EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

The Nation on Marcellus
by Jim Sconyers 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

Marcellus is a major article in the June 21 The Nation. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fw: National Law Review Coal Ash Analysis
by Jim Sconyers 13 Jun '10

13 Jun '10

Note that this aticle like a lot of commentary considers "beneficial" use in road building, construction, etc. but does not even mention dumping millions of tons at mine sites. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Sam Flenner <samf.environmentalintegrity(a)GMAIL.COM> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sun, June 13, 2010 2:34:06 PM Subject: National Law Review Coal Ash Analysis NATIONAL LAW REVIEW Coal Ash Regulations: EPA Speaks--Sort of... Article By: J. David Brittingham Thomas P. Doyle Dinsmore & Shohl LLP posted on: Saturday, June 5, 2010 On Tuesday May 4, 2010, EPA started the process of federal regulation over the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal ash has been largely exempt from federal regulation, leaving oversight to individual states. The December 2008 breach of a coal ash storage facility and the subsequent massive spill in Kingston, Tennessee brought coal ash storage and disposal national attention. On one side, many people and environmental groups are calling for action from the federal government. Conversely, many people are worried about additional oversight and duplicative regulatory controls in an area where state law exists. Many of the arguments against federal regulation concern the continued ability to recycle coal ash waste. Coal ash is used in concrete, cement, roadways, and other materials. Both sides of the debate argue in the context of the possible re-classification of coal ash as a hazardous waste. Solid Waste is federally regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act1 (RCRA), which gives EPA the authority to control all aspects of hazardous waste. Subtitle C governs the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Subtitle D sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. Subtitle D leaves the majority of regulation to each individual state. Coal ash has been exempt from federal regulation since the inception of the "Bevill Exclusion." In October 1980, RCRA was amended by adding section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), to exclude "solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals" from regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA. This exclusion held pending completion of a study and a Report to Congress, required by section 8002 (f) and (p), and pending a determination by the EPA Administrator either to promulgate regulations under Subtitle C or to declare such regulations unwarranted. In 1993 and 2000, EPA published regulatory determinations stating that coal ash waste does not warrant regulation under Subtitle C and should remain excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. However, in 2000, EPA determined that national non-hazardous waste regulations under RCRA Subtitle D were needed for coal combustion wastes disposed in surface impoundments and landfills and used as fill in surface or underground mines (minefill). EPA further determined that beneficial uses of these wastes, other than for minefilling, pose no significant risk and no additional national regulations are needed. Since 2000, EPA has continued to conduct research and receive comments in regards to proper regulation of coal ash disposal and use. After Kingston, EPA promised to release a proposal for regulation by the beginning of 2010. On May 4, 2010, EPA finally broke its silence. However, instead of releasing a final proposal, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requested feedback. Two options were broadly laid out and EPA is seeking public opinion and guidance on each. EPA will hold hearings and seek public comment for 90 days, but there is no time table for a final decision. Both proposals released by EPA would still regulate coal ash waste under RCRA. Under the first proposal, EPA would reverse its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations regarding coal ash waste and list these residuals as special wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when they are destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. An EPA e-mail sent after Jackson's comments said the agency was creating a "special waste" classification within the hazardous waste regulations, "to help remove the stigma that some believe attaches when a waste is called hazardous." Under the second proposal, EPA would leave the Bevill determination in place and regulate disposal of such materials under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing national minimum criteria. The Subtitle C option creates federal oversight; the Subtitle D option leaves enforcement to the states and citizen lawsuits. Under both alternatives EPA is proposing to establish dam safety requirements to address the structural integrity of surface impoundments to prevent catastrophic releases. Regulation under Subtitle C would normally classify a substance or material as hazardous and would lead to stricter rules and federal enforcement. Many people were concerned that if coal ash waste was re-classified as hazardous and regulated under Subtitle C, any beneficial use of coal ash would be severely hindered. EPA appears to be looking for a way around this main concern. Under the proposal that regulates coal ash waste under Subtitle C, coal ash would be classified as a "special waste" and could still be used in "beneficial" ways. Since the Kingston spill, one side has been advocating for a hazardous classification and regulation under Subtitle C, while the other side argued to leave the non-hazardous classification in place, continue to utilize and explore beneficial uses, and let states regulate to their specific needs. After EPA's May 4, 2010 announcement, the debate remains largely the same. The only thing EPA has clarified is that no matter the action taken, coal ash will continue to be recycled and apparently will not be classified as hazardous. EPA explained in its own summary of the proposed rules that regulation under Subtitle C would reverse the 1993 and 2000 classification exemptions, but would not change the 2000 Regulatory Determination for beneficially used coal ash waste. However, EPA is clarifying this determination and seeking comment on potential refinements for certain beneficial uses. Both approaches focus on the storage facilities and only apply to the disposal of coal ash from electric generating units. EPA will require composite liners and groundwater monitoring at new dry ash landfills, while existing surface impoundments will have to be retrofitted with liners. Under the Subtitle C option, wet ash storage facilities would specifically be phased out and EPA thinks the new safety requirements under Subtitle D would also lead to the phase out of wet ash containers.2 EPA specifically mentioned Kingston, Tennessee and how the new regulations are being put in place to avoid accidents like the spill in December 2008. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson commented that she hopes the proposals will begin a national dialogue about coal ash regulation and disposal. It appears EPA wants safety without hindering beneficial use or too much regulation. Either way, both sides of the debate still have questions and time to advocate their position. More information about the EPA's proposed regulation can be found here. Click here for the EPA's unofficial pre-publication copy of the proposed rule for public reference. This document has not been published in the Federal Register and is not an official version of the final rule. The official rule will be available here as soon as it is published by the Federal Register Office. Click here to view a chart comparing the key differences between the EPA's Subtitle C and Subtitle D options. ________________________________ (1) 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976). (2) While Subtitle D would require coal ash ponds to be retrofitted with a composite liner, it would not “phase out” coal ash ponds. To continue to use the wet ash pond, a company would have to remove all the materials, put the lining in, and then return the wet coal ash to the impoundment. If pond owners elect not to line the existing ponds, Subtitle D requires the owner to discontinue usage of the coal ash pond and implement closure of the pond within five years. © 2010 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved. · Printer-friendly · Email this Article · Download PDF · ShareThis About The Author J. David Brittingham Partner J. David Brittingham is a Partner in the Product Liability and Toxic Tort Practice Groups. David's practice includes general litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on product liability, mass torts, toxic torts and commercial matters. He primarily represents businesses and manufacturing concerns regarding claims of a complex or severe nature. David's experience with complex litigation in both state and federal courts includes the management, discovery, resolution and/or trial of class actions, multi-district litigation, multi-party suits and claims of mass torts. He has managed... david.brittingham(a)dinslaw.com (513) 977-8455 www.dinslaw.com Contributors Thomas P. Doyle Associate Thomas P. Doyle is a member of the Litigation Department. His practice focuses on general litigation and includes product liability, medical malpractice, and mass tort litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Thomas clerked for the Honorable Judge AJ Wagner, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. thomas.doyle(a)dinslaw.com (513) 977-8551 www.dinslaw.com -- Samuel E. Flenner III Outreach Associate Environmental Integrity Project samf.environmentalintegrity(a)gmail.com 317.352.2339 c-317.850.0436 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-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

Fwd: Big Climate Majority - A Stanford Survey Shows
by Paul Wilson 13 Jun '10

13 Jun '10

incase any of you missed this. Byrd voted against the Murkowski resolution. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anne Ehrlich <aehrlich(a)stanford.edu> Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Big Climate Majority - A Stanford Survey Shows To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org June 8, 2010 > New York Times > > > The Climate Majority > > > > > By JON A. KROSNICK > > > Stanford, Calif. > > ON Thursday, the Senate will vote on a resolution proposed by Lisa > Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, that would < > http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/07/07climatewire-thursday-is-high-noon…>scuttle > the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to limit emissions of greenhouse > gases by American businesses. > > Passing the resolution might seem to be exactly what Americans want. After > all, national surveys released during the last eight months have been > interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate > change is real, human-caused and threatening to people. > > But a closer look at these polls and a new survey by my Political > Psychology Research Group show just the opposite: huge majorities of > Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result > of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop > it. > > In our survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National > Science Foundation, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were interviewed > by phone between June 1 and Monday. When respondents were asked if they > thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the > last 100 years, 74 percent answered affirmatively. And 75 percent of > respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any > warming that has occurred. > > For many issues, any such consensus about the existence of a problem > quickly falls apart when the conversation turns to carrying out specific > solutions that will be costly. But not so here. > > Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government > to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent > favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in > particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent — but 76 percent. > > Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity (78 percent) and gasoline (72 > percent) to reduce consumption. But 84 percent favored the federal > government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more > electricity from water, wind and solar power. > > And huge majorities favored government requiring, or offering tax breaks to > encourage, each of the following: manufacturing cars that use less gasoline > (81 percent); manufacturing appliances that use less electricity (80 > percent); and building homes and office buildings that require less energy > to heat and cool (80 percent). > > Thus, there is plenty of agreement about what people do and do not want > government to do. > > Our poll also indicated that some of the principal arguments against > remedial efforts have been failing to take hold. Only 18 percent of > respondents said they thought that policies to reduce global warming would > increase unemployment and only 20 percent said they thought such initiatives > would hurt the nation’s economy. Furthermore, just 14 percent said the > United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other > major industrial countries like China and India do so as well. > > Our findings might seem implausible in light of recent polls that purport > to show that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the very existence > of climate change. But in fact, those polls did not produce conflicting > evidence at all. > > Consider, for example, <http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf>the > most publicized question from a 2009 Pew Research Center poll: “From what > you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature > on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?” This > question measured perceptions of scientific evidence that the respondent has > read or heard about, not the respondents’ personal opinions about whether > the earth has been warming. Someone who has had no exposure to scientific > evidence or who perceives the evidence to be equivocal may nonetheless be > convinced that the earth has been heating up by, say, the early blossoming > of plants in his garden. > > Or consider a < > http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continu…>widely > publicized Gallup question: “Thinking about what is said in the news, in > your view, is the seriousness of global warming generally exaggerated, > generally correct or is it generally underestimated?” This question asked > about respondents’ perceptions of the news, not the respondents’ perception > of warming. A person who believes climate change has been happening might > also feel that news media coverage of it has been exaggerated. > > Questions in other polls that sought to tap respondents’ personal beliefs > about the existence and causes of warming violated two of the cardinal rules > of good survey question design: ask about only one thing at a time, and > choose language that makes it easy for respondents to understand and answer > each question. > > Imagine <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/07/rel18e.pdf>being > asked this, from a poll by CNN: “Which of the following statements comes > closest to your view of global warming: Global warming is a proven fact and > is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities like power > plants and factories; global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused > by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and > industrial facilities; or, global warming is a theory that has not yet been > proven.” > > Notice that the question didn’t even offer the opportunity for respondents > to say they believe global warming is definitely not happening — not the > sort of question that will provide the most valid measurements. > > When surveys other than ours have asked simple and direct questions, they > have produced results similar to ours. For example, in November, an ABC > News/Washington Post survey found that < > http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1096a7GlobalWarming.pdf>72 > percent of respondents said the earth has been heating up, and a December > poll by Ipsos/McClatchy found this proportion to be 70 percent. > > Our surveys did reveal a small recent decline in the proportion of people > who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 80 > percent in 2008 to 74 percent today. Statistical analysis of our data > revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather > changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate > scientists. > > In terms of average earth temperature, 2008 was the coldest year since > 2000. Scientists say that such year-to-year fluctuations are uninformative, > and people who trust scientists therefore ignore this information when > forming opinions about global warming’s existence. Citizens who do not trust > climate scientists, however, base their conclusions on their personal > observations of nature. These low-trust individuals were especially aware of > the recent decline in average world temperatures; they were the ones in our > survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007. > > This explanation is especially significant, because it suggests that the > small recent decline in the proportion of people who believe in global > warming is likely to be temporary. If the earth’s temperature begins to rise > again, these individuals may reverse course and rejoin the large majority > who still think warming is real. > > Growing public skepticism has, in recent months, been attributed to news > reports about < > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1>e-mail > messages hacked from the computer system at the University of East Anglia > in Britain (characterized as showing climate scientists colluding to silence > unconvinced colleagues) and by the discoveries of < > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html>alleged > flaws in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. > > Our new survey discredited this claim in multiple ways. First, we found no > decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists: 71 percent of > respondents said they trust these scientists a moderate amount, a lot or > completely, a figure that was 68 percent in 2008 and 70 percent in 2009. > Only 9 percent said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and > believed they indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted, and > only 13 percent of respondents said so about the I.P.C.C. reports’ alleged > flaws. > > Interestingly, Americans are not alone in having their views portrayed > inaccurately. A February BBC News survey asked Britons, “From what you know > and have heard, do you think that the earth’s climate is changing and global > warming is taking place?” < > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm>Seventy-five percent > of respondents answered affirmatively, down a somewhat improbable eight > percentage points from 83 percent in November. A BBC headline blared, > “Climate Skepticism on the Rise,” when it should have proclaimed that a huge > majority of Britons still share common ground with one another and with > Americans on this issue. > > GLOBAL warming has attracted what political scientists dub an “issue > public”: millions of Americans who are passionate about this subject and put > pressure on government to follow their wishes. For over a decade, this group > has been of typical issue-public size, about 15 percent of American adults. > > Although issue publics usually divide about equally on opposing sides — > think of abortion or immigration — 88 percent of the climate change issue > public in our survey believed that global warming has been happening; 88 > percent attributed responsibility for it to human action; 92 percent wanted > the federal government to limit the amount of greenhouse gases that > businesses can emit. Put simply, the people whose votes are most powerfully > shaped by this issue are sending a nearly unanimous signal to their elected > representatives. > > All this makes global warming a singular issue in American politics. Even > as we are told that Americans are about equally divided into red and blue, a > huge majority shares a common vision of climate change. This creates a > unique opportunity for elected representatives to satisfy a lot of voters. > > When senators vote on emissions limits on Thursday, there is one other > number they might want to keep in mind: 72 percent of Americans think that > most business leaders do not want the federal government to take steps to > stop global warming. A vote to eliminate greenhouse gas regulation is likely > to be perceived by the nation as a vote for industry, and against the will > of the people. > > Jon A. Krosnick is a professor of communication, political science and > psychology at Stanford. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-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/ -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: DEP Public Notice - County - Mercer - Applicant - Appalachian Power Co. ...
by Duane330＠aol.com 10 Jun '10

10 Jun '10

FYI -- coal ash disposal in trib of New River.......... See forwarded permit for review........................DN

1 0

job posting
by Jim Sconyers 07 Jun '10

07 Jun '10

<Can you help us get the word out about this job posting, please? Below and attached.> Hi folks - The West Virginia Sierra Club is looking to hire a Lobby and Outreach Organizer to work on shale (Marcellus) gas and related water issues in West Virginia. If you are interested, please apply. Or if you know someone who might be good, please pass the word on to them. Job Description and Help Wanted Ad below. Lobby and Outreach Organizer Position The West Virginia Sierra Club works to protect the environment in West Virginia. We are seeking an individual to promote better regulation and/or legislation for shale (Marcellus) gas drilling in WV. This is a contract job, equivalent to 3/4 time, with salary and expenses. Duration is July 1 - December 31, 2010. Responsibilities Represent the Club and the environment at legislative or agency meetings. Grassroots outreach to citizens, communities, and organizations. Ø Public education: prepare fact sheets, presentations to groups, newsletter articles, web content. Ø Meet with/present to community groups. Ø Media: generate letters, op-eds, radio/TV/newspaper articles and coverage. Qualifications Ø Self-starter with experience working independently and as part of a team. Ø Public speaking and presentation skills Ø Excellent writing skills Ø Concern for WV environmental issues in general. Knowledge of shale (Marcellus) gas and water issues is a plus. Requirements Ø Able to travel (mileage reimbursed). Ø Some weekend and evening work necessary. Ø Ability to work with boards, committees, and a wide range of people. Desired Ø Computer skills (email, web, Word, Excel, PowerPoint). Ø Prepare print material - flyers, pamphlets, fact sheets, etc. Ø Engage and activate individuals and groups. Questions? Contact Karen Grubb (304.367.4878, karen.grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu), or Jim Kotcon (304.293.8822, jkotcon(a)wvu.edu). To apply, send a letter of application outlining your interests and abilities, a resume, and names and contact info for 3 references to: karen.grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu All material must be submitted electronically. References must include email addresses. Application deadline is June 20, 2010. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd:Options for phasing out coal in ES&T (Free!)
by James Kotcon 05 Jun '10

05 Jun '10

These could be some very useful studies, especially for those who need technical data. Perhaps it could even be useful in CCS rule-making, etc. JBK >>> Al Sattler <alsattler(a)IGC.ORG> 6/3/2010 10:43 PM >>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es101320m Can the U.S. phase out coal’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030? A new paper by a leading group of scientists, engineers, and architects argues that the U.S. could eliminate CO2 emissions from coal in 20 years. -------------------------- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a Options for Near-Term Phaseout of CO2 Emissions from Coal Use in the United States Pushker A. Kharecha* ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#cor1 )† ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn1 ), Charles F. Kutscher‡ ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn2 ), James E. Hansen† ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn1 ) and Edward Mazria§ ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn3 ) -------------------------- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903306e Gigaton Problems Need Gigaton Solutions1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903306e#fn1 ) Achieving sustainability requires commanding the whole problem, not just iterative efforts that barely strike a moving target. ------------------------------ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903626u Is Carbon Capture and Storage Really Needed?1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903626u#fn1 ) If CO2 cannot be stored at profit, perhaps it is best to switch to low-carbon alternative energy post haste. ------------------------------ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903036u Why the Debate about Land Use Change Should Not Only Focus on Biofuels1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903036u#fn1 ) Extensive change of the landscape for energy production is not limited to farmland alteration. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 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/

1 0

Fwd:Natural Gas/Gulf Oil Spill call on Monday (was: What are we doing?)
by James Kotcon 05 Jun '10

05 Jun '10

Who plans to be on this one? JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 6/4/2010 5:23 PM >>> Michael Brune, Club Executive Director, will be hosting a call at 5 pm Pacific/8 Eastern Monday June 7 for volunteers and staff to "talk about our natural gas campaign and policies and answer questions". Call 1 866-501-6174 — code 223-9223#. This call may be an opportune moment for the Club's grassroots to talk to Michael about the need not only for more Sierra Club militancy on the Gulf oil tragedy but also more specificity on how the Club proposes to "get off oil". And it's not just a matter of "getting off oil". It's getting off all fossil fuels as fast as possible and not wasting another generation of infrastructure and investment on the illusory but fatal temptation of so-called "transition fossil fuels" like natural gas. New NG capacity will continue carbon spewing and fossil-fuel dependency while competing with and slowing the massive transition to renewable power for which the Gulf catastrophe so cruelly demonstrates our need most dire. -- Ed M. - - - - - - - - - - On May 24, 2010, at 3:17 PM Joe Cook wrote: > Barb, Wayne and others, > > I agree that the Sierra Club appears to be missing in action at this > seminal moment for us to shine a light on this issue and engage our > membership to light a fire under and spray dispersant on Obama, his > administration and the Congress. Where is the net roots call to > action and marching feet on the ground in DC to stop the leak, do the > clean up and call a timeout on offshore drilling? Now is the time to > expose the dirty, greedy and inhumane fossil fuel industry and tout > the alternative -- clean, renewable energy. At the same time, the > Kerry-Liberman bill is a travesty in the face of the Gulf blowout and > should be exposed as such. > > Joe Cook > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Wayne Kenton > <waynekenton(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Barb, >> >> How do we get the Sierra Club leadership angry, how do we get them to >> respond, how do we get them to get a plan to engage their grassroots >> – are we not a grassroots group? Where is the national call to >> action conference call today? >> >> After two days of sending out emails like this I am asking everyone >> on this list – where is the red button to push! Where is our action >> team response? I want to know what is happening what we are doing >> and how grassroots is being empowered. >> >> I was sent this important web site to read up on what is happening in >> the Oil world, please read and digest. >> >> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6489#comments_top >> >> www.NRDC.org has Robert Redford on CNN commercials airing as I write >> this call for political leadership today over the Gulf Crisis, where >> is ours! You want to grow public support, then we need to get out >> there with a message and plan that people can support, if you don’t >> people we find a group that does support their interests and >> concerns. Redford is saying the same thing I have been saying, this >> is urgent and to lead Mr. Obama. >> >> Maybe we should be generating a list of actions the Sierra Club could >> be doing now, since nothing seems to be happening… >> >> Wayne >> >> PS. I am not on the leadership list server so some please tell what >> is happening there???? >> >> From: Chp & Grp Global Warming Energy Chairs >> [mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf >> Of Barbara McKasson >> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 11:46 AM >> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG >> Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Brune video >> >> We have been told that Micheal Brune, Carl Pope, Allison Chin and >> Robin Mann are responding to the oil spill situation. However, it >> seems they are forgetting that this is supposed to be a grassroots >> organization. I have not seen much on prompting grassroots leaders >> and members to respond to this - and I am a Sierra Club group >> chair!. Let's use the unique strength of Sierra Club as a grassroots >> organization. >> >> This is not the time to hold back!! We must push the Obama >> Administration to be more proactive on this. We need people calling >> Congress and the White House to step up the government response and >> to pressure BP to do more. Using toxic dispersants to hide the huge >> amount of oil that scientists say is gushing out daily is not a good >> solution, yet the Obama administration is allowing it to continue. >> It seems the Obama administration is trying to silence the scientists >> also. If dispersants are used, it should be a less toxic solution! >> We should be making A LOT OF NOISE about this. If we can't hold the >> Obama Administration accountable, who will? The federal government >> response so far has been underwhelming. >> >> Also, we cannot afford to be cowed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I >> have always been told that we should respond directly and quickly to >> every attack on the Sierra Club. It doesn't seem that this is being >> done this time! >> >> Barb McKasson, Chair >> >> Shawnee Group Sierra Club >> >> In a message dated 5/23/2010 8:32:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >> Dave.Hamilton(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG writes: >>> No matter how Mike came off in that particular interview, (Mathews >>> is always tough) he is anything but tepid in the way he is >>> responding or the way he is preparing the organization to address >>> the disaster over the long term. We have been putting together a >>> very aggressive policy package on oil savings, as well as >>> ypositioning the issue as the central driver and game changer for >>> what happens in Washington for the foreseeable future. >>> >>> DH >>> >>> -----Rodney Robinson <rodney(a)CAL.NET> wrote: ----- >>> >>> ======================= >>> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG >>> From: Rodney Robinson <rodney(a)CAL.NET> >>> Date: 05/23/2010 03:25AM >>> Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Brune video >>> ======================= >>> Chris Matthews actually says "get on this the stick Michael! You >>> don't >>> seem very excited about this." >>> and I would have to agree with Chris’ request. Get on the >>> stick. >>> Michael presents the Sierra Club as an entity to ignore. There is >>> no >>> fire in the belly. Where is the outrage. A month into this and this >>> is >>> the response we get from the Sierra Club. Shameful. >>> >>> I did not see, through the eyes of CBS News or any other source, >>> the >>> gulf coast chapter members or anyone else on the beaches Friday >>> scooping up the oil mess as it hit shore. Where are the BP execs to >>> be >>> found cleaning the beaches. >>> °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° >>> A friend just sent this to me. I missed the original 60 minute >>> broadcast and had intended to catch it in the eworld. >>> >>> Here it is in the event that you missed it or would want to pass >>> the >>> link to a friend. >>> >>> >>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25474.htm >>> >>> ***************************************** >>> And... You may want to subscribe to the newsletter below. >>> ***************************************** >>> >>> Government of the USA in Exile >>> Free Americans Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to >>> Breathe Free >>> Via <prez(a)usa-exile.org> >>> >>> May >>> 21, 2010 >>> >>> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/21/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1 >>> >>> Gulf Oil Spill Effects to Reach Arctic and Europe, >>> >>> Expert Says >>> >>> By the CNN Wire Staff >>> >>> May 21, 2010 -- Updated 1801 GMT (0201 HKT) >>> >>> Washington (CNN) -- The damaging effects of the massive oil spill >>> in >>> the Gulf of Mexico will be felt all the way to Europe and the >>> Arctic, >>> a top scientist told a congressional panel Friday. >>> >>> "This is not just a regional issue for the wildlife," said Carl >>> Safina, the president of the Blue Ocean Institute. Safina, who >>> recently returned from the Gulf Coast region, presented several >>> photographs, including one of an oil-covered bird. >>> >>> "There will be a nest empty in Newfoundland," Safina said, noting >>> common migratory patterns. Safina warned that multiple forms of >>> marine >>> life in the Atlantic Ocean "come into the Gulf to breed." >>> >>> Safina's briefing to representatives of the House Energy and >>> Commerce >>> Committee was scheduled as part of an ongoing effort to draw on a >>> broad range of expertise for cleanup efforts. >>> >>> "We have to use science to find solutions," said Rep. Ed Markey, D- >>> Massachusetts. Markey has been strongly critical of the current >>> cleanup effort, calling it ineffective. >>> >>> Meanwhile, another congressman, concerned about people who are >>> working >>> to clean up the spill, has asked the White House to set up >>> temporary >>> health care centers along the Gulf Coast to serve volunteers and >>> workers. >>> >>> Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Louisiana, envisions such clinics as >>> providing "medical checkups to people who have come in contact with >>> the oil and assist in monitoring the health effects of the oil leak >>> on >>> south Louisianians." >>> >>> He sent the request Wednesday to Health and Human Services >>> Secretary >>> Kathleen Sebelius. There was no immediate response from the agency. >>> >>> "Many residents and volunteers are being exposed to hazardous >>> materials on a daily basis, and some will have to travel hours to >>> get >>> treatment at the nearest health care facility. It is imperative >>> that >>> temporary health care clinics be established to provide basic >>> health >>> care services in this geographic area," he said. >>> >>> He has also asked Sebelius to "appoint a health care coordinator to >>> oversee and streamline the health care response." >>> >>> Melancon emphasized that BP should be responsible for such health >>> care >>> services in his state. The energy giant was operating the oil rig >>> that >>> exploded and sank in April, triggering the spill. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ------------------------------------------ >>> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10139730.stm >>> >>> US oil spill: BP 'recovering less oil' than >>> estimated >>> >>> BP has said the amount of oil recovered from a leaking Gulf of >>> Mexico >>> oil well on Thursday was less than half an earlier estimate. >>> >>> BP said it siphoned 2,200 barrels in the 24-hour period to midnight >>> on >>> Thursday, down from an estimate of 5,000 barrels earlier in the day. >>> >>> The US government has formed a team to develop a more precise >>> estimate >>> of the amount of oil gushing from the well. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ----------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> White House Covers Up Menacing Oil "Blob" >>> >>> by Wayne Madsen >>> >>> Global Research, May 21, 2010 >>> Oilprice.com >>> >>> In an exclusive for Oilprice.com, the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) has >>> learned from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. >>> Army >>> Corps of Engineers sources that U.S. Navy submarines deployed to >>> the >>> Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean off the Florida coast have >>> detected >>> what amounts to a frozen oil blob from the oil geyser at the >>> destroyed >>> Deep Horizon off-shore oil rig south of Louisiana. The Navy >>> submarines >>> have trained video cameras on the moving blob, which remains frozen >>> at >>> depths of between 3,000 to 4,000 feet. Because the oil blob is >>> heavier >>> than water, it remains frozen at current depths. >>> >>> FEMA and Corps of Engineers employees are upset that the White >>> House >>> and the Pentagon remain tight-lipped and in cover-up mode about the >>> images of the massive and fast-moving frozen coagulated oil blob >>> that >>> is being imaged by Navy submarines that are tracking its movement. >>> The >>> sources point out that BP and the White House conspired to withhold >>> videos from BP-contracted submersibles that showed the oil geyser >>> that >>> was spewing oil from the chasm underneath the datum of the Deep >>> Horizon at rates far exceeding originally reported amounts. We have >>> learned that it was largely WMR's scoop on the existence of the BP >>> videos that forced the company and its White House patrons to >>> finally >>> agree to the release of the video footage. >>> >>> The White House is officially stating that it does not know where >>> the >>> officially reported 10 miles long by 3 miles wide "plume" is >>> actually >>> located or in what direction it is heading. However, WMR's sources >>> claim the White House is getting real-time reports from Navy >>> submarines as to the blob's location. We have learned that the blob >>> is >>> transiting the Florida Straits between Florida and Cuba, propelled >>> by >>> the Gulf's Loop Current, and that parts of it that is encountering >>> warmer waters are breaking off into smaller tar balls that are now >>> washing ashore in the environmentally-sensitive Florida Keys and >>> Dry >>> Tortugas. >>> >>> Corps of Engineers and FEMA officials are also livid about the >>> cover- >>> up of the extent of the oil damage being promulgated by the >>> National >>> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its marine >>> research >>> vessel in the Gulf, RV Pelican. NOAA stands accused by the >>> aforementioned agencies of acting as a virtual public relations arm >>> for BP. NOAA is a component of the business-oriented Department of >>> Commerce. >>> >>> Similarly, the Coast Guard, which takes its orders from the >>> cover-up >>> operatives at the Homeland Security Department, is denying the tar >>> balls washing up on the Florida Keys are from the oil mass. WMR has >>> been told the Coast Guard is lying in order to protect the Obama >>> administration, which has thoroughly failed in its response to the >>> disaster. The White House's only concern is trying to limit >>> political >>> damage to its image in the electorally-important state of Florida >>> while the Pentagon has spent between $25 and $30 billion on oil >>> spill >>> operations in the Gulf and the Atlantic to date. >>> >>> WMR sources also report that the oil mass has resulted in dead >>> zones >>> in the Gulf of Mexico that have cut off oxygen and killed massive >>> numbers of marine creatures and plant life. Seafood wholesalers >>> from >>> the Gulf Coast to New Jersey and New York have been told that the >>> supply of shrimp, oysters, and other seafood from the Gulf is >>> severely >>> in short supply and that they can expect a possible total cut-off >>> as >>> the situation worsens. The shortage will also affect the supply of >>> seafood, especially shrimp, to national seafood restaurant chains >>> like >>> Red Lobster and Long John Silver's. >>> >>> There is also evidence that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean sank a >>> drill to a depth of 35,000 feet at the Deep Horizon site some six >>> months ago without the required permits from the federal >>> government. >>> WMR has learned from U.S. government sources that the drilling at >>> 35,000 feet caused a major catastrophic event that required the >>> firms' >>> oil rig personnel to quickly pull up the drill and close the drill >>> hole. >>> >>> However, the Deep Horizon re-sank the drill some six months after >>> the >>> unspecified "catastrophe," resulting in another, more destructive >>> chain of events following the explosion that destroyed the rig, >>> killing eleven workers. When the Deep Horizon blew up, WMR has been >>> told it also "blew down," cracking the the sub-seabed pipe that may >>> have been re-drilled to a depth of between 25,000 to 30,000 feet, >>> again, without a government permit. >>> >>> Government sources also report that BP is intent on recovering as >>> much >>> oil as possible from the undersea geyser rather than simply >>> plugging >>> and capping the well, which would then place it off-limits to >>> further >>> drilling. The Corps of Engineers reports that BP is playing a game >>> with Obama, convincing him of the feasibility of "shooting junk" >>> into >>> the subterranean pipe, which would stop up the pipe with a >>> manufactured chemical compound called "MUD." However, WMR has been >>> informed that BP actually intends to shoot cement into the pipe in >>> an >>> attempt to cap the well with the later intention of digging a >>> trench >>> for side drilling from the pipe to recover as much oil as possible. >>> The technology that would be employed by BP is the same technology >>> that was used by Kuwait to conduct slant drilling of Iraq's >>> Rumallah >>> oil field -- an event that helped trigger Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. >>> >>> Corps of Engineers and FEMA sources also give a failing grade to >>> both >>> Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who stands accused of >>> being woefully incompetent in handling the disaster, and Interior >>> Secretary Ken Salazar. Government sources say both secretaries >>> should >>> immediately step down or be fired. >>> >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/21-6 >>> Published on Friday, May 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org >>> >>> Boycott BP >>> >>> by Robert Weissman >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> Because BP must pay. >>> >>> Eleven oil workers are dead. One of the largest oil spills in U.S. >>> history continues to worsen. BP's oil gusher at the floor of the >>> Gulf >>> of Mexico may be 100 times worse than BP first estimated (and 20 >>> times >>> worse than the company presently claims). 100 times! >>> >>> BP's oil gusher is now threatening coastal lands in Louisiana and >>> is >>> almost certain to destroy fisheries and the livelihoods of people >>> who >>> fish and shrimp in the Gulf, or rely on the Gulf for tourism >>> business. >>> The giant plumes of oil deep underwater will exact an unknown toll >>> on >>> sea life. And the spreading oil may even wind up in currents that >>> eventually take it to the U.S. Eastern shores. >>> >>> BP CEO Tony Hayward is sanguine about the whole problem. The >>> Financial >>> Times quotes him saying, "I think the environmental impact of this >>> disaster is likely to have been very, very modest." >>> >>> A boycott will send a message to BP that its shoddy oversight of >>> this >>> project and its history of environmental and worker safety >>> violations >>> is unforgivable. Take the BP Boycott Pledge, and commit not to buy >>> gas >>> from BP for at least three months. Go here: www.beyondBP.org >>> >>> BP cares desperately about its public image. This is the company >>> that >>> has sought to rebrand itself as "Beyond Petroleum." BusinessWeek >>> estimates the BP brand as worth $3.9 billion -- the highest among >>> oil >>> companies. "Not even an Alaskan oil spill or an explosion at a >>> Texas >>> refinery has put a dent in BP's strong [brand] performance," said >>> BusinessWeek in 2006. This time must be different. A boycott will >>> express the organized consumer anger that BP so fears. >>> >>> This is a company that should fear the public's wrath, for the >>> Deepwater Horizon blowout was a preventable disaster. While much >>> remains unknown, there is mounting evidence that BP could have >>> averted >>> the catastrophe. BP made a conscious decision not to install a >>> $500,000 safety device that could have prevented the blowout. There >>> is >>> good reason to believe BP's contractors on the Deepwater Horizon >>> made >>> multiple mistakes leading up to the disaster, but it is ultimately >>> BP's job to make sure its contractors are exercising sufficient >>> care. >>> And Mike Williams, the chief electronics technician on the >>> Deepwater >>> Horizon, told 60 Minutes that BP pressured its contractors to skirt >>> other safety measures that might have prevented the disaster. >>> >>> All this from a company that made $14 billion in profits in 2009 -- >>> a >>> bad year. First quarter profits in 2010 were over $6 billion. >>> >>> After the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, Tony Hayward >>> reportedly >>> asked why bad things keep happening to BP. >>> >>> But this is not a case of bad things happening to good people. BP >>> has >>> one of the worst environmental and safety records of any oil >>> company >>> operating in the United States. BP has pled guilty in just the last >>> few years to two crimes and paid more than $730 million in fines, >>> penalties and settlements for environmental crimes, willful >>> disregard >>> for workplace safety and energy market manipulation. >>> >>> BP sometimes says it will pay for the harms caused by the spill, >>> but >>> at other times hedges what it may be willing to do. There will be >>> litigation and fines, and BP won't have the final say on what it >>> wants >>> to pay. In any case, cash compensation for economic harms caused -- >>> while necessary -- doesn't bring back destroyed ecosystems and does >>> little to mitigate the company's culpability for not preventing the >>> blowout in the first place. >>> >>> The only good that can come out of the BP disaster is if it forces >>> the >>> United States to fundamentally reorient energy policy. As a matter >>> of >>> simple common sense, the Obama administration should reverse its >>> new >>> policy and stop offshore drilling expansion. More fundamentally, >>> BP's >>> oil gusher is yet another reminder of the need for a massive shift >>> away from fossil fuels and to investments in efficiency and >>> renewable >>> energy. The disaster also emphasizes how crucial it is to hold Big >>> Oil >>> accountable. The BP boycott is a way to start. >>> >>> There are no "good" oil companies, but BP is a particularly bad and >>> irresponsible actor. Consumers should make it pay. Take the BP >>> Boycott >>> Pledge: . >>> >>> Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen. >>> >>> >>> On May 22, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Thomas Mathews wrote: >>> >>> > I watched the video, Fred. The last line is Chris Matthews >>> telling >>> > Brune to "get on this Michael! You don't seem very excited about >>> > this." >>> > >>> > And, in fact, Brune's comments are rather, shall we say, tepid. >>> He >>> > doesn't even respond substantively to Rush Limbaugh's attack on >>> > Sierra Club. The other guest, Joan Walsh from Salon.com, does a >>> much >>> > better job of defending Sierra Club than does Brune. >>> > >>> > And, of course, Brune does not go on the offensive against >>> Obama's >>> > handling of the oil spill. Matthews does though. Big time. >>> > >>> > Give Brune some time, I suppose. He's still new on the job. >>> > >>> > Tom Mathews >>> > Iowa Chapter >>> > = >>> > >>> ===================================================================== >>> = >>> > Please see: >>> > >>> > http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/adv_oilspill >>> > >>> > The Club has been responding since the first day. Our national >>> > leaders -- Mike Brune, Carl Pope, outgoing president Allison Chin >>> and >>> > incoming president Robin Mann, have been speaking continually in >>> > public and with the media, there is a national response group >>> working >>> > on the oil spill and our Gulf Coast chapters are fully >>> mobilizing. >>> > Here's >>> > a signup form: >>> > >>> > >>> http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer? >>> pagename=20100429VolunterGulfCoastOilSpill&autologin=true >>> > >>> > Fred >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

Fwd: coal to clean energy?
by Paul Wilson 04 Jun '10

04 Jun '10

please contact the intern if you have info. thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cramer, Virginia <virginia.cramer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM Subject: coal to clean energy? To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hi everyone, I'm passing along this note from a Club intern in MI. This information would clearly be great for all of us to have compiled so please send her anything you have that might be useful. She's at sierraclubintern(a)gmail.com. thanks, ginny Hello All. I am in the process of compiling a report of nationwide examples of how new alternative energy businesses erected out of the ashes of a fallen coal plant. One Michigan example is Manistee when a coal plant was denied and Mariah began developing the Windspire wind turbine. With great success and much needed job creation, this company continues to thrive today. Mariah donated the wind turnbine that currently powers the Michigan Govenor's own residence! I know there has to be several examples of this transition---or evolution to alternative energy and we want to collect those stories. Please feel free to repost far and wide and please send information and links to me, Stephanie at: sierraclubintern(a)gmail.com I would greatly appreciate any help you can offer! Have a great day! Stephanie Vollick Sierra Club Intern, Beyond Coal Royal Oak, MI Cell: 248-842-7443 -- Virginia Cramer Deputy Press Secretary Sierra Club tel: 804-225-9113 x 102 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

PSC on PATH- Procedural Order grants the Second Proposal to Toll the statutory due date, until 5/16/2011
by Frank Young 03 Jun '10

03 Jun '10

We expected this, but now it's official. Click on the blue type in the "description" below to read the order. ----- Original Message ----- From: WV Public Service Commission To: fyoung(a)mountain.net Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:00 PM Subject: [PSC Docket] Activity on PSC Case(s) on 06/03/2010 The Following Cases had activity on 06/03/2010. Subscription Name Case Number Case Name Description(click link to view document) E-mail notification 09-0770-E-CN PATH West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC; PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; PATH-WV Land Acquisition Company; and PATH-Allegheny Land Acquisition Company Commission Procedural Order granting the Second Proposal to Toll the statutory due date, until 5/16/2011; setting for Evidentiary Hearing beginning 1/10/2011; the Evidentiary Hearing ends on 1/25/2011;For details see Internet Hearing Information; granting the 9/22/2009 Protective Motion regarding the Confidential CEII Data and Confidential Forecast Data; Applicants submit, within 30 days, appropriate motions for protective treatment for all additional documents filed under seal; directing the Applicants to update time-sensitive information contained in the right-of-way information packets distributed by its right-of-way agents; denying the Rappaport/Haverty/WCIG/Wilson requests regarding the Applicants right-of-way agents and land acquisition activities; directing the Applicants to work closely with its right-of-way agents to assure that the agents are providing accurate and timely information to landowners, and are abiding by applicable state and federal rules and regulations; denying Ms. Bonhage-Hale's motion requesting that the Applicants provide a list of property owners along the route of the proposed transmission line; Applicants are not required to respond to the data requests filed by Earl and Delores Irons, Ryan Gaujot, and John W. Cobb; denying the Baker motion for clarification; granting, in part, the JCIG motion to compel and denying, in part, as described in the Discussion section of this Order; the JCIG motion for additional time to file prefiled testimony in denied as moot; denying the WCIG motion to compel as described in the Discussion of this Order; denying as moot the Howley motion in limine; Applicants file supplemental testimony on issues of electrical need and any other issues requiring supplementation by Noon on 7/8/2010; Staff and Intervenors propound discovery on supplemental testimony filed 7/8/2010 due by Noon on 10/29/2010; Staff's and Intervenors prepared direct testimony and rebuttal to the direct testimony of Applicants due by Noon on 11/18/2010; deadline for propounding discovery in response to testimony due 11/19//2010 is due by Noon on 11/30/2010; Applicant's rebuttal testimony to the direct testimony for Staff and Intervenors, and for Staff and Intervenor rebuttal testimony to the direct testimony of one another due by Noon on 12/17/2010; deadline for propounding discovery in response to the rebuttal testimony due 12/17/2010 is due by Noon on 12/28/2010; Written opening statements due by Noon on 1/6/2011; Initial briefs and proposed orders may be filed until Noon on 2/22/2011; Reply Briefs may be filed until 3/10/2011; etc. This is an automated message. Do not respond to this message. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia does not accept electronic filings, you will receive a hard copy in the mail. If you wish to respond to the enclosed document, you may do so in writing. Please send your response to the Executive Secretary at the address below. Please add docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us to your address book to ensure delivery of this notice. About this Notice: You were sent this email at fyoung(a)mountain.net because you have subscribed to this particular case and or case type, etc. If you do not wish to receive further messages for this case(s), please go to manage your subscriptions. Please add docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us to your address book to ensure delivery of this notice. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at: Public Service Commission Of West Virginia P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323 304-340-0300 or Toll Free 1-800-344-5113 Fax: 304-340-0325

1 0

Fw: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy
by Jim Sconyers 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 12:43:22 AM Subject: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy Chris Paine blog circulated May 28 by Jim Magavern: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy So what would all the nuclear largesse mean in practice if the K-L bill as written becomes law, and perhaps 12-24 new nuclear power plants are constructed over the next fifteen years in response to the incentives the bill creates? American taxpayers and consumers will have to pay through the nose for the electricity from these plants, which is likely to cost - depending on the project ownership and finance structure-anywhere from 17-34 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) (California Energy Commission, December 2009) when it enters the grid around 2018, instead of buying end-use efficiency "negawatts" today at less than 5 cents per kilowatt hour, industrial waste heat cogeneration today at less than 9 cents per kWh, wind at less than 11.5 cents per kWh, and a wide variety of other renewable sources at less than 17 cents per kilowatt hour, with the expectation of further price declines. In a recent analysis from DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), for example, big box commercial rooftop PV solar is expected to decline from about 11 - 15 cents/kWh (Phoenix versus Kansas City) today to 4.5 - 6 cents per KWh in 2015. Not only will new-nuclear cost more than these other cleaner sources, but the effective carbon displacement arrives 5-7 years later than the other technologies, further raising the overall cost of meeting the GHG reduction targets. The harder, farther, and earlier we push on energy efficiency in a climate bill, the fewer costly nuclear, coal CCS or other "low-carbon" generating plants we'll have to build later on to meet the GHG reduction targets. So there is actually a triple-barreled economic benefit from deferring widespread deployment of the most costly decarbonization pathways (nuclear, coal CCS, renewables in less-favorable locations) until we absolutely need them to stay on track with meeting our reduction targets: (1) lower electricity costs; (2) earlier GHG reductions; and (3) less required future investment in low-carbon central station power plants that have other serious environmental drawbacks. This strategy not only frees up funding for massive early investments in more cost-effective energy efficiency, but it also allows more time for technology innovation to reduce future nuclear (and coal CCS) costs and environmental impacts. The same holds true for currently costly, land-intensive combinations of remotely located large-scale renewables and new high-voltage transmission lines. Rapidly evolving technology and plummeting manufacturing costs may enable a higher proportion of clean energy to come from equally or more cost-effective distributed-generation mounted along highway embankments and atop buildings and parking lots, lessening the burden imposed by some large-scale renewable deployments on the natural environment. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC