Aug 1 order from becoming final (and thereby allowing TrAILCo to commence eminent domain) until the petition is denied. It also extends the time for appeal for 30 days past the decision on the petition for reconsideration, an extension I need because I will be out of town at the end of the month for two of three weeks. I will probably need to seek a stay at the PSC and/or the WVSCOA after the petition for reconsideration is decided. Bill On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:52 PM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > Thanks Bill. I got a call from Dominion Post and WV News Service. I think > we need to maximize press exposure, because the Morgantown radio says > TrAILCO plans to start work "immediately". > > When can we file? > > Meanwhile, I also got a call from another local person who was unaware that > the Grafton Route was even being considered, let alone approved, until she > heard the WV Public Radio broadcast this morning, and the route crosses her > property. > > JBK > > >>> "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> 8/4/2008 2:12 > PM >>> > Jim > > I'll call this guy... > > Bill > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Regina Hendrix <regina1936(a)verizon.net > >wrote: > > > Bill or Jim, Would you give this guy a call. I will let him know he will > > be hearing from one or both of you soon. Regina > > > > Regina, > > > > My name is Jeff Jenkins, reporter, WV MetroNews in Charleston.... > > > > I'm looking for some reaction..(a phone interview) from the Sierra Club > in > > connection with the PSC's decision on the TrAIL project.. could you > please > > call me at WV MetroNews in Charleston.....If not you----someone else with > > the organization would be fine...thanks for you time.. Jeff > > > > > > 342-0580 > > > > > > > -- > 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

2 1

[Fwd: Winter 2009 Canvass Chapter Notification/Feedback Page]
by Regina Hendrix 09 Aug '08

09 Aug '08

I have sent an E-Mail asking if there's any canvassing planned for WV. I believe they have canvassed here in the past and it was not at all coordinated with the Chapter. I've sent an E-Mail inquiring if there's any WV canvassing planned and mentioned the supply of MTR brochures we have. If they are canvassing in state we might want them to distribute info on Trail and PATH and our promotion of an alternative energy program for WV. Regina

1 0

[Fwd: Re: [fom] TrailCo and PATH powerlines]
by Regina Hendrix 07 Aug '08

07 Aug '08

Would someone on the energy committee send some ingo to Mike Harman and his wife, Barbara. They are great Charleston activists for several local organizations and can be very helpful in the PATH fight. They live near the John Amos Power Plant. Regina

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC