EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: Activist Call Agenda REMINDER: Coal campaign CALL IS TONIGHT
by Paul Wilson 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

I plan to attend this call. Is anybody else going to attend? you won't get a report from me as I am busy catching up after 3 days in DC lobbying. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owens <Baumling(a)aol.com> Date: Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM Subject: Fwd: Activist Call Agenda REMINDER: Coal campaign CALL IS TONIGHT To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Please join us to hear from our guest speakers tonight, Kim and Liz! Kim will be talking about the newest focus group results, specifically on coal messaging. Liz will give an introduction to the Club's leadership development program and then lead an interactive session on team norms. Call-in details below. Verena Verena Owen Advisor, Sierra Club National Coal Campaign 1.847.872.1707 ph 1.224.717.1147 cell *Verena.Owen(a)Illinois.SierraClub.org * ------------------------------ Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008<http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102> . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubsribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: SUBSCRIBE COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS Dana Snead <dsneadsc(a)EARTHLINK.NET> To: CONS-EQST-AIR-MW-COAL-COMM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:00:20 -0700 Subject: Activist Call Agenda Please join the National Coal Campaign for our next monthly coal activist coal on Wednesday, June 11th at 8:00 p.m. eastern. 866 501 6174 224 0743# Agenda 1. Focus Group Results: Kim Haddow 2. Leadership Development: Liz Pallatto 3. Update: Bruce Nilles & Pat Gallagher 4. Open Forum - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-EQST-AIR-MW-COAL-COMM list, send any message to: CONS-EQST-AIR-MW-COAL-COMM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM-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: 304-279-6975

1 0

FW: Proud of the Sierra Club
by Grubb, Karen 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

________________________________ From: Wildlife and Endangered Species Forum [mailto:CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of <Sam> <Booher> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:49 AM To: CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Proud of the Sierra Club I am very proud that the Sierra Club after much discussion decided to NOT support the Cap and Trade of Carbon pollution Sam Booher, GA "Leading environmentalists" in the U.S. are urging Congress to try to curb global warming by creating a massive public-private bureaucracy to trade pollution permits amongst polluters, instead of simply taxing unwanted emissions. A DISASTER BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE NATION'S LEADING ENVIRONMENTALISTS By Peter Montague This week the U.S. Senate -- arguably the most powerful 100 people on the planet -- began a debate on a bill to curb global warming. The N.Y. Times wrote June 3 <http://www.precaution.org/lib/senate_opens_climate_debate.080603.htm> , "The debate, which could last all week, will force senators to take a stand on some of the most difficult, expensive and potentially life-altering questions the world will face in coming decades." In an editorial May 28 <http://www.precaution.org/lib/climate_leadership_needed.080528.htm> , the New York Times had summarized the issue this way: "The scientific case for action, strong five years ago, is even more persuasive now. Authoritative assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among other studies, have left little doubt that the world is heating up, that man-made emissions are largely responsible and that swift action is necessary to avoid widespread environmental damage." The bill being debated in the Senate is known as Lieberman-Warner. It is being promoted aggressively by Democrat Barbara Boxer. The bill is co-sponsored by John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. According to the Times June 2 <http://www.precaution.org/lib/allies_differ_on_carbon_caps.080602.htm> , the details of the bill were crafted by a coalition of "some of the most powerful corporate leaders in America [who] have been meeting regularly with leading environmental groups in a conference room in downtown Washington for over two years..." So this is a bill written by our "leading environmentalists." The only "leading environmentalists" named by the Times are staff of the Natural Resources Defense Council, but we know Environmental Defense has had a heavy hand in this, too. The bill would create an enormous new public/private bureaucracy to curb the emission of global warming gases, chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). The system is called "cap and trade." The basic intent is not a bad one -- to put a price on carbon, which is currently being dumped into the atmosphere for free. There are two basic ways to put a price on carbon -- simply tax it, or wrap it in a large bureaucracy devoted to "cap and trade." The "cap and trade" idea is to force carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters to purchase pollution permits, each of which is a legally-enforceable right to pollute the atmosphere with CO2 -- but only up to a certain level (the "cap"). If polluters reduce their emissions below their permitted level, they can sell their unused permits to other polluters (the "trade"). Every once in a while the total "cap" gets lowered by the iron hand of government (at least in theory) and the "trade" part supposedly allows for super-efficient reductions in CO2 emissions: Those who can reduce their emissions cheaply will do so, and those who can't will buy extra pollution permits in the open market (thus worsening pollution in some unfortunate communities, relative to more fortunate communities). Advocates of "cap and trade" say such a system will minimize the overall cost to the polluters while ratcheting down CO2 emissions rapidly enough to avert climate chaos. At least that's the theory. (It is worth noting that the costs of pollution in the unfortunate communities [asthma, pulmonary disease, cancer, school days lost, emergency room visits, etc.] are kept "off the books" in all these "efficiency" calculations. To some "leading environmentalists" and their corporate-polluter partners, unfortunate communities have a value of zero.) You won't read about it in the New York Times, but there are serious mainstream critics of the "cap and trade" approach who say it is neither economically efficient nor workable. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- Congress's own office of economic analysis -- published its study <http://www.precaution.org/lib/cbo_carbon_tax_study.080213.pdf> three months ago concluding <http://www.precaution.org/lib/cbo_favors_carbon_tax.080213.htm> that: ** A carbon tax -- not cap and trade -- is the "most efficient" method to address global warming, both in limiting economic costs and for achieving environmental benefits. What is a carbon tax? A carbon tax is a tried-and-true way of putting a price on carbon emissions. Such a tax can be remarkably simple: you weigh the amount of carbon-containing fuel (coal, oil, or natural gas) as it comes out of the ground (or as it is comes off the ship), calculate the tax per ton of carbon, and collect the tax. End of story. The cost if the tax gets passed along to the purchaser via the market. Or, with considerably more effort, you could tax carbon directly at the point of purchase. Either way, you don't have to measure anyone's emissions -- an exceedingly complex and costly procedure providing untold opportunities for thousands of polluters to fudge the data. The tax has an additional advantage: no one gains a legally enforceable "right to pollute." With a tax, the nation's electric utilities -- and cement, aluminum and steel companies -- couldn't ever be able to go to court to try to stop government from taking away their "right to pollute," a property right they could claim to own because they purchased it with good money. On its face, a cap and trade program is immensely complex. As Robert Samuelson writes in the June 9 issue of Newsweek <http://www.precaution.org/lib/cap_and_tax.080609.htm> , "The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a hugely complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its very complexity." Within all the complexity comes endless opportunity for shenanigans. (The BBC reported <http://www.precaution.org/lib/carbon_trading_flawed.080605.htm> this week how the carbon trading scheme built into the Kyoto Treaty is being gamed by polluters at considerable profit to themselves but no benefit to planet Earth.) In a cap and trade program, someone has to sell or auction (or give away free) the pollution permits each year. Someone else has to keep track of who has received how many permits and who has sold how many of their permits to whom. (Permits can be "banked" and used years later, so someone must pay close attention.) Someone else has to measure all the tens of thousands of permitted CO2 emissions to make sure they aren't exceeding permitted levels. Buying and selling rights to pollute will create an enormous private bureaucracy -- a trading exchange -- supported by an army of bankers, lawyers, engineers, accountants, analysts, ad men, publicists, lobbyists, sales people, hucksters and camp followers. The first year of a "cap and trade" program is estimated to create a new "market" in pollution rights worth a $220 billion. A market worth $220 billion per year is as large as the market for computer processors. There's real money to be made here by the clever and the unscrupulous. The British journal New Scientist reported in April <http://www.precaution.org/lib/can_carbon-trading_save_planet.080419.txt > that "what began as a niche market is now attracting major financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, and Barclays Capital..." plus JP Morgan Chase and others. In other words, the new carbon market is being created by the same people who created the ever-deepening mortgage lending disaster. Have they shown that they have society's best interests at heart, or have they shown a cruel focus on making money, no matter the cost to others? It's a fair question. New Scientist summarized the root question this way: "As Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, puts it: climate change is 'the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.' The question now is whether capitalism is able to make amends. Can it provide a mechanism that rewards people for reducing their carbon emissions instead of increasing them? Or will it simply give big polluters a way of dodging their responsibilities?" And New Scientist ends its devastating critique of "cap and trade" with a stark warning about the consequences of manipulation and deception within the carbon trading market: "With Enron, it was the shareholders who suffered. But if the atmosphere continues to be filled with greenhouse gases and the planet's climate crashes as Enron did, no one will be spared." On May 4th, two attorneys working for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] wrote an "open letter to Congress <http://www.precaution.org/lib/epa_lawyers_oppose_cap_trade.080513.pdf> " explaining why "cap and trade" can't work. Attorneys Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel each have roughly two decades of experience in environmental enforcement, and Zabel has extensive experience with prior cap and trade programs run by EPA. Williams and Zabel told Congress that a "cap and trade" system "is an open invitation to fraud and would significantly delay reductions [in carbon emissions]." They went on to list (and document) half a dozen other reasons why a "cap and trade" program will be nothing more than a gift to the financial industry and the polluters but will not reduce CO2 emissions quickly enough to avert climate chaos. So the U.S. Senate is debating how to curb global warming, but is restricting the debate to a single approach -- "cap and trade" -- an approach that was devised by the corporate polluters themselves, locked in a room for two years with their house environmentalists. "Cap and trade" sets up a system that offers endless opportunities to game the system and make even more money by burning fossil fuels, while claiming to be curbing global warming fast enough to avert climate chaos. By the time the system has matured and we learn that it did not work, the billionaires created by the system will be living comfortably in the globally-warmed mountains of Switzerland while the rest of us are learning to deal with more and bigger Katrinas, creeping inundation of all the world's coastal cities, and widespread famine from crop failures caused by drought. This disaster is being created right before our eyes by the "leading environmentalists" in the United States. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Ross Gelbspan reports in the Boston Globe <http://www.precaution.org/lib/trading_away_our_chances.19990516.htm> that at least one leading environmental organization in the U.S. -- Environmental Defense -- is planning to make money brokering carbon trades. Let's point out for the record that many, many environmentalists in the U.S. oppose this dangerous, self-serving gamble with the future of the planet. Two collaborations of environmental justice advocates (originating on the East <http://www.precaution.org/lib/climate_justice_forum_statement.080602.ht m> and West <http://www.precaution.org/lib/cal_ej_declaration.080219.htm> coasts of the U.S.) have taken unequivocal positions against carbon trading. Clearly, a national (and global) climate justice <http://www.precaution.org/lib/climate_justice.070305.htm> movement is emerging. Let's hope it gathers momentum in time to stop the "leading environmentalists" in the U.S. from creating an irreversible catastrophe. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubsribe from the CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM-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: {Fraud?} Help get $125 million for green jobs / $2B for green cities!
by Grubb, Karen 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

________________________________ From: Van Jones, Green For All [mailto:team@greenforall.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:32 PM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: {Fraud?} Help get $125 million for green jobs / $2B for green cities! Green For All banner<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5379/images/green-for-all-ban ner2.jpg> Dear Karen, Raise your voice to support green-collar jobs<http://www.greenforall.org/images/hardhat%20DC.jpg> In the halls of Washington, D.C., there is an awful lot of "talk" these days about green-collar jobs. But in a few weeks, Congress will have the chance to put its money where its mouth is - for the first time. We need your help to tell Congressional leaders to do the right thing. Last year, with your support, Green For All and our allies helped ensure that the 2007 Energy Bill included two critical provisions: the Green Jobs Act and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. Once they are fully funded, these two provisions will dramatically boost the prospects for green-collar job development in the United States. The Energy Bill authorized funding levels for both of these provisions. Now Congress needs to appropriate the money for them. As soon as two weeks from now, Appropriations committees in Congress will vote whether or not to fund these two vital programs. Click here to tell your representative to vote for full funding for the Green Jobs Act and the "Green Block Grant" Program in this year's Appropriations Bill. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8DnsNhR7fEuU9mFk% 2BDkPpJ%2BlLzYG3uiI> A fully funded Green Jobs Act will distribute $125 million per year to identify needed skills, develop training programs, and train workers for jobs in a range of green industries. That's enough money to train 30,000 people in green trades - every year. It targets a broad range of populations for eligibility, but it has a special focus on creating "green pathways out of poverty." In other words, this Act can connect the people who MOST need work - to the work that MOST needs to get done. A fully funded Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program will distribute $2 billion per year to cities and local governments for energy conservation, energy audits, fuel conservation programs, and the use of renewable energy. These "Green" block grants could create tens of thousands of green-collar jobs - accessible to low-income city residents who most need opportunities and careers. Click here to tell your representative to vote for full funding for the Green Jobs Act and the "Green Block Grant" Program in this year's Appropriations Bill. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ezoB%2B6%2BiZ%2Ba ugPRhJGjFmZ8YdQxyCzZa> We must work hard to make sure that Congress understands the importance of funding these green-collar jobs programs. The budget submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration eliminates and under-funds a broad range of worthy programs. Therefore, Congress must wrestle with many competing priorities as its members attempt to make up for this shortfall and pass an Appropriations Bill for 2009. The Green Jobs Act and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program are essential investments in green-collar job creation and job training. These programs will be fundamental to building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. Click here to send an email to your representatives and senators telling them to support appropriations for these critical green-collar jobs programs. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pdnEHbLXwPeU9mFk% 2BDkPpJ%2BlLzYG3uiI> Thank you for taking action. Sincerely, Van Jones President, Green For All P.S. Please take action now <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YztY96yz5bSU9mFk% 2BDkPpJ%2BlLzYG3uiI> and then forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues. ________________________________ Photo credit: Eliza Simon Green For All can't survive without the support of people like you. Please take a moment to support us today: click here <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wRbfb68GEziU9mFk% 2BDkPpJ%2BlLzYG3uiI> to donate. ________________________________ Did someone forward this to you, but you're not on our list? To receive our messages in the future, follow this link:MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "org2.democracyinaction.org" claiming to be http://www.greenforall.org/contact-us/sign-up <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3j4whXE9sZeU9mFk% 2BDkPpJ%2BlLzYG3uiI> To unsubscribe from this list, reply to this message with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line, OR follow this link: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5379/unsubscribe.jsp?unsubscribe <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=N96TUTd62GSU9mFk% 2BDkPpJ%2BlLzYG3uiI> Web Bug from http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/TrackImage?key=12628729<http://www .mailscanner.tv/1x1spacer.gif>

1 0

FW: PATH Web Site Contact Form
by Grubb, Karen 05 Jun '08

05 Jun '08

________________________________ From: MJLippe(a)aol.com [mailto:MJLippe@aol.com] Sent: Wed 6/4/2008 2:26 PM To: WVBiker98(a)aol.com; bellamy(a)frontiernet.net; nhooff(a)somersetdev.com; tbusithi(a)shepherd.edu Cc: Grubb, Karen Subject: Fwd: PATH Web Site Contact Form ________________________________ From: taholliday(a)aep.com To: mjlippe(a)aol.com Sent: 6/4/2008 2:14:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Re: PATH Web Site Contact Form Hello Mr. Lippe, We appreciate your interest in the PATH project. We're in the process of preparing for two initial informational meetings that will take place in Maryland on June 17 and 18. I've provided the information below. We'll be publishing notices of the meetings in local newspapers and on radio stations in the very near future. These first two meetings will provide general information about the project, but the meetings will not feature specific line routes at this time, as the companies are currently studying routing alternatives. Frederick County Holiday Inn and Conference Center (adjacent to Francis Scott Key Mall) 5400 Holiday Drive Frederick, MD * June 17th * 5:00 PM - 8:00 PM Washington County The American Legion-Post 10 710 North Main Street Boonsboro, MD * June 18th * 5:00 PM - 8:00 PM We also plan to hold a series of open houses in late July and early August throughout the West Virginia and Maryland study area to present preliminary siting alternatives and to solicit feedback from area residents. Specific dates, locations and times for those meetings have not been finalized yet. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely, Thomas A. Holliday, APR Director Corporate Communications American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza - 19th Fl. Columbus, OH 43215-2373 PH: (614) 716-1403 aud. 222 Email: taholliday(a)aep.com <mjlippe(a)aol.com> 06/04/2008 12:15 To PM <askpath(a)pathtransmission.com> cc <jpolk(a)aep.com> Subject PATH Web Site Contact Form PATH Web Site Contact Form ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Michael Lippe E-mail: mjlippe(a)aol.com Phone #: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comment: Please advise me the schedule and places for your public meetings or surveys for deciding on issues for the routing of PATH, particularly from Bedington to Kemptown. Thank you! Message sent: 6/4/2008 12:15:36 PM

3 2

River Valley Bio-Refinery
by James Kotcon 04 Jun '08

04 Jun '08

This company proposes to build and operate a biodiesel refinery next to the Bayer Chemical plant in New Martinsville. It would produce 20 million gallons per year of biodiesel, mostly from soybean and cottonseed oil. The draft air permit is at the link below. The major emissions would be methanol and some VOCs, but these seem pretty minimal. My main concern is that the monitoring requirements are pretty vague and may be unenforceable. Does anyone know of other potential emissions from such a plant? Is this something we should support? http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/15016_River%20Valley%20CP%202745%20051-00121.pdf JBK

1 0

SIERRA CLUB POST HEARING BRIEF
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 04 Jun '08

04 Jun '08

ATTACHED IS THE POST HEARING BRIEF FILED ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB IN THE TRAILCO CASE AT THE PSC. -- 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 2

Re: [EC] increased pollution
by James Kotcon 04 Jun '08

04 Jun '08

That is one heck of a lot of trees. Using data from EPA's Airmarkets web page, that would amount to something on the order of 100,000-200,000 tons of wood per year JBK >>> "Nutter, Thomas M." <TNUTTER(a)alleghenyenergy.com> 6/4/2008 9:43 AM >>> Sally, Keith emailed me yesterday with basically the same question- so I'll copy my reply. If there are other questions please let me know. Tom Keith, I believe the permit that we applied for is to construct a biomass cofiring process at Albright Station. As part of an evaluation of the feasibility of the use of renewable energy sources, a demonstration, funded by the USDOE, was performed at Albright which involved the co-firing of 10% woody biomass (sawdust), by weight. Allegheny Energy installed the necessary ancillary equipment to store and deliver the biomass, including a separate injection co-firing system on Unit 3, a tangentially-fired boiler with a generating capacity of 140 MW (net). The demonstration provided favorable results with respect to sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other pollutants. After completion of the project, the equipment was left intact to be utilized in this modification. The project is not a major modification and does not cause a significant increase in any of the regulated pollutants. Although the addition of the capability to co-fire biomass in each of the three boilers at the Albright power Station will cause changes in emissions, we contend that a PSD review will not be triggered for any of these regulated pollutants while co-firing a maximum of 10% biomass (by weight) in each of the three boilers. The Analysis of Potential PSD Applicability Determination and Emissions Point Data Summary Sheets were presented to the WVDEP, including information on particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions. I can't seem to follow the DEP website link to find these documents but I could provide them if you're interested. Tom Tom Nutter Regional Engineer Allegheny Energy Supply An Allegheny Energy Company Fort Martin/Albright Region Phone: (304) 329-4263 Fax: (304) 329-4278 Email: tnutter(a)alleghenyenergy.com -----Original Message----- From: Sally Wilts [mailto:swilts@cheat.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:43 AM To: Nutter, Thomas M. Subject: increased pollution I received the DEP notice abiut increased particulates from the powerstation. Are you burning more poor quality coal or increasing production, or what is causing more particulates? -- Sally Wilts, Administrative Assistant Friends of the Cheat 119 S. Price St. Kingwood, WV 26537 304-329-3621

1 0

[Fwd: DEP Public Notice - County - Preston - Notice of Intent toApprove Permit #R13-2752]
by James Kotcon 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

I have not seen or heard anything about this modification at the Albright power plant. While the amounts are relatively small, Albright is one of the oldest and dirtiest in the Allegheny fleet. Furthermore, they are quite close to both Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas, meaning the even relatively small increases could lead to violations of Class I Air Quality Standards. Furthermore, our settlement agreement with Longview may be relevant, as Longview used up most of the allowable increment. Does anyone know what Allegheny is proposing? JBK >>> Sally Wilts <swilts(a)cheat.org> 6/3/2008 1:03 PM >>> Have you seen this notice? It seems strange that they are increasing their emissions. Any idea what's up? -- Sally Wilts, Administrative Assistant Friends of the Cheat 119 S. Price St. Kingwood, WV 26537 304-329-3621

1 0

NYTimes: Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal
by Paul Wilson 30 May '08

30 May '08

New York Times, May 30, 2008 The Energy Challenge Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal By MATTHEW L. WALD<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/matthew_l_wald…> WASHINGTON — For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…>. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of "clean coal." All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming. "It's a total mess," said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. "Coal's had a tough year," said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_comp…>that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster. Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere. Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable. Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant. Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/inde…>, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration. But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, "we're not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate," said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades. The highest-profile failure involved a project known as FutureGen, which President Bush himself announced in 2003: a utility consortium, with subsidies from the government, was going to build a plant in Mattoon, Ill., testing the most advanced techniques for converting coal to a gas, capturing pollutants, and burning the gas for power. The carbon dioxide would have been compressed and pumped underground into deep soil layers. Monitoring devices would have tested whether any was escaping to the atmosphere. About $50 million has been spent on FutureGen, about $40 million in federal money and $10 million in private money, to draw up preliminary designs, find a site that had coal, electric transmission and suitable geology, and complete an Environmental Impact Statement, among other steps. But in January, the government pulled out after projected costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion. The government feared the costs would go even higher. A bipartisan effort is afoot on Capitol Hill to save FutureGen, but the project is on life support. The government had to change its approach, said Clarence Albright Jr., the undersecretary of the Energy Department, to "limit taxpayer exposure to the escalating cost." Trying to recover, the Energy Department is trying to cut a deal with a utility that is already planning a new power plant. The government would offer subsidies to add a segment to the plant dedicated to capturing and injecting carbon dioxide, as long as the utility bore much of the risk of cost overruns. It is unclear whether any utility will agree to such a deal. The power companies, in fact, have been busy pulling back from coal-burning power plants of all types, amid rising costs and political pressure. Utility executives say they do not know of a plant that would qualify for an Energy Department grant as the project is now structured. Most worrisome to experts on global warming, the utilities have recently been canceling their commitments to a type of plant long seen as a helpful intermediate step toward cleaner coal. In plants of this type, coal would be gasified and pollutants like mercury, sulfur and soot removed before burning. The plants would be highly efficient, and would therefore emit less carbon dioxide for a given volume of electricity produced, but they would not inject the carbon dioxide into the ground. But the situation is not hopeless. One new gasification proposal survives in the United States, by Duke Energy<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/duke_energy_corporati…>for a plant in Edwardsport, Ind. In Wisconsin, engineers are testing a method that may allow them to bolt machinery for capturing carbon dioxide onto the back of old-style power plants; Sweden, Australia and Denmark are planning similar tests. And German engineers are exploring another approach, one that involves burning coal in pure oxygen, which would produce a clean stream of exhaust gases that could be injected into the ground. But no project is very far along, and it remains an open question whether techniques for capturing and storing carbon dioxide will be available by the time they are critically needed. The Electric Power Research Institute, a utility consortium, estimated that it would take as long as 15 years to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work. The institute has set a goal of having large-scale tests completed by 2020. "A year ago, that was an aggressive target," said Steven R. Specker, the president of the institute. "A year has gone by, and now it's a very aggressive target." -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Re: [EC] Transmission tax
by Jim Sconyers 29 May '08

29 May '08

Looks like grandstanding, doesn't it? Can it be taken seriously? - Rate reductions for West Virginia’s citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line. Are we receiving juice from this line? I thought it was just to pass power through to the East. - Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line. How do you force the company to give free juice? Or are the landowners going to forward their electric bills to Charleston? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:56:05 AM Subject: [EC] Transmission tax Below is the Governor's press release regarding his proposal to impose a transmission tax if TrAIL is approved. The first line specifically states that the Governor's Office released this proposal in a response to the Sierra Club FOIA. My question is : "Does the Governor have any other details of this proposed tax? Would it apply only to TrAIL, or to all transmission from the state? If it is specific to TrAIL, would it not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? The line would originate in PA and end in VA, so how could one state impose a tax on the privilege of electrons crossing the state, especially if the power is generated in Ohio or PA, not WV? If it applies to all transmission lines, why should other existing transmission companies pay a tax just because TrAIL is being installed? This proposal raises so many questions that I do not know where to begin or how to respond, but you can be sure that these questions will be asked tomorrow, if not at the hearing, then by reporters afterward. Would it be appropriate to request more info on this from the Governor's Office? JBK May 23, 2008 GOVERNOR PLANS TO PROPOSE TRANSMISSION TAX IF TRAIL LINE IS APPROVED Manchin says he wants to protect interests of all West Virginians Contact: Lara Ramsburg, 304-558-2000 CHARLESTON, W.Va. – In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request from the Sierra Club of West Virginia, the Governor’s Office has released information on a proposed transmission tax that Gov. Joe Manchin intends to pursue should either the federal government or the state Public Service Commission approve the TrAIL Line project. “This is something I have been thinking about and discussing for some time, primarily because of the possibility of the federal government superseding any decision that may be made on the state level,” Manchin said. In May 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order interpreting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to say that the FERC had the power to issue a permit for construction of a new power line even if a state lawfully denied a site transmission application. “If the line goes through, I want to do all that I can to make sure that we have a plan in place that will provide a benefit to the communities affected, and the state as a whole, for providing a key piece of America’s energy infrastructure.” The governor’s proposed plan comprises four components: - Rate reductions for West Virginia’s citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line. - Extra revenue for the counties that house the line. - Extra revenue for the state that will allow it to provide additional services to all its citizens. - Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line. “If the TrAIL line is approved, either by the PSC or the federal government, we will stand ready to make sure that our citizens aren’t taken advantage of and instead receive a benefit from its placement in West Virginia,” Manchin said. # # # _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC