EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

First Energy's plant closures-Pittsburgh Post-gazette
by James Kotcon 25 Jul '13

25 Jul '13

Yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had a great story on what some are calling the FE fiscal train wreck. To summarize, FE is foundering in deregulated states, and is counting on the TrAILCo transmission line and the Harrison transfer to bail out the company. How do we use this? "Since FirstEnergy Corp. announced its $4.7 billion acquisition of Greensburg-based Allegheny Energy Inc. in February 2010, the Akron, Ohio-based buyer has said it will close seven of the 10 coal-fired power plants that it picked up in the purchase. FirstEnergy also is looking to sell two-thirds of its hydropower assets, much of which came from Allegheny Energy. So what was the company thinking?"Full story is at: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/firstenergys-plant-closure… JBK

2 1

Fwd: Final Draft of letter for First Energy stakeholder meeting
by James Kotcon 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

For those who want to know what we are for, in terms of EE, this excellent letter gives fairly specific details of what we want. I will be presenting this to the FE Stakeholder meeting tomorrow. It has my name on it, but Jeff Loiter and staff at Optimal Energy did all the technical writing, and I corrected some minor grammar. (I really like having staff!) I especially like all the commercial & industrial program suggestions for EE. The Sierra Club is not always known for being business-friendly, so this is a great twist to bring to the table. Enjoy. JBK P.S. I am not sure this is intended to be a public document yet, but once FE gets it in their hands, it is unlikely we will keep the genie in the bottle. >>> Mark Kresowik <mark.kresowik(a)sierraclub.org> 7/23/2013 3:49 PM >>> Attached is a final draft of the memo formatted as a letter from us to First Energy before the stakeholder meeting. Please review ASAP so Jim can print copies for the stakeholder meeting tomorrow. Zack, once we have sign off, can you also email a copy to Mr. Jack tonight? Mark

1 0

Beginning to monetize the real value of PV in WV
by James Kotcon 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

A fascinating perspective on solar power in WV. Enjoy. JBK Beginning to monetize the real value of PV in WV ( http://groups.google.com/group/wva-sun/t/55155c416c8a8885 ) Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net> Jul 22 10:37AM -0400 I have attached a copy of a new study out of Carnegie Mellon that begins to monetize the impact of renewable power on the actual displacement of fossil fuel power in different parts of the US. PV is particularly valuable in the heavily coal dependent PJM and MISO regions. Because PV in WV directly displaces coal-fired power, the health benefits, expressed in the study in monetary terms are among the highest in the US. Here's an example from the report: Solar panels in Indiana, Ohio, or West Virginia achieve significant health and environmental benefits by displacing coal-fired generators. Despite a poor solar resource, a 1-kW PV panel in Ohio provides $105 in health and environmental benefits per year ($75/MWh)---15 times more than the same panel in Arizona. Remarkably, if the goal is to improve air quality and human health, Arizona and New Mexico are among the worst locations for solar. On the basis of this analysis, either a feed-in tariff or an SREC market that would provide PV producers with at least $75/MWh (one SREC) would be justified simply in terms of the health benefits we create for everyone in WV, including the rate payers that would be subsidizing the market or the FIT. Now we have a number to start with. There are some serious flaws in the study in its analysis of wind, but their PV analysis looks good. Here is my critique of the wind part of the study, as well as how the study was misinterpreted in the WaPo - http://calhounpowerline.com/2013/07/21/wapo-clueless-blogger-starts-well-en… -- *Bill Howley Research* -- PO Box 3 -- Chloe, WV 25235 -- 304-655-8255

1 0

Life is Good
by Allan Tweddle 19 Jul '13

19 Jul '13

Jim Kudos for your editorial "Life is better". But if I may, I'd like to expand that to illustrate how government intervention through regulation has also improved our lives. First I should disclose that as a Canadian I was until my company transferred me to California, a member of the Progressive Conservative party there. While that party name may seem to be an oxymoron, the truth is it was a party dedicated to careful thoughtful progress while taking into consideration the lessons of the past, so “...we would not be doomed to repeat the mistakes!” That's a concept that the right wing in this country has abandoned...and sadly in Canada too. Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and even Ronald Ragan are undoubtedly spinning in their graves at the obstructionist no progress attitude of the GOP today. But I digress. As an engineer who has been challenged by air quality issues and opportunities for the last 50 years, I have seen time and time again how regulatory agencies pushed the technology envelopes and demanded cleaner air even when B.A.C.T* was not good enough or the technology beyond it was seemingly possible. Let me give you some examples. (*Best Available Control Technology) My father when I was a teenager, had a Cadillac. That car when new had a 90 day 4000 mile warranty and was lucky to get a 11 or 12 miles to the gallon. The California Air Resources Board, (CARB is the State’s primary air regulatory agency for mobile sources), recognizing scientifically the serious smog conditions in Southern California in particular were caused primarily by automobile emissions, began in the late 50’s, early 60’s, a process of demanding through regulations an improved control of emissions in vehicles. That process for the last 45 years has brought us today to automobiles that are 98% cleaner than they were when they started in 1968. During those efforts, CARB realized that requiring clean emissions in new vehicles was not enough. They then demanded that the automobile companies design and build vehicles so that the emission performance would exist for the first hundred thousand miles of the vehicle's life...assuming proper maintenance. The automobile industry fought them every step of the way. What’s the result? today’s vehicles are cleaner, far more efficient, and much better made. My wife’s 2009 Cadillac today has a six-year 100,000 mile warranty and we regularly achieve an average of 26.4 miles to the gallon. That's progress! Let me give you another example. As an engineer I was retained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Los Angeles to examine the economic impact of a more Stringent rule that they were proposing to eliminate, not reduce, but eliminate all volatile organic compounds from coatings on furniture. That meant eliminating what for many years ago we all remember was the smell of drying paint. It was the evaporation of the volatile organic compounds on the manufacture of new furniture and painting of architectural elements, that was clearly in the science based opinion of SCAQMD, contributing to the smog of Southern California. The furniture industry in Southern California, which at the time was the second-largest concentration of furniture manufacturers in United States, screamed bloody murder. Jobs! Economic chaos! You've all heard the mantra. They argued that not only were no such coatings available at the time, (and they weren't), but that if the rule was implemented the entire industry would either die or leave Southern California and go to Mexico where no such rules existed. SCAQMD set a goal of implementing the rule five years hence from its announcement. So it was the regulators who press the technology which, within four years, was successful. Through innovation, pressured by regulatory demands for cleaner air, VOC free coatings were made available before the fifth year arrived and are now the standard for those coatings today. These are just two examples I offer to show how we have made major progress in cleaning up the air we breathe by regulatory agencies, in other words the government, pressing for "dramatic change" by pushing the technological envelopes. These were not market forces that brought these changes about, but Government regulators acting with scientific evidence and thoughtful legislative support from both progressive and conservative legislators who demanded that "Life should be better" in California. Today Obama's Pressure for "dramatic changes" in coal fired power plants is certainly and scientifically justified. As we see all around us in West Virginia the serious health damages that are caused to citizens everywhere, we must ask, no demand, that nothing less than zero emissions be tolerated. Alternative energy sources are dramatically lower in emissions. Why should we tolerate anything less...except to protect coal company profits. And in spite of the deniers, it is now quite clear, we are by our in action and a century of the escalating emission of greenhouse gases causing serious damage to our planet. Why should we tolerate anything less than clean air and a safe planet for our grandchildren. While there may be an ER for citizens whose health is compromised by air and water pollution, there is no ER for the planet! Yes, "Life will be better" when we stop killing each other and our planet. And the irony, which has been shown so many times before, and as I pointed out in the examples above, the economic opportunities and advantages of cleaning up our act are clearly available once we reintroduce and embrace the concept of being Progressive Conservatives. Allan

1 0

NYTimes.com: Pollution Leads to Drop in Life Span in Northern China, Research Finds
by william.depaulo 12 Jul '13

12 Jul '13

1 0

Meshea Poore announces bid for Capito's seat
by James Kotcon 09 Jul '13

09 Jul '13

FYI. http://www.statejournal.com/story/22793964/kanawha-delegate-announces-bid-f… Also, a Gazette story this week suggested Glen Gainer was considering a run for McKinley's seat. Both would be outstanding candidates for us. JBK

2 1

Re: [EC] Comments on air rules
by DSGJr＠aol.com 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

Great, Jim. Thanks for doing this. don garvin In a message dated 7/8/2013 9:04:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jkotcon(a)wvu.edu writes: Attached are my draft comments. Most of the rules changes are technical updates. The only one I am seriously concerned about is the loophole for facilities to meet the "condensable" PM standards in 45-CSR-14. Please let me know if you have any concerns about these, as they are due by close of business today. JBK

1 0

Comments on air rules
by James Kotcon 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

Attached are my draft comments. Most of the rules changes are technical updates. The only one I am seriously concerned about is the loophole for facilities to meet the "condensable" PM standards in 45-CSR-14. Please let me know if you have any concerns about these, as they are due by close of business today. JBK

1 0

Fwd: Boston Globe: Opposition to Fracking Increases in New England
by Paul Wilson 05 Jul '13

05 Jul '13

FYI, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "David Dow" <ddow420(a)comcast.net> Date: Jul 5, 2013 5:52 PM Subject: Boston Globe: Opposition to Fracking Increases in New England To: "Alison Robb" <nature(a)cape.com>, "Paul Wilson" <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com>, "Becky Bartovics" <bartovi(a)earthlink.net> Cc: Fracking opposition stepped up in N.E.<http://links.bostonglobe.com/t.do?id=553943:56920:AD07700B-551E-4EA9-9146-D…> Opposition to the drilling technique known as fracking is growing in New England as lawmakers consider banning it.<http://links.bostonglobe.com/t.do?id=553944:56920:AD07700B-551E-4EA9-9146-D…>

1 0

Lawsuit challenges use of coal ash for remediating mine waste
by Frank Young 27 Jun '13

27 Jun '13

THE STATE JOURNAL Lawsuit tests use of coal ash for remediating mine waste Posted: Jun 26, 2013 2:50 PM EST Updated: Jun 26, 2013 2:57 PM EST By Pam Kasey Residents living near the LaBelle Refuse Site, a coal waste site located along the Monongahela River in southwestern Pennsylvania, are going to court over what they claim is illegal disposal of coal ash and treatment of coal mine waste. The Citizens Coal Council, a national alliance of citizens' groups, filed a <http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/2013_06_26_FIN AL_CCC%20Canestrale%20Complaint.pdf> legal complaint against Matt Canestrale Contracting Inc. on June 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Attorneys from the Environmental Integrity Project, Public Justice, and Goldberg, Persky & White P.C. representing CCC announced the lawsuit. Canestrale disposes of more than 100,000 tons per year of coal combustion residuals, or CCRs - commonly known as coal ash - from FirstEnergy's Mitchell plant and GenOn Energy's Elrama plant at an old, <https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Luzerne+Township,+PA&hl=en&ll=39.999479,-79. 970083&spn=0.032481,0.084543&sll=41.286062,-75.893555&sspn=4.077969,10.82153 3&oq=Luzerne+township,+PA&hnear=Luzerne,+Fayette,+Pennsylvania&t=h&z=14> unlined coal waste disposal site at LaBelle, Pa., on the Monongahela River south of Pittsburgh. It's an activity FirstEnergy calls a " <https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/fecorp/newsroom/news_releases/first energy-announces-plans-to-beneficially-use-scrubber-materia.html> coal mine reclamation project" and CCC's attorneys call a "coal ash mine dump" - a difference of language that points to a gap, a still ill-formed gray area, in the ongoing dialogue about the disposition of CCRs. Electric utilities and coal producers like to mix alkaline coal ash with acidic coal mine refuse as a mine remediation technique. Both industries claim it's a mutually beneficial arrangement that makes good use of what otherwise would be alkaline power plant waste to solidify and neutralize coal refuse that otherwise would create acidic, polluting runoff and leachate. But citizens' and environmental groups point to evidence that the acidic and alkaline materials don't neutralize each other and the coal ash doesn't solidify, and that adding coal ash to coal refuse only increases the leaching of toxic substances. But there's not yet any clear regulatory guidance. The Environmental Protection Agency encourages beneficial re-use of any waste product for substances that are judged to be safe. For CCRs, that can mean, for example, re-use in cement block or in drywall. For CCRs that aren't re-used, the agency currently is in a long-delayed process of determining whether those that are disposed of should be regulated as hazardous waste or as household waste. But even that won't address the question of their use for coal mine reclamation. That is expected to be addressed by the federal Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement, possibly not until after the EPA's delayed rules are finalized. "One of the goals of this suit is to illustrate that we do need a good rule from OSM," said Public Justice attorney Richard Webster. The June 26 complaint alleges that Canestrale is violating the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and state laws designed to protect rivers and streams as well as laws that reduce fugitive particulate matter pollution. The refuse site is polluting local streams with high levels of sulfate, iron, manganese and other salts that damage fish and other aquatic life, according to suit. It also is leaking aluminum, manganese, sulfates and total dissolved solids into groundwater at levels that are above Pennsylvania drinking water standards. Fugitive particulate matter also blows from trucks hauling coal ash without required covers, the suit states. Concerns about pollution caused by the refuse site prevent local residents from hunting, fishing and engaging in outdoor recreation along the Monongahela River and its tributaries near the dump, the groups say. Canestrale currently is seeking the site's third permit renewal since it opened in 1998, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. And when FirstEnergy committed earlier this year to close its Little Blue Run coal ash impoundment at the West Virginia-Pennsylvania border by 2017, it announced that it would shift the disposal of 3 million tons per year of power plant scrubber waste to the LaBelle Refuse Site. The arrangement would have to be approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the company said at the time.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC