EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: NYTimes.com: Is America Ready to Quit Coal?
by Paul Wilson 15 Feb '09

15 Feb '09

I have attached a Word version of the same article for those who have trouble with the link below. regards,paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <pjgrunt(a)frontiernet.net> Date: Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM Subject: NYTimes.com: Is America Ready to Quit Coal? To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/> [image: E-mail This] <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.co…> *This page was sent to you by: * * BUSINESS * | February 15, 2009 * Is America Ready to Quit Coal? <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/business/15coal.html?emc=eta1> * By MELANIE WARNER With regulations to address climate change looming, coal power looks increasingly expensive. 1. » <http://www.nytimes.com/gst/mostemailed.html?type=1> **<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.co…> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.co…> Copyright 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html> The New York Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/> | Privacy Policy<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html> -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

Importing Pollution
by James Kotcon 14 Feb '09

14 Feb '09

A relatively new report form the Union of Concerned Scientists outlines the potential for new coal fired power plants, and expanded production from existing plants, to overwhelm greenhouse gas reduction plans in the Northeast. It is 44 pages, but makes relatively easy reading. It does a good job of explaining transmission pricing, as well as the role of proposed new transmission lines. Lots of discussion of TrAIL, PATH, and they highlight Longview! Right here in our back yard!!! Look in Appendix B for a list of the existing coal plants with the greatest potential to expand their greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/importing… JBK

1 0

Climate change even worse than predicted
by James Kotcon 14 Feb '09

14 Feb '09

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090214/sc_afp/usclimatewarming_20090214150716 Climate change even worse than predicted: expert Sat Feb 14, 10:04 am ET CHICAGO (AFP) – It seems the dire warnings about the oncoming devastation wrought by global warming were not dire enough, a top climate scientist warned Saturday. It has been just over a year since the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a landmark report warning of rising sea levels, expanding deserts, more intense storms and the extinction of up to 30 percent of plant and animal species. But recent climate studies suggest that report significantly underestimates the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years, a senior member of the panel warned. "We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected," said Chris Field, who was a coordinating lead author of the report. This is "primarily because developing countries like China and India saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said in a statement ahead of a presentation to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Without decisive action to slow global warming, higher temperatures could ignite tropical forests and thaw the Arctic tundra, potentially releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide that has been stored for thousands of years. That could raise temperatures even more and create "a vicious cycle that could spiral out of control by the end of the century." "We don't want to cross a critical threshold where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot," said Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. The amount of carbon that could be released is staggering. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and estimated 350 billions tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been released through the burning of fossil fuels. The new estimate of the amount of carbon stored in the Arctic's permafrost soils is around 1,000 billion tons. And the Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the globe. Several recent climate models have estimated that the loss of tropical rainforests to wildfires, deforestation and other causes could increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 10 to 100 parts per million by the end of the century. The current level is about 380 parts per million. "Tropical forests are essentially inflammable," Field said. "You couldn't get a fire to burn there if you tried. But if they dry out just a little bit, the result can be very large and destructive wildfires." Recent studies have also shown that global warming is reducing the ocean's ability to store carbon by altering wind patterns in the Southern Ocean. "As the Earth warms, it generates faster winds over the oceans surrounding Antarctica," Field explained. "These winds essentially blow the surface water out of the way, allowing water with higher concentrations of CO2 to rise to the surface. This higher-CO2 water is closer to CO2-saturated, so it takes up less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere." Field is co-chair of the group charged with assessing the impacts of climate change on social, economic and natural systems for the IPCC's fifth assessment due in 2014. The 2007 fourth assessment presented at a "very conservative range of climate outcomes" but the next report will "include futures with a lot more warming," Field said. "We now know that, without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought."

1 0

Fwd: [PSC Docket] Activity on PSC Case 07-0508-E-CN(Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company)
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 14 Feb '09

14 Feb '09

The link at the bottom of this email leads you to yesterday's PSC final order reaffirming without signiificant change -- except as requested by TrAILCo -- the August 1, 2008 order approving construction of the TrAILCo transmission line. It is aptly summarized in the "Activity Description" section prepared by the Commission and italicized below. *Commission Final Order * *- that the Sierra Club Petition for Reconsideration is denied; * *- that Mr. Hildebrand's Petition for Reconsideration is denied; * *- that the TrAILCo Petition for Reconsideration is granted as described in this Order; * *- that the sixth ordering paragraph of the Final Order, regarding installation of a static VAR compensator, is rescinded; * *- that TrAILCo notify the Commission within 30 days of the date the MVAR described in this order is installed and operational at the Meadowbrook substation; * *- that TrAILCo may proceed with a phased approach to construction and complying with the pre-construction conditions of the Final Order, as described in this Order; * *- that the eleventh ordering paragraph of the Final Order is revised; * *- that the H-P Petition to Intervene Out of Time and Petition for Reconsideration are denied; * *- that Ms. Stahl's Petition for Reconsideration is denied; * *- that the Sierra Club Petition for a Continuing Prudence Review is denied; * *- that Mr. Hildebrand's Petition for Additional Hearing is denied; * *- that exept as modified, the Order of August 1, 2008 remains the final order of the Commission in this matter; * *Case Final. Removing from open docket.* Click here to view associated document<http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'servicelist'> Additional observations will be forwarded early next week. Bill DePaulo

1 0

FW: March 2 coal protest in DC
by Grubb, Karen 13 Feb '09

13 Feb '09

From: Rory McIlmoil [mailto:rorygep@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 6:26 PM Subject: March 2 coal protest in DC Please pass this along.... I'm writing today to ask you to consider going to Washington, DC, to join thousands of others at a protest on March 2 at the coal-fired power plant that provides electricity to the U.S. Capitol. Attached below is a letter of invitation from Wendell Berry and Bill McKibben that convinced me that this protest is a good thing that's well worth doing. I hope it will convince you too. A great many of those attending this event will be there primarily because they're concerned about climate change. I think it's especially important that people living in and near Appalachia's coalfields be there as well, and so do folks who are organizing the protest. Money is available to help carloads of people coming to DC from the coalfields pay for gas or van rental. Please note that although the organizers of this event expect to see many, many arrests for civil disobedience that day (and are prepared to provide legal support for those who are arrested), it's also expected that most folks who attend the protest will not be intending to get arrested. Please note also that this event is being carefully planned to be completely nonviolent. The organizers of the March 2 event are asking everyone who wants to attend to go first to a nonviolent direct action training. Training will be available in DC on the morning of March 2--so it should be doable for you to travel to DC on March 1, do the training and go to the protest on March 2, and plan to travel home on March 3. (Arrestees might be delayed in leaving if the police take a long time processing them.) Nonviolent direct action trainings are also being held well in advance of March 2 in several states; see www.capitolclimateaction.org website for more about this, and more information about the protest itself. I want to emphasize that my intention here is not to divert anyone from going to the MTR lobbying week in DC March 14-19--that's important work, too. If you're already planning to go to DC for lobbying and can't manage to come on March 2 as well, that's fine. But if you aren't able to go or interested in going to DC for lobbying that week, or if you can come to DC both for March 2 and for lobbying later in the month, I hope you'll do so. If you think you might be interested in going and would want to carpool and/or share a hotel room with others who live near you, please let me know and I'll try to sort out the details. (It would be simpler and better if one or more folks in or near West Virginia could coordinate this there. If you're willing to do that, please let me know and I'll make sure you get all the information you need.) If you know other folks who might be interested in going, please feel free to forward this email to them. Best regards, Tricia ------------------------------------------------- Tricia Shapiro 2330 Woolyshot Branch Road Hot Springs, NC 28743 ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Friends, There are moments in a nation's--and a planet's--history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction. We think such a time has arrived, and we are writing to say that we hope some of you will join us in Washington D.C. on Monday March 2 in order to take part in a civil act of civil disobedience outside a coal-fired power plant near Capitol Hill. We will be there to make several points: #Coal-fired power is driving climate change. Our foremost climatologist, NASA's James Hansen, has demonstrated that our only hope of getting our atmosphere back to a safe level--below 350 parts per million co2--lies in stopping the use of coal to generate electricity. # Even if climate change were not the urgent crisis that it is, we would still be burning our fossil fuels too fast, wasting too much energy and releasing too much poison into the air and water. We would still need to slow down, and to restore thrift to its old place as an economic virtue. #Coal is filthy at its source. Much of the coal used in this country comes from West Virginia and Kentucky, where companies engage in "mountaintop removal" to get at the stuff; they leave behind a leveled wasteland, and impoverished human communities. No technology better exemplifies the out-of-control relationship between humans and the rest of creation. #Coal smoke makes children sick. Asthma rates in urban areas near coal-fired power plants are high. Air pollution from burning coal is harmful to the health of grown-ups too, and to the health of everything that breathes, including forests. The industry claim that there is something called "clean coal" is, put simply, a lie. But it's a lie told with tens of millions of dollars, which we do not have. We have our bodies, and we are willing to use them to make our point. We don't come to such a step lightly. We have written and testified and organized politically to make this point for many years, and while in recent months there has been real progress against new coal-fired power plants, the daily business of providing half our electricity from coal continues unabated. It's time to make clear that we can't safely run this planet on coal at all. So we feel the time has come to do more--we hear President Barack Obama's call for a movement for change that continues past election day, and we hear Nobel Laureate Al Gore's call for creative non-violence outside coal plants. As part of the international negotiations now underway on global warming, our nation will be asking China, India, and others to limit their use of coal in the future to help save the planet's atmosphere. This is a hard thing to ask, because it's their cheapest fuel. Part of our witness in March will be to say that we're willing to make some sacrifices ourselves, even if it's only a trip to the jail. With any luck, this will be the largest such protest yet, large enough that it may provide a real spark. If you want to participate with us, you need to go through a short course of non-violence training. This will be, to the extent it depends on us, an entirely peaceful demonstration, carried out in a spirit of hope and not rancor. We will be there in our dress clothes, and ask the same of you. There will be young people, people from faith communities, people from the coal fields of Appalachia, and from the neighborhoods in Washington that get to breathe the smoke from the plant. We will cross the legal boundary of the power plant, and we expect to be arrested. After that we have no certainty what will happen, but lawyers and such will be on hand. Our goal is not to shut the plant down for the day--it is but one of many, and anyway its operation for a day is not the point. The worldwide daily reliance on coal is the danger; this is one small step to raise awareness of that ruinous habit and hence help to break it. Needless to say, we're not handling the logistics of this day. All the credit goes to a variety of groups, especially EnergyAction (which is bringing thousands of young people to Washington that weekend), Greenpeace, the Ruckus Society, and the Rainforest Action Network. A website at that latter organization is serving as a temporary organizing hub: http://ran.org/get_involved/powershift_and_mass_civil_disobedience_updat es/. If you go there, you will find a place to leave your name so that we'll know you want to join us. Thank you, Wendell Berry, Bill McKibben ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- -- Kind Regards, Rory McIlmoil Coal River Mountain Wind Project (w): (304) 854-2182 (h): (304) 854-1937 www.coalriverwind.org www.crmw.net "The progressive state is in reality the cheerful and the hearty state to all the different orders of the society; the stationary is dull; the declining melancholy." ADAM SMITH.

1 0

Re: [EC] Stimulus update: Adios to big nuke, coal assistance - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
by James Kotcon 13 Feb '09

13 Feb '09

Maybe we dodged a bullet. Thank goodness for National Sierra Club staff, they earned their salary on this one. JBK Lyndsay Moseley wrote: > Economic Recovery Bill to exclude $50 billion in DOE Loan Guarantees > > The conference agreement on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act > will not include a controversial $50 billion DOE loan guarantee program > that could have been used for liquid coal, coal gasification, and nuclear > power projects. As you all know, the House version included funding for > loan guarantees only for renewable energy and efficiency projects, but > Senator Bennett (R-Utah) working with Sen. Dorgan (D-ND), inserted a > provision into the Senate bill authorizing $50 billion in additional loan > guarantees for all eligible projects listed in Title XVII of EPACT 2005 > (including liquid coal, coal gasification and nuclear power projects as > well as renewable energy, efficiency, hybrid and advanced vehicles, etc.). > > > Mobilizing quickly, we worked with House and Senate leaders, especially > Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Waxman, as well as members of the new Sustainable > Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC) in the House, to convey the > message that we should not undermine this historic investment in > clean/renewable energy by investing in high-risk, expensive energy sources > that will do little to promote economic recovery, and take us backward in > the fight against global warming. > > Given our overall support of the bill, our effort required a strategic and > delicate lobbying and communications plan, but Sierra Club successfully > collaborated with taxpayer, environmental and health groups on extensive > lobbying, as well as rapid-response online and grassroots campaign to > eliminate the $50 billion DOE loan guarantee program from the bill. We > developed a community letter, fact-sheet, and made contact with over 200 > offices in the House and Senate. The votes on final passage of the > American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are expected today in the House and > today or tomorrow in the Senate. > > Moving forward, we plan to work with DOE Sec. Chu and key members of > congress to ensure that funds from the DOE loan guarantee program are > directed toward clean energy. > > Great work everyone! > -Lyndsay > > > > Stimulus update: Adios to big nuke, coal assistance > By: Bill Lambrecht > Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau > WASHINGTON ? Nuclear operators and clean-coal dreamers had better start > looking elsewhere to finance their plants. > A $50 billion Senate provision boosting government loan guarantees for > energy projects was sliced away when House and Senate conferees pared down > the economic recovery package to $789 billion. > A conference report isn?t out yet but several sources tell us that the $50 > billion proved to be a target too fat to ignore. > The cut is a blow to companies in the St. Louis region looking to build > so-called clean coal plants, like the $1 billion FutureGen project > proposed for southern Illinois seeking a Holy Grail of energy production: > burning coal with zero emissions. > It?s also a bitter pill for companies like Illinois-based Exelon, the > nation?s biggest nuclear operator, and AmerenUE who eyed loan guarantees > to put some cash behind the frenzied planning in this era of worry about > global warming. AmerenUE is looking to add another reactor at its Callaway > plant in Missouri. > Financing an $8-10 billion nuclear plant is all but impossible in the best > of times considering all the risks. That?s one reason we haven?t seen an > order for a new nuke plant in the U.S. for three decades. > Budget hawks like Taxpayers for Common Sense are pleased at the reduction, > noting that the loan guarantees are a chancy proposition for taxpayers, to > say the least. The Government Accountability Office places the risk of > default of a new nuclear plant at 50 percent and worried in a report about > DOE?s ability to oversee all that loan money. > > Lyndsay Moseley > Washington Representative > Sierra Club > 408 C St. NE > Washington, DC 20002 > tel: 202-548-4581 > fax: 202-547-6009 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 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 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

2 1

Jim Sconyers - new phone number. 304.906.6628
by Jim Sconyers 13 Feb '09

13 Feb '09

I have a new phone number. It its: 304.906.6628. This is my only number. It replaces my old number of 603.969.6712, which is now dead. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: PEC files with the Virginia Supreme Court
by James Kotcon 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

_If you have trouble reading this message, view it online here_ (http://citizen-networks.org/pec/all-msgs.html) (http://www.pecva.org/) An Extraordinary Motion Prompted by Extraordinary Circumstances Dear Donna, With _demand dropping_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/qd_mD8Y19uF_/) , the SCC should have to take another look. When the State Corporation Commission decided to approve the 500 kV transmission line project, it relied on PJM's forecasts regarding future electricity use. Turns out PJM's forecasts were way off the mark. Demand for electricity dropped this year, and according to PJM, it's going to drop further. We've filed _a motion with the Virginia Supreme Court_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/q7_mD8Y19uFA/) asking them to vacate the State Corporation Commission's approval and send the case back for further review. Electricity Demand is Down Demand for electricity was down this past summer --PJM's 2008 unrestricted _peak was down_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/a1_mD8Y19uFN/) over 10,000 megawatts from 2007. PJM expects further declines this coming summer. For reference, the average coal plant generates 600 MW and the average 500 kV transmission line carries 3,000 MW. In light of this precipitous drop in demand, the State Corporation Commission has more time to properly evaluate both need and alternatives. In their decision this past fall, the SCC Commissioners discounted alternatives presented by respondents like PEC, Fauquier County and Virginia's Commitment. The Judges ruled that the alternatives we presented were not certain to be in place in time to avoid potential overloads in 2011. Now that demand is dropping, that 2011 time frame should no longer constrain the Commission's decision making process. With Falling Demand, the SCC Should Take Another Look Our _VA Supreme Court Motion_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/q7_mD8Y19uFA/) was filed by Richmond attorney Patrick McSweeney. Here's a short excerpt from the introduction: "This is an extraordinary motion prompted by extraordinary circumstances. The facts and assumptions upon which the State Corporation Commission predicated its decision to approve the construction of the [transmission line] have changed dramatically since the Commission entered its October 7, 2008 order, from which the appeal is taken. The drastic decline in the national economy and the economy of the relevant multi-state region has significantly affected the demand for electricity in the area to be served by the transmission line at issue. There is no present of near-term need for the new transmission line if the reduced level of demand for electricity that is now projected by disinterested expert sources and the expert on whom the applicants relied is substantially accurate." West Virginia Case Still Open, Pennsylvania Group Files Appeal While we continue the fight in Virginia, other citizens and groups are pushing for a better result in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In PA, the _Energy Conservation Coalition_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/qp_mD8Y19uFM/) has filed an extensive and compelling appeal. In West Virginia, a number of PSC conditions have not been met by TrAILCo, and no final order has been granted. In the meantime, we're working on our grounds for appeal and expect to file "assignments of error" with the Virginia Supreme Court shortly. Very best, Bri West Piedmont Environmental Council _bwest(a)pecva.bwe_ (mailto:bwest@pecva.org)

1 0

Fwd: MI: Links to some key documents and Governor's Executive Directive 2009-2
by Paul Wilson 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

Lots of information here. But check out this website Clean Energy Now is the name -- www.cleanenergynowmi.org . It would be great to do something like this in WV. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anne Woiwode <Anne.Woiwode(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:51 PM Subject: MI: Links to some key documents and Governor's Executive Directive 2009-2 To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Folks: Below is a draft summary I put together on Governor Granholm's Executive Directive, along with some links. The full State of State is also of interest because it lays out the full energy agenda ( http://www.michigan.gov/documents/gov/SOS2009_265915_7.pdf on pages 5 through 7) Some of the key documents that were produced by our amazing legal team (Faith Bugel and Meleah Geertsma of Environmental Law and Policy Center, Shannon Fisk of NRDC, Bruce Nilles, James Gignac and David Bender for Sierra Club, and more recently Noah Hall of Great Lakes Environmental Law Center) are posted on the GLELC blog site: http://www.glelc.org/glelc/clean-energy.html . These folks did a phenomenal job of looking at the opportunities for creatively tackling the fight in Michigan. This started in the summer of 2007 with two separate petitions submitted to the Michigan DEQ requesting the Director to regulate CO2 in keeping with the Supreme Court's direction (one petition was a request for rulemaking submitted by a small group near the Wolverine Power Cooperative proposed plant in Rogers City, the other was a request for declaratory ruling submitted by our group of initial collaborative organizations). While both of these failed, the practice of working together started that fall, and we kept reenforcing it. Another site of interest was mentioned by Jan O'Connell -- Lee Sprague, who came on board with Sierra Club almost a year ago, worked with a volunteer web designer who has been willing to have a site put up that is shared by our collaborative group (Clean Energy Now is the name -- www.cleanenergynowmi.org ) which Lee worked to get up and running probably 6 to 8 months ago -- it has its flaws, but it has been a useful place to send folks for updates on all the plants. Since not every member group of our collaborative is working on every plant, it is useful to have a single site for all of them If anyone is interested in seeing our original plan, I'm happy to share it with you. We put it together in an interative process with the dozen groups originally involved in the Clean Energy Now collaborative, and this was the basis for what was provided to the Energy Foundation when they requested grant proposals for the Michigan coal fight. The plan was accompanied by several appendices, which included details about strategies to be implemented in each community, the state-wide strategy, the beginnings of a communication plan, and information about each organization that was a partner and what they were doing or proposing to do. By laying it out this way, the Energy Foundation was able to select the groups that they work with and deal with them directly, rather than try to shoehorn all the groups into a single grant proposal with a single fiduciary agent, and since was still the early stages it helped us all learn to work together without competing for funds. I also do have a six page summary of the work over the course of the past eight months, since the plan was completed, that gives an idea of what we actually did. Again, let me know if you would like to see it. Thanks for all the kind words, and we are very eager to share what worked here, in particular because we know we are going to continue to need all of YOUR good advice well into the future! Anne Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter (517) 484-2372 ------------------------------ *From:* Anne Woiwode [mailto:Anne.Woiwode@sierraclub.org] *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2009 1:14 PM *To:* 'nocoalmi(a)mienv.org'; 'energy(a)mienv.org' *Subject:* DRAFT Discussion of the Governor's Executive Directive and State of the State Folks: As the dust is starting to settle and the PR from the coal and utility companies is beginning to heat up, I think it will be useful for all of us to get clear on *Executive Directive 2009-2, Consideration of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives in the Processing of Air Permit Applications from Coal-Fired Power Plants, http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-36898-208125--,00.html . *As we encounter resistance to this action, it is important to try to be as accurate and complete as possible because we are already seeing the Doctors of Spin both political and corporate get out there to question the legality and the fairness of the Governor's actions. After discussions with our terrific group of attorneys from ELPC, NRDC, GLELC and Sierra Club, I am taking a stab at a Q&A below to try to answer some of the questions I am guessing are out there. I will NOT pretend that this is all correct or at all complete, but lets use our forums here to raise and try to answer questions so we are all prepared to defend which is probably one of the boldest, if not the boldest, move by Governor Granholm in her 6 + year tenure as our state's CEO. *PLEASE TREAT THIS AS AN INTERNAL DISCUSSION DRAFT AND DO NOT FORWARD IT AS IS!!* *Q &A:* *What proposed coal plants does the ED apply to?* All the ones currently before the DEQ and any that might seek permits in the future. Northern Michigan University's permit was issued last year and is in appeals to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board, so is not covered. However, Wolverine, Holland, Consumers and MidMichigan are all covered, and if Lansing, M & M or Tondu were to apply they would also be covered. *Under what authority is the Governor taking this action? * The ED cites both the federal Clean Air Act and the state's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act as giving the Governor authority to act (see ED for specific cites). In fact, these provisions were suggested to the administration in memos sent to both the DEQ and the Governor last year drafted by NRDC, ELPC and Sierra Club's attorneys ( http://www.glelc.org/files/mi-co2-granholm-letter.pdf ) and also included in the comments submitted on the specific air pollution permits. The letter to Governor Granholm, while focused on CO2 regulation, provides a very good explanation of the authority the she and her administration have to take action to require consideration of alternatives to the proposed actions. *Is the Executive Directive the equivalent of a "new law"?* No. An Executive Directive is direction from the Governor to her Administrative agencies and staff on how to apply existing laws or to take specific actions already authorized in the law. With regard to ED 2009-2, the Governor is directing the DEQ to take steps to determine a) is there is a need for the power proposed to be generated by these coal fired plants, and b) to consider "feasible and prudent alternatives" to these facilities. The ED cites two specific provisions of law regarding the requirement to consider "feasible and prudent alternatives. The first is in state law under the section of NREPA know as the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). The second is the Clean Air Act Section 165(2)(a), which the ED points out gives "discretion" to the DEQ to "consider alternatives to proposed sources of air emissions when determining whether or not to grant an air permit to that source." The Governor's action tells her agency that they are to exercise that discretion. The ED also directs the Public Service Commission to assist the DEQ in its implementation of these directives, clarifying that this cross agency coordination is to occur. *Is this a "moratorium" on new coal plants?* No, this is not a moratorium on coal plants. It is instead clear direction from the Governor to her agencies that no new permits can be issued to coal plants without completion of these steps. Attempts to characterize this as a moratorium may well be efforts by the applicants and their supporters to pretend that the Governor's actions are overstepping legal bounds, when in fact her ED is well within her discretion. Instead, it should be understood that the ED reflects conclusions of the administration based on today's realities that may be responsive in part to comments raised in public comment on the Wolverine and Holland permits and in memoranda submitted to both the Governor and the DEQ. Neither Michigan nor any other state has faced so many proposals to build coal plants (the Governor used the words "a slew of new coal power plants" in her State of the State), combined with growing concerns about the environmental impacts, clear documentation of declining demand for electric generation, and passage of RPS and EE requirements last year that promise even more reductions in demand for new coal plants. As DEQ's Press Secretary Robert McCann said in a Bay City Times article: "It's an addition, part of a review that's going to be done," he said. "It makes our review more comprehensive and frankly, a lot more real-world based. "There's a growing concern among the public that we have these five new applications in for power plants, but is there really a need for five new coal plants?" Prior to the governor's directive, the DEQ was only able to evaluate each permit for meeting air quality regulations, McCann said.' *Is the Governor going back on agreements struck in passing the 2008 energy legislation?* No. The utilities and others proposing new coal plants are desperate to claim that there was a violation of "agreements" made last year, suggesting that one of more of the coal plants was "promised". This is posturing for political benefit only, and if any such agreements were made they would have been contrary to requirements of the Clean Air Act and NREPA that environmental protections must be assured. Some contention is also made that since Consumers Energy is already required by the laws passed last year to do a needs assessment under the Integrated Resources Plan requirements, in order to obtain a Certificate of Need from the Public Service Commission, that this is somehow changing the rules. The PSC is still in the process of developing the requirements for the IRP and the DEQ has been directed in the ED to work with the PSC in this process, so there is no reason to think that this would be in anyway inconsistent with the law passed last year. As pointed out in the ED, the Governor is not making new law, she is simply making clear how her agencies should apply existing laws to these circumstances. *How will this process play out?* In discussions with the DEQ last week it was explained that they have not yet figured out exactly how this process will unfold. Over the course of the next few weeks we can expect the agency, working with the Public Service Commission, to put together the steps they will pursue. This is an important time for members of the public to feel free to suggest ways that agency should proceed, and to assure that they have information that may help shape the best process, and several groups following the specific coal plants will be seeking to engage the agency in discussions about their process. While we expect the public will have input into this process, the details for that are not yet spelled out. *What happens to the comments already received by DEQ on Wolverine and Holland?* Because these requirements are additive to the permitting process that has been underway on both of these plants, all of the comments and input on those permits will be part of the record going forward. However, we are also convinced that both of these proposals are already fatally flawed and would not warrant issuance of an air quality Permit to Install today, even short of the needs assessment and alternatives assessment. It is certainly appropriate for all of us to argue that DEQ should deny these permits outright. If the applicants chose to submit new applications, they would still be required to meet the requirements for needs assessments and alternatives consideration. However, there is no excuse for moving these into those stages of review when the permits should be denied outright based on public comment to date. *DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DO NOT FORWARD* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anne M. Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter - 109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906 - 517-484-2372 anne.woiwode(a)sierraclub.org http://michigan.sierraclub.org/index.shtml Support the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter - contact Wendi Tilden at wendi.tilden(a)sierraclub.org *The bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis - Al Gore* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 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

1 0

Fwd: Re: Manchin's "alternative energy" bill online now
by James Kotcon 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

Below are comments from myself and Vickie Wolfe (Chair of WVEC's Renewable Energy Committee) on the Gov's AREPS bill (attached). Jim Sconyers asked if this bill was legit. I am more pessimistic than Vickie because, although the bill defines "Advanced Coal Technology" to mean carbon capture or advanced high efficiency technologies to reduce carbon emissions, the actual portfolio standard also allows existing plants that burn coalbed methane, coal waste, or even tire-derived fuels, to qualify for the credits. That means that 20-year-old plants like the MEA Beechurst Avenue plant in Morgantown would qualify as generating these credits. I also re-read the text of the speech, and it is not clear if Manchin is even aware that WV already has net metering rules in place. If he is, his bill would actually weaken current rules under the guise of expanding them. If not, it makes me wonder how competent his staff is. JBK >>> Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com> 2/12/2009 2:28 AM >>> First to address the question Danny posed to just a few of us, I too have not yet studied the bill, just read it briefly--it's too late in the day for my brain to work well. But the bill does not specify how much energy must come from each source. As I understand it from my cursory reading, utilities are required to acquire credits (one credit = one mwh) equal to 25% of the electricity they sold in the preceding year. They receive one credit for each mwh purchased from an "alternative energy resource facility" (see definition (c), p. 4); two credits for each mwh purchased from a "renewable energy resource facility;" and three credits for each mwh purchased from a "renewable energy resource facility" that's sited on a reclaimed surface mine. To be honest with you, I'm not too worried about many of those "alternative" sources; I think the gov might've outfoxed himself. I think "advanced coal technology" (see definitions) will be too expensive. So will coal gasification/IGCC. In case you're not aware, currently there exist only TWO IGCC facilities in the whole U.S. FutureGen--which was an IGCC facility that was to include CCS--was shelved because it was too expensive. So I guess I'm more optimistic than Jim. No, there's no requirement for renewable energy per se; but there is a requirement for energy that comes from "alternative" sources that INCLUDE renewables; and I'm thinking market forces may actually drive these credits toward renewables. (Please feel free to argue with me, Jim.) The provision I saw that concerned me most was that there's an "out" on p. 17: the portfolio standards may be "eliminated if the commission determines that alternative or renewable energy resources are not reasonably available." ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: <Duane330(a)aol.com>; "Kathryn Stone" <XKatwalkx(a)aol.com>; "Denise Poole" <deniseap(a)earthlink.net>; <kgrubb(a)fairmontstate.edu>; "Matt Sherald" <matt(a)getpimby.com>; "Vickie Wolfe" <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com>; "Trevor Swan" <levelingAppalachia(a)gmail.com>; "matt noerpel" <mnoerpel(a)gmail.com>; "Rory McIlmoil" <rorygep(a)gmail.com>; "Daniel Chiotos" <trouserdude(a)gmail.com>; "Vivian Stockman" <v.stock(a)gmail.com>; "Vernon Haltom" <vernoncrmw(a)gmail.com>; "Mary Wildfire" <mwildfire(a)hotmail.com>; <pjgrunt(a)lycos.com>; "Heather N Sprouse" <sprouse15(a)marshall.edu>; "Mel Tyree PhD" <tyree13(a)marshall.edu>; "Frank YOUNG" <fyoung(a)mountain.net>; "Bill Price" <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org>; <haning2(a)verizon.net>; <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>; <unclesteve197(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:17 PM Subject: Re: Manchin's "alternative energy" bill online now I have read over this bill twice, and I cannot see any requirement for renewable energy. As I read this, a utility could achieve its entire portfolio standard from "alternative" sources, which could include existing coal-fired power plants that use pressurized fluidized bed boilers, or from an IGCC boiler. The could use coalbed methane, tire-derived fuels, or a "pump-storage" hydro facility, in which the original energy comes from coal. I am concerned that the net-metering provisions appear to open up our current rules to allow coal for net-metering incentives. It also appears to me that this bill would offer fewer credits for carbon emissions offsets to sequester carbon in trees, etc., than are generated from the coal in the first place. My calculations suggest that a utility would get 4-6 "credits" for burning a ton of coal in an approved power plant, thereby releasing something like 2 tons of carbon dioxide, but would only get two credits if they fix those two tons of carbon dioxide in trees. Unless my math is wrong (and it is late, so somebody double check this before you quote me), a utility gets more credits for polluting the air than they get for cleaning it up. (1 BTU = 0.293 W-hours) 1 pound of coal is 8,000-12,000 BTU If coal is 60 % carbon, 1 ton of coal yields 2.2 tons Carbon dioxide It looks like this "standard" would put West Virginia seriously out of compliance with any of the RPS standards in surrounding states, and would likely lead us down a blind alley, setting up a system that would not meet the requirements of any likely national Renewable Portfolio Standard. Am I missing something, or is this worse than nothing? I keep looking for the pony, but I just don't see it. Jim Kotcon >>> Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com> 2/12/2009 12:07 AM >>> Everyone, Didja watch the State of the State address? Ken Ward has posted the draft text of Manchin's "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard" on his blog: http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vickie L. Wolfe PHONE: (304) 744-8777 E-MAIL: IBTreehugger(a)gmail.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Think coal-derived electricity is "cheap"? Visit http://www.alternet.org/story/70475/?page=entire

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC