EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: Arctic Refuge FW: It's up-- Vote away
by Paul Wilson 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

fyi, renewables are winning 55% to whatever oil is getting! vote away, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Ritzman <dan.ritzman(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:47 PM Subject: Arctic Refuge FW: It's up-- Vote away To: #arctic(a)sierraclub.org, #Conservation-Habitats(a)sierraclub.org I have no idea where usnews got that picture at the top of the article but it certainly isn’t the Refuge. Alas, still worth voting!**** ** ** *From:* Virginia Cramer [mailto:virginia.cramer@sierraclub.org] *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:13 PM *To:* #Land; Dan Ritzman *Subject:* It's up-- Vote away**** ** ** The US News & World Report "debate" is on-- Please go vote for Dan's response and spread this around. **** http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-it-time-to-drill-in-the-arctic-refuge** ** ** ** - ginny**** ** ** Is It Time to Drill in the Arctic Refuge?**** The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly known as ANWR, is a 19-million acre national wildlife preserve in northeast Alaska. The United States Geological Survey estimates that there could be anywhere between 7.7 and 11.8 billion gallons of technically recoverable oil underneath the surface of the refuge.**** The drilling controversy in ANWR centers on a specific, 1.5 million acre area on the northern coastal plain known as the 10-02 area. While this area comprises a relatively small part of the whole refuge, it contains an important calving ground for Porcupine caribou, which have been a significant part of the lives of native Alaskans in the area for thousands of years.**** In 1977, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was completed, and conservationists began a campaign to keep oil prospecting out of ANWR. Three years later, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which designated 104 million acres in Alaska as national parks and wildlife refuge. The act allowed for drilling in ANWR, but not without Congress’s approval first. The Exxon-Valdez spill temporarily derailed potential drilling in ANWR in 1989, but seven years later the Republican-majority House and Senate voted to allow drilling in the refuge. President Clinton vetoed the bill, but the battle over ANWR raged on in Congress throughout the next decade with President George W. Bush pushing to perform exploratory drilling in the area.**** Rapidly rising energy costs and a weak economy have caused Congress to again investigate the possibility of drilling in ANWR. Is it time to starting drilling in the Arctic Refuge? Here is the Debate Club’s take:**** ** ** -- 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

appalachian coal future
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Coal's Woes Run Deeper than EPA Regs Competitive, Labor Issues Hurt Production Ken Silverstein <http://www.energybiz.com/author/ken-silverstein> | Sep 28, 2011 [image: Share/Save]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energybiz.com%2Fart…> <http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/09/coals-woes-run-deeper-epa-regs&utm_m…> In Central Appalachia, coal’s potential troubles are running much deeper than the proposed environmental regulations. Both public and private reviews note a reduction in production, citing not just pending federal rules but also increased competition and the depletion of the most recoverable deposits. The coal companies concur, saying that development could migrate to regions with more accessible reserves and a lower cost of production. And while the easy target is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that wants to cut toxic emissions, all are acknowledging that the process is more labor intensive and therefore less profitable. That’s because the coal there is much harder dig out, leaving surface mining as the only other possibility -- an even more controversial technique. “Based on historical trend, most of the supply reduction is likely to be permanent,” says Arch Coal<http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100222/ARCH-COAL-INC_8-K/c56417exv99w1.htm>in a quarterly assessment. “The 2008-2010 drop is shaping up to be the largest fall-off in production yet,” in reference to Central Appalachia. That production is shifting westward, it says, citing statistics that Central Appalachia annual coal development could fall from around 200 million tons today to 99 million tons by 2035; a decade ago it was 300 million tons. The U.S. Energy Information Administration <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_coal.cfm>agrees, saying that Central Appalachian coal has “higher cost reserves” that have already been “extensively mined.” That will result in more production from western states, and potentially 1 percent more a year between 2015-2035. In this country, most of the coal comes from Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Wyoming provides about 41 percent of U.S. coal production, which is an increase from 18 percent two decades earlier. Today, the roughly 443 million tons of coal mined from the Wyoming Powder<http://205.254.135.24/energy_in_brief/role_coal_us.cfm>River Basin is shipped to 34 states, including those in the east. With an expanding rail transportation network, coal emanating from that area could flourish. It’s also easier to mine. Underground mining is one issue. Surface mining, or mountaintop mining, is another that comes with regulatory impediments. Specifically, proposed EPA rules would restrict the ability of mining companies to toss aside debris by setting tougher water quality standards. It would require buffer zones around the streams while requesting mining enterprises to move in phases so that they can better monitor their environmental footprints. Economic Diversification What to do? U.S. senators from coal-producing states are trying to stop the EPA in its tracks, saying that the livelihoods of the affected citizens would be harmed. But perhaps the longer range view would be the diversification of the economies t<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ap-enterprise-drastic-declines-ahead…>here, and for them to become net exporters of other fuels. In fact, the Marcellus Region <http://www.marcellusfacts.com/pdf/homegrownenergy.pdgoo>that stretches down the east coast is estimated to hold as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Penn State University says that such assets would create 200,000 jobs and the American Chemical Council says that 12,000 chemical-related jobs would be formed in West Virginia alone. By comparison, the coal mining industry in all of Appalachia employs 31,000 people, says the National Mining Association <http://www.nma.org/>. As production falls there and as EPA regs kick in, that number will decline. “The increased competition from other sources of coal and energy has negatively impacted production in Central Appalachia, illustrating that the existence of coal reserves does not guarantee that the coal will be economical to produce or competitive with other regions,” says a report by Downstream Strategies<http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/Downstrea…>. “The declining competitiveness is due in large part to the increased cost of producing coal in Central Appalachia, for both surface and underground mining.” The Morgantown, WV-based consulting firm goes on to say that if West Virginia and other Central Appalachian states are to cope with a perpetual decline in coal production, policy makers will need to ensure that new jobs and fresh sources of tax revenue become available. It is cautioning against an over-reliance on shale gas, noting the associated water quality issues surrounding it as well as a history of volatile natural gas prices. The firm is therefore concluding that the region needs to promote renewable energy. It is suggesting a renewable portfolio standard whereby utilities would have to supply a quarter of their power from green sources by 2025. Blaming coal’s woes on the proposed environmental regulations tells only a fraction of the story. The rest can be explained by competition from other coal states as well as from cheaper and cleaner fuels. That makes the labor-intensive pursuit for coal in Central Appalachia a tougher sell and the need for fuel diversity there more essential than ever. EnergyBiz Insider has been been nominated in 2010 and 2011 for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists. Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein energybizinsider(a)energycentral.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

coal ash dump collapse in WI
by Frank Young 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

And Congress doesn't want the EPA to regulate this stuff. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/132962423.html#id_58603378 Bill Price, Organizing Representative Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign Phone: 304-389-8822 (Cell) Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org -- Vernon Haltom Executive Director, Coal River Mountain Watch 304-854-2182 www.crmw.net

1 0

Fwd: Solar Power 2011 - Solar PV Breaks Records in 2010
by Jim Sconyers 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)comcast.net> Date: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM Subject: Solar Power 2011 - Solar PV Breaks Records in 2010 To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org * Solar Power 2011 - Solar PV Breaks Records in 2010 * J. Matthew Roney *www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47/solar_power_2011*<http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47/solar_power_2011> Earth Policy Release Eco-Economy Indicator October 27, 2011 Solar photovoltaic (PV) companies manufactured a record 24,000 megawatts of PV cells worldwide in 2010, more than doubling their 2009 output. Annual PV production has grown nearly 100-fold since 2000, when just 277 megawatts of cells were made. Newly installed PV also set a record in 2010, as 16,600 megawatts were installed in more than 100 countries. This brought the total worldwide capacity of solar PV to nearly 40,000 megawatts—enough to power 14 million European homes. Made of semiconductor materials, PV cells convert solar radiation directly into electricity. Rectangular panels consisting of numerous PV cells can be linked into arrays of various sizes and power output capabilities—from rooftop systems measured in kilowatts to ground-mounted arrays of hundreds or even thousands of megawatts. (One megawatt equals 1,000 kilowatts.) There are two main types of PV—traditional crystalline silicon and newer thin-film PV. In 2010, crystalline silicon production was more than double the output of 2009, accounting for over 80 percent of all PV produced. While thin-film production did not keep pace, it still grew by more than 60 percent. First Solar, a U.S. firm, maintained its leadership role in thin-film production, accounting for over 40 percent of world output, most of it produced in Malaysia. Data provided to Earth Policy Institute by GTM Research show that Chinese manufacturers again dominated the global industry in 2010, with close to 11,000 megawatts of PV cell production. (See data at *www.earth-policy.org*<http://www.earth-policy.org/>.) This was the seventh consecutive year in which China at least doubled its PV output. Taiwan was a distant second with 3,600 megawatts produced, followed by Japan with 2,200 megawatts, Germany with 2,000 megawatts, and the United States with 1,100. The top five countries thus accounted for 82 percent of total world PV production. While Germany ranks fourth in solar cell manufacturing, it towers above all other countries in terms of actual electricity generation from solar panels. Germany has widened its lead in this category each year since overtaking Japan in 2004 and, after adding 7,400 megawatts in 2010, now boasts 17,200 megawatts of installed PV. This is more than 40 percent of global capacity and over four times the 3,800 megawatts in Spain, the number two country. PV in Germany now generates enough electricity to meet the power demand of some 3.4 million German homes. Japan installed close to 1,000 megawatts of new PV capacity in 2010. It is the third-ranked country in installed PV, with a total of 3,600 megawatts. As solar adoption accelerates in Japan, its national target of 28,000 megawatts by 2020 may be easily surpassed, especially as the country weighs energy alternatives following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. By nearly doubling its total PV power capacity in 2010, Italy vaulted past the United States to claim the fourth position in the world solar rankings, with 3,500 megawatts. With an expected 8,000 megawatts of new PV in 2011, likely overtaking Germany in new installations, Italy will have already exceeded its official 2020 goal of 8,000 megawatts. Enel, Italy's leading utility, sees the country reaching 30,000 megawatts by 2020—enough to satisfy half of its current residential electricity needs. PV capacity in the United States also saw strong growth in 2010, increasing by more than 50 percent to reach 2,500 total megawatts. California, which now has more than 1,000 megawatts connected to the grid, again led all states in new PV installations. But a number of other states, including New Jersey, Nevada, and Arizona, are ramping up their solar capacity as well, driven by programs and incentives at the state and federal levels. Until very recently, China's status as PV manufacturing powerhouse had not translated into much solar generation at home, as panels were seen as too expensive in the domestic market. While the vast majority of Chinese-made PV is sent abroad, a growing government commitment to increasing solar power as part of the energy mix is now catalyzing substantial PV capacity gains. Total installed PV in China grew 140 percent to nearly 900 megawatts in 2010. This was the first full year for the national Golden Sun program, which covers half the investment and grid connection costs of a solar project. It is expected to result in at least 1,000 megawatts of new installations each year after 2012. Furthermore, in August 2011 China's main economic planning agency announced it was implementing a national PV feed-in tariff. This policy tool, now used by more than 60 countries, is behind most of the PV already installed worldwide. A feed-in tariff typically guarantees generators of renewable electricity a long-term purchase price for each kilowatt-hour they produce and "feed into" the grid, providing a powerful incentive for installing such systems. Together the Golden Sun program and the new feed-in tariff are likely to push China's PV capacity to at least double again in 2011—and may help explain why the country's solar power targets for 2015 and 2020 have reportedly risen to 10,000 and 50,000 megawatts, respectively. Although the cost of PV has fallen substantially over the decades, solar-generated electricity is not yet widely price-competitive with electricity generated by heavily subsidized fossil fuels. If the full cost of burning fossil fuels, including health effects and the costs of climate change, were incorporated into the price of electricity, PV would quickly be revealed as one of the least expensive sources of power. As system costs continue to drop, the PV landscape is evolving to include not only traditional small-scale PV installations but also utility-scale parks of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of megawatts. An 80-megawatt PV park completed in Canada in 2010 was the world's largest until September 2011, when a newly-expanded PV complex of close to 150 megawatts in northeastern Germany claimed the title. As of late 2011, the United States had 48 PV projects of 100 megawatts or more in the pipeline, including a 5,000-megawatt park to be sited on degraded farmland in California's San Joaquin Valley. At peak generation, this solar facility's electricity output would rival that of five large nuclear power plants. Multi-megawatt projects are also under development in India as part of the National Solar Mission that was announced in late 2009. Though the country had just 100 megawatts of installed PV capacity at the end of 2010, the goal is for some 22,000 megawatts of solar power—half PV and half concentrating solar power—to be installed by 2022. The western state of Gujarat alone plans to have 3,000 megawatts installed by 2015. Part of the National Solar Mission's PV expansion is destined for rural areas where millions lack access to electricity. As is the case in many other developing countries, there is vast potential in India for PV to provide power in places without an electric grid. Installing small solar systems on homes is often much less expensive than building a central power plant, with the added benefit of greatly reducing indoor air pollution from kerosene lamps. Industry analysts forecast that some 21,000 megawatts of PV will be installed globally in 2011. This would be a marked slowdown from the doubling of the market in 2010, but the pool of countries with rising demand for PV still continues to grow. New markets such as Slovakia and the United Kingdom are among the 20 countries expected to add 100 megawatts or more in 2011, up from 13 countries in 2010. As PV costs drop, as concerns about climate change grow, and as countries look to replace finite fossil fuels with energy sources that can never run out, the growth in solar power should continue. The potential is practically without limit: a *2011 article published in **Energy Policy*<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>shows that solar PV deployed in suitable locations could generate 30 times the electricity currently produced worldwide. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: Economists estimate comprehensive cost of greenhouse gas emissions
by Paul Wilson 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

Below is a link to the PDF report (30 pages) on the cost of carbon. Looks useful...... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Guilfoile <tim.guilfoile(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM Subject: Economists estimate comprehensive cost of greenhouse gas emissions To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org [image: image.png] http://www.e3network.org/papers/Climate_Risks_and_Carbon_Prices_executive_s… -- Tim Guilfoile Deputy Director Sierra Club Water Sentinels 3078 Elmwood Dr. Edgewood, KY 41017 (859) 426-1978 tim.guilfoile(a)sierraclub.org ><(((*>~~><(((*> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 -- 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

Watch live symposium webcast
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 28 Oct '11

28 Oct '11

If you can't get to the symposium in person, you can watch it via webcast: http://energy.law.wvu.edu/events/drilling_down/webcast -Jonathan

1 0

Wheeling Intelligencer supports Senate Ash Bill
by James Kotcon 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

EDITORIAL: Push Hard on Coal Ash Bill in Senate October 27, 2011 By The Intelligencer , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably will view a newly introduced bill as one more opportunity to stymie conservatives. Reid, D-Nev., probably hopes the Democrat Party discipline on which he usually is able to count will stop the bill. But the measure - the Senate version of a bill passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives - is too important to be viewed as a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. Sens. Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va., view it that way. They understand the bill, introduced in the House by Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., is necessary to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from killing more jobs and driving up electricity prices even more. McKinley's bill calls for reasonable regulations on coal ash created at many power plants. The EPA wants much harsher new rules. Three other Democrat senators joined Manchin and Rockefeller in sponsoring the Senate version of the bill. Both Mountain State lawmakers view it as a bipartisan effort. Still, they will have to work hard to overcome opposition almost certain to come from Reid and liberals in the Senate. We urge them to make the bill a top priority so it passes with a majority strong enough to overcome the veto President Barack Obama has threatened.

2 1

Fwd: Got Kids? Grandkids? Listen up!
by James Kotcon 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

Perhaps this could be used for letters to McKinley, Manchin, etc. on the coal ash bill. Go through a half dozen EPA rules like the ash rule, the power plant mercury rule, etc., and come up with the employment estimates in the Federal Register notices. Then do an op/ed on "Jobs McKinley is trying to Kill" Whaddya Tink? JBK >>> Betty Wiley <betty.w304(a)gmail.com> 10/23/2011 9:17 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Donnan <redchief7(a)verizon.net> Date: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:56 AM Subject: Got Kids? Grandkids? Listen up! To: Robert Donnan <redchief7(a)verizon.net> ** These critical issues probably affect our Pittsburgh region more than any other area in the United States. It's hard to believe that anyone would consider unraveling all the progress we have made over the past 40 years. Bob latimes.com Op-Ed 'Too dirty to fail'? House Republicans' assault on our environmental laws must be stopped. By Lisa P. Jackson Administrator of the U.S. EPA October 21, 2011 Americans must once again stand up for their right to clean air and clean water. Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. They have picked up the pace recently — just last week they voted to stop the EPA's efforts to limit mercury and other hazardous pollutants from cement plants, boilers and incinerators — and it appears their campaign will continue for the foreseeable future. Using the economy as cover, and repeating unfounded claims that "regulations kill jobs," they have pushed through an unprecedented rollback of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and our nation's waste-disposal laws, all of which have successfully protected our families for decades. We all remember "too big to fail"; this pseudo jobs plan to protect polluters might well be called "too dirty to fail." The House has voted on provisions that, if they became law, would give big polluters a pass in complying with the standards that more than half of the power plants across the country already meet. The measures would indefinitely delay sensible upgrades to reduce air pollution from industrial boilers located in highly populated areas. And they would remove vital federal water protections, exposing treasured resources such as the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Erie, the Chesapeake Bay and the Los Angeles River to pollution. How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of citizens. This is not hyperbole. The link between health issues and pollution is irrefutable. Mercury is a neurotoxin that affects brain development in unborn children and young people. Lead has similar effects in our bodies. Soot, composed of particles smaller across than a human hair, is formed when fuels are burned and is a direct cause of premature death. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds contribute to the ozone alert days when seniors, asthmatics and others with respiratory problems are at serious risk if they do nothing more dangerous than step outside and breathe the air. "Too dirty to fail" tries to convince Americans that they must choose between their health and the economy, a choice that's been proved wrong for the four decades that the EPA has been in existence. No credible economist links our current economic crisis — or any economic crisis — to tough clean-air and clean-water standards. A better approach is the president's call for federal agencies to ensure that regulations don't overburden American businesses. The EPA has already put that into effect by repealing or revising several unnecessary rules, while ensuring that essential health protections remain intact. We can put Americans to work retrofitting outdated, dirty plants with updated pollution control technology. There are about 1,100 coal-fired units at about 500 power plants in this country. About half of these units are more than 40 years old, and about three-quarters of them are more than 30 years old. Of these 1,100 units, 44% do not use pollution controls such as scrubbers or catalysts to limit emissions, and they pour unlimited amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gases into our air. Despite requirements in the bipartisan 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, these facilities have largely refused to control their emissions — creating an uneven playing field for companies who play by the rules and gaming the system at the expense of our health. If these plants continue to operate without pollution limits, as a legislative wish list from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) would allow, there will be more cases of asthma, respiratory illness and premature deaths — with no clear path to new jobs. By contrast, the nation's first-ever standards for mercury and other air toxic pollutants which the EPA will finalize this fall — and which the Republican leadership aims to block — are estimated to create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term jobs in the utility sector through modernizing power plants. And the savings in health benefits are estimated to be up to $140 billion per year by 2016. Contrary to industry lobbying, this overhaul can be accomplished without affecting the reliability of our power grid. Our country has a long tradition of treating environmental and public health protections as nonpartisan matters. It was the case when President Nixon created the EPA and signed into law the historic Clean Air Act, when President Ford signed into law the Safe Drinking Water Act and when President George H.W. Bush oversaw important improvements to the Clean Air Act and enacted the trading program that dramatically reduced acid rain pollution. Our environment affects red states and blue states alike. It is time for House Republicans to stop politicizing our air and water. Let's end "too dirty to fail." *Lisa P. Jackson is the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *

2 1

WVU Faculty Senate viewpoint meeting
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

Heh all, Right before the exciting City Council COW meeting this Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. where the future of the ban will be discussed informally, http://morgantown.com/agendas/2011/10-25-11-COW.pdf (Note: Bill Bryne will be in another country :) .. Forum on Marcellus Shale Drilling Tuesday,*October 25, 2011*, at 5:30 p.m., 126 Ming Hsieh Hall,WVUDowntown Campus A Discussion of Important Issues From Various Viewpoints. Presented by Pi Sigma Sigma Public Policy Honorary andWVUPolitical Science Department. Seeflyer <http://facultysenate.wvu.edu/r/download/110848>for more information. Note the interesting line-up: John King - WVDEP Environmental Advocate (Remember Pam Nixon at the SierraFest?) Don Spencer - Ex-City Council, the biggest supporter for strong legislation .. resolutions, ban, etc. WV4MOM - No idea who will be talking, I suspect that it may be Professor Tauger from political science Dr. Carr - Interim director of WVU's marcellus initiative, self-describe industry advocate, and the worst choice imaginable by WVU's president. A new page to watch, http://facultysenate.wvu.edu/marcellus. You may be able to catch both events concurrently. -Jonathan

3 2

Fwd: E&E: Ash bill attracts Senate Democrats
by Jim Sconyers 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

This is the Senate duplicate of Congressman McKinley's horrible ash bill. Joe Manchin continues to be an embarrassment and to show utter disregard for the health and safety of our citizens. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alex Taurel <Alex_Taurel(a)lcv.org> Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM Subject: E&E: Ash bill attracts Senate Democrats To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org ** ** Ash bill attracts Senate Democrats **** Manuel Quinones, E&E reporter**** Published: Friday, October 21, 2011 **** Senate Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are hoping to convince their chamber's leadership to support legislation to block U.S. EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous substance.**** Yesterday they joined Republicans John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Rob Portman of Ohio and John Boozman of Arkansas in introducing the Senate companion to H.R. 2273<http://eenews.net/bills/112/House/191011114254.pdf>, which passed in the House last week. The measures take a "states-first" approach, meaning they give states broad regulatory authority over the disposal of power plant combustion waste.**** "It ensures good environmental stewardship, while helping to preserve jobs and ensure that a beneficial product is made available for worthy uses," Hoeven said in a statement. "Just as importantly, it ensures that Congress and the states hold the reins of environmental policy."**** Bill supporters say a hazardous designation would have a damaging effect to coal ash recycling efforts. They say the prospect of one is already stigmatizing the material, often used in roads and other construction. During a speech on the Senate floor, Hoeven touted major projects back home that included coal ash.**** The legislation is a top industry priority, faced with tougher EPA oversight. Lawmakers carrying the torch in the Senate hail from major coal producing or consuming states. Hoeven and Conrad, the main sponsors, come from a state where nearly all the electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants, according to the Energy Information Administration.**** "Years of research have shown that coal ash should not be regulated as a hazardous waste," Conrad said in a statement. "Doing so would only force unworkable requirements on our state's utilities, resulting in serious economic consequences and the loss of good-paying jobs."**** Environmental advocates and Senate liberals have been trying to turn the jobs argument on its head, saying strong regulation is an economic booster. They are vowing to fight the bill saying it lacks enough strength to prevent water contamination and potential disaster, like an ash dump break in eastern Tennessee in 2008. The White House has also expressed opposition to the bill but fell short of issuing a veto threat.**** State regulators generally support keeping oversight of coal ash and are pressing for passage of legislation to effectively set aside EPA rulemaking. Environmentalists, however, have released reports saying states like North Dakota have been lax in regulating coal ash, leading to numerous cases of contamination (*E&ENews PM<http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2011/08/17/archive/4> *, Aug. 17).**** Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans, who has been fighting the legislation, pointed out newly released inspection data from EPA showing that three North Dakota coal ash ponds garnered poor ratings. EPA has been conducting integrity tests at sites across the country.**** "It is beyond irresponsible for the senators to offer a bill that fails to cure the safety problems facing their own state," Evans said in a statement. "And it is with great disregard of their civic responsibility that they support a bill that places the citizens of other states at great peril."**** Senators who introduced the legislation say it will give industry regulatory certainty and states clarity in the regulatory process through minimum federal benchmarks.**** "This bill paves the way for states to manage coal ash in a safe, effective manner," Enzi said in a statement. "It is a serious legislative effort that takes a unique approach to fixing a problem that industry and the states want to address."**** Click here <http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/10/21/document_daily_01.pdf>to read the new Senate bill.**** http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/print/2011/10/21/7**** ** ** ** ** Alex Taurel**** Legislative Representative**** League of Conservation Voters**** (o) 202-454-4606**** (c) 202-669-1199**** *alex_taurel(a)lcv.org* *twitter.com/LCVPolicy* ** ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC