EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

FW: TrAIL gets approval from Virginia
by Grubb, Karen 07 Oct '08

07 Oct '08

From: Frank Young [mailto:fyoung@mountain.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:33 PM To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com Cc: Bill DePaulo; Jim Kotcon; Grubb, Karen; Duane330(a)aol.com Subject: TrAIL gets approval from Virginia October 7, 2008 Multistate power line gets approval from Virginia By The Associated Press <mailto:> RICHMOND, Va. -- Regulators in Virginia have given the green light to a multistate high-voltage power line proposed for the northern part of the state. In a ruling today, the State Corporation Commission concluded the proposed power line meets standards set by Virginia law and must be approved. As proposed, the line would run from southwestern Pennsylvania across West Virginia to northern Virginia. The 240-mile line is intended to increase electrical supplies to 13 eastern states. In Virginia, the project is proposed by Dominion Virginia Power and Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line company. http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200810070411

1 0

Re: [EC] Walker Machinery AD/PATH
by Grubb, Karen 07 Oct '08

07 Oct '08

They are on my local stations in Fairmont. They show biologists working on streams and with wildlife radio antennas making sure the power lines don't damage the environment. They brag that their towers are darkened steel so they blend in, etc. From: Mary Wimmer [mailto:monwimmer@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 7:49 PM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: Re: Walker Machinery AD I have not seen PATH advertisements. On 10/5/08, Grubb, Karen <Karen.Grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu> wrote: So is PATH. From: Mary Wimmer [mailto:monwimmer@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:16 PM To: Jim Sconyers Cc: Michael Price; william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; sallywilts(a)yahoo.com; regina1936(a)verizon.net; matt_keller(a)tws.org; Grubb, Karen; freesource(a)cheat.org; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; mdavis(a)hsc.wvu.edu; daves(a)labyrinth.net; bill.price(a)sierraclub.org; blittle(a)citynet.net Subject: Re: Walker Machinery AD Coal surely is spending a lot on TV advertising these days -- fancy ads that grab you at first until you realize where they are from -- turns my stomach! On 10/5/08, Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Bizarre would be an understatement! What are they smoking over there...??? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Price <greyhawkwv(a)verizon.net> To: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com; sallywilts(a)yahoo.com; regina1936(a)verizon.net; matt_keller(a)tws.org; monwimmer(a)gmail.com; kgrubb(a)fairmontstate.edu; freesource(a)cheat.org; jim_scon(a)yahoo.com; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; mdavis(a)hsc.wvu.edu; daves(a)labyrinth.net; bill.price(a)sierraclub.org; blittle(a)citynet.net Sent: Friday, October 3, 2008 8:39:52 PM Subject: Walker Machinery AD This is Walker Machinery's response to their Yes, Coal Clean, Carbon Neutral Coal ! mike YES, COAL. Clean, carbon neutral coal. Science and technology are reengineering coal to be clean and carbon neutral for the 21st Century. This goal and commitment can put thousands of West Virginians to WORK - meaningful and purposeful WORK that respects the environment and strives to diminish and eliminate all types of emissions that may be harmful. This reengineering is well on the path to providing clean, carbon neutral coal that provides meaningful WORK for researchers, scientists, utility technicians, natural resource workers, computer engineers, and yes, coal production ... all high-tech, high-wage WORK opportunities. This rising tide of clean coal will unquestionably lift the quality of life and multiply meaningful, purposeful WORK opportunities for ALL WEST VIRGINIANS irrespective of industry, professional, or consumer economic sectors. The evidence of this WORK commitment can be seen in the vast and urgent research by colleges, universities, private research, think tanks, and governmental entities. All are eager to make coal use clean and carbon neutral. Institutions like Marshall University, West Virginia University, as well as our neighbors at Virginia Tech, Penn State, and the University of Kentucky are expanding opportunities in clean energy and environmental sciences to provide purposeful WORK for their faculties and our students. Additionally, the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, W.Va., works tirelessly and successfully to improve coal's continued viability. The overwhelming need for clean, carbon neutral coal in the 21st century will stimulate the migration of our sons and daughters back to West Virginia. That influx of human treasure re-ignites WORK opportunities, reunites families, and revives our state's economy causing a new revolution of infrastructure development and social awareness. While coal opponents selfishly ask West Virginians to "sit out" the nation's greatest energy boom and WORK opportunity of our lifetime, we find this unacceptable and unfair to working families. Furthermore, it is contrary to our mountaineer spirit that seeks to share our resources and work for the greater good of all our country. Coal, which represents 52% of America's electricity production, cannot simply be ignored. Going forward, it is imperative that West Virginians understand that clean, carbon neutral coal is paramount to energy, economic, and national security while providing a healthy and safe environment. Even the most rapid pace of alternative energy development, which we must all support, cannot save us from the present need for expanded and uninterrupted supply of our nation's energy. Clean coal technologies, utilizing integrated gasification and carbon capture and storage, provides honest WORK, a safe, healthy environment, and must be enthusiastically supported by informed and caring West Virginians. Building coal to liquid plants offer WORK of the highest purpose. By expanding WORK into transportation solutions, like coal-to-liquids, West Virginians can lead the nation to lower gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices. That puts money in the family budget. This can lessen our dependence on foreign oil through greater fuel diversity and competition ... hallmarks of a free market society. It will strengthen national security. It is important that West Virginians loudly sound the alarm to their leaders at local, state, and national levels to aggressively and generously fund Clean, Carbon Neutral Coal technologies that will KEEP WEST VIRGINIA WORKING. We must say it loud, proud, and often. Especially now, as our economy grows more fragile, West Virginia can ill-afford coal's opponents to deny us our honest day's WORK. It is troubling that coal's opponents, using our courts, have placed benthic macro-invertebrates (bugs) at a higher moral standing than the citizens of West Virginia who need lucrative, dependable WORK. In a desperate attempt to stop coal mining, coal's opponents have artfully and guilefully turned to the judiciary via utilizing the complexities and ambiguities of the Clean Water Act to present a very technical representation of our ecosystem. They present an argument that is extremely debatable among experts yet really defies common sense. It defies science and common sense, in that we are expected to believe, that as rock and dirt are moved to the dry ditches near the tops of mountains, that the benthic macro-invertebrates (bugs) will be destroyed, thus impacting the entire ecosystem and all life as we know it. The mining community, more than any other, is keenly aware of the ecological science involved in the benthic communities' importance in determining the health, structure, and function of streams including headwater. By law and regulation, they protect these relationships through mining design and mitigation. The rains fall and the rainwater flows over and throughout the mining areas perpetually and naturally as always. It is important to note that these creatures have lived and adapted here for millions and millions of years before man. They inhabit almost every square foot of the watersheds across this great globe, within and outside mined areas. This is hardly criteria for extinction or endangered species. Although metamorphosis times vary, (a lifecycle of an egg, nymph, and adult most often lasts less than a year, perhaps more, depending on the insect order), they quickly breed and die naturally sometimes within a day or two. They do not have house payments, car payments or student loans. In truth they quickly re-inhabit the reclaimed and often mined lands to repeat their biological destiny and breed in large quantities we can't imagine. If this logic of coal's opponents would carry forward by the courts, human beings could not build roads, homes, hospitals, schools, cities, or communities for fear of such an ecological Armageddon. As if it mattered, more bugs are killed overwhelmingly by car windshields or "bug spray" than mine sites. Are we on such a destructive path that a human being's right to WORK and moral standing is subordinate to a bug or anything we wish to relate as nature? Is man not part of nature and higher moral standing? Is this judicial perseverance by coal's opponents and subsequent manipulation what it has come to? As any truly informed person knows, an industry that is accused of covering streams that are not streams, with waste that is not waste, in valleys that are not valleys, with bugs having the moral equivalency of human beings in our court system, is distressing and disappointing. It appears that coal's opponents don't really want the public to know they have placed "bug" welfare above that of working West Virginians in Judge Chambers' court, just to stop mining and perpetuate an anti-corporate agenda. Amazingly, the judge agreed with coal's opponents. Sometimes it must be difficult to separate the twists and turns of flawed logic or judicial eloquence from just good common sense. It further makes no sense whatsoever to repeat this judicial "Groundhog Day" movie on mining over and over and over. That's why the Walker Machinery "bug" ads are causing such stir among the anti-coal crowd. It's so ridiculous that it required a "bug character" to do so. Hopefully, a curious public will search beyond the bug character to find out the truth, which has not been fully vetted in the media or by our silent government. The grim consequences and full gravity of this situation has yet to play out. If this case is not overturned on appeal, this state hasn't really seen hard times yet. It's a cruel blow to good people just wishing to WORK ... feeding their families, providing electricity, and national security for our country. Attacking the workers or their employers as enemies of the planet makes no sense at all. Anti-coal forces don't really care. Do you think coal's opponents will support clean carbon neutral coal? No, the anti-coal, anti-growth, anti-business, anti-work crowd won't do that either. They simply ask us to forfeit our paychecks. The coal industry seemingly gets no credit at all for the beautiful reclamation and the truly small footprint of mining across West Virginia's 15 million acres. Reclaiming the land with bushes, grasses, and now hardwood seedlings that will gobble up more carbon dioxide is actually a step toward becoming carbon neutral. Again, no credit. To learn more watch the History Channel's, "Life After People" or search www.history.com <http://www.history.com/> to get a sense of how nature rapidly reclaims her own. Though not meant to trivialize the industry's need for stewardship in any way, this media shows that man's activities are but a blip on a dynamic and ever-changing planet. Our mining activities and all other may become indistinguishable one day. But for now ... coal ... YES, COAL ...clean carbon neutral coal will WORK for West Virginia. Please support this meaningful and purposeful WORK as if our state depended on it ... because it does. Comments may be sent to: comments(a)walker-cat.com

1 0

Fwd: Longview updates
by James Kotcon 06 Oct '08

06 Oct '08

To the Sierra Club Energy committee: Any thoughts on what the articles below might mean? I am not sure what "mezzanine" financing is, or what this means for the future of Longview, but I would agree with Paula's comments "not a good time to be asking for financing". The article implies that "First reserve" now owns 90 % of Longview, does that mean Longview unloaded just in the nick of time? Who would we be dealing with if the plant actually goes on line in 2011? If so, in 2010, the non-profit funding from our air permit settlement comes in? JBK >>> Paula Hunt <pjhunt(a)xemaps.com> 10/5/2008 9:19 AM >>> Hi All, Two things: ********************** I found some photos of Longview... great shots http://good-times.webshots.com/album/565599401uSyMvK They are posted by a GenPower mechanical engineer (so his profile says). He must have a helicopter at his disposal... He posted them late August and last updated them late September. The caption below says, " Aerial Photos of Longview Power Plant and Force Drilling Work Site" What are they drilling Jarrett? Is it to stabilize the surface from undermining? They seem to have a lot of ponds onsite. ******************** The mezzanine financing for Longview is due soon (not a good time to ask for credit!): > Commitments Due In Longview Financing >- 10/03/2008 > >Commitments are coming due in Merrill Lynch's $250 million mezzanine >financing for Longview Power, owner of a 695 MW supercritical >pulverized coal plant under construction in Maidsville, W. Va. > >Ticket sizes were not specified for the debt, which will mature in >February 2015, according to deal trackers, who say the lead has >approached potential investors individually to judge the appetite of >each. Pricing is reportedly 10% fixed plus 4% payment-in-kind. One >deal tracker notes the lead also offered variable rate pricing that >would roughly amount to 10%, but most investors have wanted fixed. >Potential investors reportedly include ArcLight Capital Partners, >Fortress Investment Group, Harbert Power, LS Power, Trust Company of >the West and Union Bank of California. Officials at the firms either >declined comment or did not return calls. Calls to Merrill officials >were not returned. A spokeswoman for First Reserve Corp., which owns >90% of Longview, declined to comment or make an official available, >and calls to GenPower Holdings (10%) were not returned. > >The owners opted for the mezzanine financing after terminating an >auction for 49% of the company (PFR, 8/22). That auction came after >a $450 million mezzanine financing was put on hold last year to test >the waters of an auction. The project is set to come online in the >spring of 2011. It has a five-year PPA for 300 MW with PPL Energy >Plus and the remaining power will be sold into the western PJM market. - paula

3 2

FW: 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study
by Grubb, Karen 02 Oct '08

02 Oct '08

-----Original Message----- From: nietcwebmaster(a)anl.gov [mailto:nietcwebmaster@anl.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:45 PM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study ************************************************************ 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study ************************************************************ IMPORTANT NOTE: REGISTRATION REQUIRED FOR 2009 STUDY! ***************************************************** You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor e-mail notification list. To receive further e-mail announcements regarding the 2009 Congestion Study, you must visit the 2009 Congestion Study Web site at http://congestion09.anl.gov/index.cfm and subscribe anew for further e-mail notices by entering your e-mail address in the "Subscribe" box on any page on the Web site. The 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study ******************************************************** The Federal Power Act, as modified by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to complete a study of electric transmission congestion every three years. DOE issued the first "National Electric Transmission Congestion Study" (Congestion Study) in August 2006. The Department has now initiated preparations for the 2009 Congestion Study, and seeks comments on what publicly-available data and information should be considered, and what type of analysis should be performed, to identify and understand the significance and character of transmission congestion. See the 2009 Congestion Study Federal Register notice on the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study Web Site for more information. http://congestion09.anl.gov/documents/docs/FR_Notice_4_June_08.pdf Submitting Comments on the 2009 Congestion Study ************************************************ Persons interested in providing comments concerning the process and congestion metrics for the 2009 Congestion Study may submit written comments by mail, or submit them to DOE electronically using the online comment form on the 2009 Congestion Study Web site. Public comments on the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study submitted to date by mail, electronically, or at the 2009 Congestion Study workshops, are now available for downloading or browsing on the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study Web Site: http://congestion09.anl.gov/involve/searchcomment/index.cfm For More Information ******************** For more information about the 2009 Congestion Study, and related public involvement activities, visit the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study Web Site: http://congestion09.anl.gov/, or contact us by e-mail to: congestion09(a)anl.gov Forward This Message ******************** Please forward this message to any party you feel may be interested in the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study _________________CONTACTS/SUBSCRIPTIONS_____________________ FEEDBACK -------- To submit feedback, contact the Congestion Study webmaster at congestion09(a)anl.gov PRIVACY POLICY -------------- Our online privacy policy is at: http://www.energy.gov/privacy.htm. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE --------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Congestion Study e-mail service, go to the following URL: http://congestion09.anl.gov/email/index.cfm. If the above URL is not enabled as a link, please copy it into your browser window to access our E-Mail Services Page. ------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

INCLUDE JESSE
by Regina Hendrix 02 Oct '08

02 Oct '08

In case some of you didn't get this.... Please take a moment and E-Mail these people urging them to include Jesse in this debate which is taking place on the public airways. Regina

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: DeWeese Comments
by Jim Sconyers 26 Sep '08

26 Sep '08

Let's talk to them ... can't hurt, can it? Especially with the PA decision(s) in hand. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 11:17:11 AM Subject: [EC] Fwd: DeWeese Comments Here is what the Majority Leader of the WV House of Representatives said about TrAILCo. Can we get WV legislators to do something similar? JBK >>> Letty Butcher <multiflora123(a)yahoo.com> 9/25/2008 10:51 PM >>> http://stopaptrail.org/images/DeWeese_Reply_to_Exceptions.pdf _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

Re: [EC] Fw: TrailCo NMF revised
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 26 Sep '08

26 Sep '08

Holly There has been no decision by the PSC on our Petition for Reconsideration, and the thirty days for an appeal has not yet begun to run. I have attached seven documents relating to the FOIA requests. The first three documents relate to the request to the PSC and consist of: (1) Sierra's April 17 2008 FOIA request, (2) the PSC Commissioners' May 1, 2008 Vaughn index of records withheld by the Commissioners themselves, and (3) the PSC General Counsel's May 2, 2008 transmission of the PSC documents (1128 from staff) and the Vaughn Index from the Commissioners. The last four documents all relate to the FOIA request to Gov Manchin: (4) is the FOIA request itself, (5) is the Governor's initial response, (6) is our letter explaining is some detail the basis for our request for a Vaughn index, and (7) is the Gov's acknowledgement of the request for a Vaughn statement. I believe we should file the suit in both instances. The case against the Governor is straight forward -- a Vaughn statement is necessary to sustain his burden of proof. The PSC case over the documents withheld pursuant to the Vaughn index is obviously harder. The question is not whether they have concealed documents which are not listed on the index. The question is whether the assertion of the claims of exemption in the index are valid, and even if so, whether there are nonetheless reasonably segregable materials that can be released. There is never any certainty in a challenge to an assertion of exemptions, but the failure to seek in camera review by a Court basically licenses the respondent to take aggressive and unwarranted license with limited exemptions. Especially when tied to the duty to segregate exempt from non-exempt, the challenge is warranted. Please call if there are any further questions. Bil On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM, <Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Just making sure I didn't miss your message about TrailCo. I haven't > worked on getting authorization for the PUC appeal or the two FOIA cases > because I am waiting for your responses to my questions regarding the FOIA > issues. I want to be sure that the 30-day timer hasn't started on our > appeal of the PUC decision. Did they rule on our motion for reconsideration > yet? > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > > > *"William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > > 09/10/2008 12:12 PM > To > Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org > cc > Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > Holly > > I am out of town until next Wed and will try to get back to you then with > more detail on the FOIA requests. > > Bill > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM, <*Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>> > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > I've been holding off on TrailCo in anticipation of your answers to my > questions below. Jim told me you were at the DNC so this may have gotten > buried in your inbox. Please get back to me when you can. Thanks, > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > ----- Forwarded by Holly Bressett/Sierraclub on 09/10/2008 09:21 AM ----- > > *Holly Bressett/Sierraclub* > > 08/27/2008 11:00 AM > > To > "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <*william.depaulo(a)gmail.com*<william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> > > cc > "Jim Sconyers" <*jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>> Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised*Link*<Notes:///882573400081B039/836E2FFC0D1E63358825749F007855E9/B9F0E5BA5FCFAF44882574AC007FA33D> > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > I understand the claim that the Governor's office should have provided a > Vauhgn index but the claim against the commission seems like a stretch. Did > the index identify and describe the documents? Of course, FOIA is not > foolproof but in my experience, it seems like there is nothing else to get > unless we know of specific documents that were witheld and not put on the > index. If you could elaborate on your thinking that would help me > understand what the claim is. If you have statutory cites or case law that > might be best. > > Is your plan to file the FOIA cases right away and then wait for the > decision on reconsideration before filing in state court? When is the > soonest you would want to file the FOIA requests. Sorry, I'm totally > swamped right now and just trying to prioritize things. Let me know if this > should go to the top of my list! > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > > *"William V. DePaulo, Esq." <**william.depaulo(a)gmail.com*<william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> > *>* > > 08/21/2008 04:13 PM > > To > *Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org* <Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>, "Jim > Sconyers" <*jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>>, "Jim Kotcon" <* > jkotcon(a)wvu.edu* <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>>, "Barbara Fallon" <* > brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com* <brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com>>, "WV Chapter Energy > Committee" <*EC(a)osenergy.org* <EC(a)osenergy.org>> cc > Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > > > Holly > > Both FOIA requests were filed under the state FOIA which is almost a > verbatim reproduction of the federal statute. In short, we do not have an > option to sue anywhere except in state court. > > PSC - requested all documents pertaining to the April 15, 2008 Joint > Stipulation -- the document in which PSC Staff withdrew its opposition in > exchange for a laundry list of financial and other incentives. > > PSC Staff produced all documents (1100+) responsive to request, as did CAD > (700+). > > The Commissioners produced a relatively small number of documents and > issued a Vaughn index for the balance. Without seeing the docs it is > impossible to assess whether the exemptions asserted -- deliberative > privilege for internal communications -- is validly asserted. > > GOVERNOR - requested ALL documents pertaining to TrAILCo proposal, not > merely those relating to April 15 Joint Stip. Governor produced 1100+ > documents, most relating to tax he wants to impose on the transmission line > if and when built. Importantly, the Gov office refused to produce a Vaughn > index. Without such an index they cannot sustain their burden of proof, as > all documents are presumed non-exempt unless and until an exemption is > asserted and substantiated by an index. > > PSC Appeal -- far and away the biggest matter the PSC did not address was > CO2 emissions. The PSC took the position that the proposed transmission > line was "electron neutral," i.e., that the line didn't "know" where the > moving electron originated. That, of course, is technically true. In West > Virginia it is also totally specious because 97% of the state's electric > energy is generated from coal. And the PSC's August 1 order itself relied > on the economic justification associated with 4 billion dollars of > construction costs for four (4) new IGCC coal plants now on the drawing > boards. > > The PSC also totally ignored the fact that all of the purported economic > benefits associated with the increased use of coal will be converted to > economic leg weights when the impact of a now certain cap and trade system > (or carbon tax of some sort) is adopted next year. > > I want to emphasize that we don't have any slack time on the appeal or > preparation for PATH. TrAILCo's transcript is 3,000 pages long. I lived > thru it live but I still need to serve up the case to the Supreme Court, > because the PSC has intentionally buried all of the evidence in a 183-page > behemoth of a decision issued on August 1. We need to go now. > > Please let me know if you need any additional information. > > Bill > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM, <*Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>> > wrote: > > Thanks, Bill. I will need some more information regarding the FOIA > appeals. For example, what did you request and what did you receive and > what was witheld (or can you even tell what was witheld)? Did the agencies > assert any privileges or exemptions? If so, were they lawfully invoked or > do you believe the exemptions are being abused. Are we actually bringing > suit under FOIA, or the state's public records law. If it is FOIA, wouldn't > you want to file in federal court? As for the appeal of the PSC's decision, > you make note that the environmental impacts were not properly considered. > Could you elaborate? What was considered, what was not, and what law are > you relying on? > > Jim, at this point, I am still investigating the legal claims (as you can > see above). I didn't get the sense that we needed immediate approval since > the PSC's decision is not even final yet, and when it becomes final, we have > 30 days. If there is a reason to file sooner, please let me know. It is my > understanding that you are going to be talking with Aaron Isherwood about > how the National Coal Campaign may be able to help with this and the PATH > transmission line. I'll follow up with him if it impacts the Supreme Court > appeal and/or the FOIA appeals. Thanks to you both, > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > > *"William V. DePaulo, Esq." <**william.depaulo(a)gmail.com*<william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> > *>* > > 08/21/2008 10:01 AM > > To > *Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org* <Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org> cc > "Jim Sconyers" <*jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>> Subject > Re: Fw: TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > > > > > Holly > > Here is a revised NMF which I hope is responsive to your requests. Please > let me know if you have any additional questions or topics you'd like > fleshed out in more detail. > > All the best, > > Bill > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, <*Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<Holly.Bressett(a)sierraclub.org>> > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Jim has attached the new matter form and I'm hoping you can supplement it > with our legal strategy. I'm confused about the FOIA appeals and the > Supreme Court appeal so I was hoping you could separate everything and give > me a clear description of the legal claims. If you are anticipating actual > FOIA lawsuits in conjunction with all of this let me know, it may make sense > to do one authorization for all the legal challenges. Thanks, > > Holly > > Holly Bressett > Environmental Law Fellow > Sierra Club Environmental Law Program > 85 Second St., 2nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 977-5646 (phone) > (415) 977-5793 (fax) > ----- Forwarded by Holly Bressett/Sierraclub on 08/20/2008 11:51 AM ----- > > *Jim Sconyers <**jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>*>* > > 08/14/2008 07:41 AM > > To > Holly Bressett <*holly.bressett(a)sierraclub.org*<holly.bressett(a)sierraclub.org> > > cc > aaron isherwood <*aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org*<aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> > > Subject > TrailCo NMF revised > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a revised version of our TrailCo powerline NMF. It still needs to > go to our ExCom for certain approval. > > Jim Sconyers* > **jim_scon(a)yahoo.com* <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> > 603.969.6712 > > Remember: Mother Nature bats last. > > > > > -- > William V. DePaulo, Esq. > 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > Tel: 304-342-5588 > Fax: 304-342-5505* > **william.depaulo(a)gmail.com* <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > **www.passeggiata.com* <http://www.passeggiata.com/> > > > > -- > William V. DePaulo, Esq. > 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > Tel: 304-342-5588 > Fax: 304-342-5505* > **william.depaulo(a)gmail.com* <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > **www.passeggiata.com* <http://www.passeggiata.com/> > > > > -- > William V. DePaulo, Esq. > 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > Tel: 304-342-5588 > Fax: 304-342-5505* > **william.depaulo(a)gmail.com* <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>* > **www.passeggiata.com* <http://www.passeggiata.com/> > > -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Fwd: DeWeese Comments
by James Kotcon 26 Sep '08

26 Sep '08

Here is what the Majority Leader of the WV House of Representatives said about TrAILCo. Can we get WV legislators to do something similar? JBK >>> Letty Butcher <multiflora123(a)yahoo.com> 9/25/2008 10:51 PM >>> http://stopaptrail.org/images/DeWeese_Reply_to_Exceptions.pdf

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead
by Jim Sconyers 25 Sep '08

25 Sep '08

below Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: ec(a)osenergy.org Cc: Frank Young <fyoung(a)wvhighlands.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:16:00 PM Subject: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead I certainly don't think the title is accurate. Perhaps a better title would be: "Yet another backroom deal to sell out West Virginia". I have not seen the deal, but it seems to me that Allegheny has presented yet another "offer" of using our own money to buy us off, while they still make a profit at our expense. ...and still build it through West Virginia. JBK >>> "Julieann F. Wozniak" <jwozniak(a)windstream.net> 9/23/2008 10:04 AM >>> >Power line plan killed >Allegheny Energy won't put it through Greene, Washington >Tuesday, September 23, 2008 >By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette > >Allegheny Energy is abandoning plans for a high-voltage line through Washington and Greene counties, according to the terms of a settlement agreement reached yesterday. > >The agreement between the Greensburg-based utility and Greene County officials halts plans for a controversial 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line from North Strabane in Washington County, to Dunkard, Greene County. > >In exchange, Greene County commissioners have agreed to support a companion project which includes a new electric substation and a 1.2-mile transmission line from Greene County to West Virginia, where the line would continue 240 miles into Virginia. > >West Virginia has approved the $1 billion project, and Virginia is expected to do so as well. > >Terms of the agreement, hammered out last week, include a payment of $750,000 to Greene County and other provisions from the company, which sought a compromise after two state Public Utility Commission judges recommended against every phase of the proposal due to lack of need and other considerations. > >The agreement may end more than 18 months of bitter feuding that pitted property owners and officials against Allegheny Energy. The terms of the deal are contingent on final project approval by the PUC before Feb. 16, 2009. > >Along with the financial settlement to Greene County, the company has agreed to return easements to the dozens of property owners in both counties who would have been affected by the line, many of whom sued the company in recent months, claiming that the easements, obtained decades ago, were no longer valid. > >The agreement leaves out Washington County officials, who say they were presented with the pact on Friday, then asked to approve it by yesterday. > >Washington County commissioners Larry Maggi and J. Bracken Burns said they were left out of what they call the "backroom deal" and won't support the agreement, although they, too, were offered $750,000 for Washington County. > >They wonder why their counterparts in Greene County have so readily approved the agreement while the PUC judges harshly criticized the plan, calling the 1.2-mile segment in Greene County a profit-driven attempt to ship "cheaper coal-fired generation" along an "energy superhighway" to the east. The judges said they also saw no need for the 36-mile Pennsylvania segment of the line. With language like that, it's unclear whether the PUC will honor the settlement agreement. > >The commission will review the agreement to determine if it's in the public interest, said spokeswoman Jennifer Kocher. > >"It didn't smell right -- the whole deal," said Mr. Maggi, who said signing the agreement would have nullified the argument that the power line isn't needed either regionally or locally. > >"The agreement in essence says that the argument we've advanced for the past two years is wrong," Mr. Burns said. > >Allegheny Energy has said the Pennsylvania portion of the project is needed to avoid local power interruptions in the next few years, but a grass-roots citizens' group and other property owners were able to convince the PUC judges that it wasn't so. > >Other terms of the agreement require Greene County and other local officials to help form a study group to identify potential new alternatives to the high-voltage line, such as demand-side management, energy efficiency programs and physical upgrades to existing lines, including new substations, transmission infrastructure, and possibly up to 10 miles of new 500-kilovolt lines in Washington County. There would be no new lines in Greene County. > >The company also has agreed not to seek federal intervention for the project if the PUC denies its application. According to the Energy Act of 2005, the federal government has backstop authority to approve transmission projects even if they are denied by states. > >Members of the grass-roots Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania said they are still reviewing the agreement, of which they also were not a part. > >They have questioned the wisdom of entering into such a pact after the PUC judges gave them good reason to hope that the company's application would be denied. The five-member PUC panel may or may not adopt the recommendations of the judges. > >Mr. Burns said he saw nothing in the agreement that would preclude the company from proposing different high-voltage lines in Washington County. Under such circumstances, it's unfair to taxpayers to enter into such an agreement, he said. > >"My values aren't negotiable and my principles don't have a price tag," he said. >Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton(a)post-gazette.com or 724-223-0156. >First published on September 23, 2008 at 12:00 am _______________________________________________ MVCAC mailing list MVCAC(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead
by Jim Sconyers 25 Sep '08

25 Sep '08

Ditto me! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Original Message ---- From: Beth Little <blittle(a)citynet.net> To: Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org>; Energy Committee <ec(a)osenergy.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:25:22 PM Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead Doesn't sound dead to me; just detoured a little. -----Original Message----- From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org]On Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenbaum Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:03 PM To: Energy Committee Subject: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08267/914268-58.stm _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC