----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org" <Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org>
To: Barbara Fallon <brbr_fallon@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:49:06 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: [EC] info somewhere about more plants
Barbara - I see that the PATH project originates at the John Amos station,
so the coal plant link couldn't be clearer. We can allocate $10,000 for
litigation costs. Also - has the idea of a case against FERC fot its
subsidies been explored ?
Pat Gallagher
Director of Environmental Law
Sierra Club
85 Second Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.977.5709
415.977.5793 fax
pat.gallagher@sierraclub.orgCONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT
This
e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client
communications and/or confidential attorney work product. If you receive
this e-mail inadvertently, please reply and notify the sender and delete
all versions on your system. Thank you.
Barbara Fallon
<brbr_fallon@yaho
o.com> To
Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org 07/21/2008 06:51 cc
AM
Subject
Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: [EC] info somewhere
about more plants
Pat,
Thanks for understanding our perdicament. Can the Law program support us
with $10,000? Over time our financial needs are going to be much greater
than this amount, but a $10,000 base combined with our local and state
fundraising, should put us in the ball-park for expert witness fees.
Funding from the Law Program will be a great morale boost as well.
As for the Mountaineer plant inquiry, this is a reply from Jim Kotcon.
"The Mountaineer IGCC plant was being developed by AEP, while TrAILCo is a
wholly
owned subsidiary of Allegheny Energy. Thus, Mountaineer was never
an explicit part of the justification for TrAIL.
Instead, TrAIL based their economic benefits analysis on four unnamed
"potential" plants. In the evidentiary hearings, TrAILCo did not
explicitly back away form the idea of four new plants, but tended to
emphasize the transmission constraints from either new plants or existing
unused capacity. They never really were pinned down, and the regional
transmission operator, PJM, only indicated a generalized need for new
transmission. They argued that it was not possible to identify specific
plants from which the electrons would flow, only that plants in the region
needed the transmission capacity to supply the East Coast markets.
TrAILCo and PATH both argue that the lines are needed even for new
commercial wind farms, although the combined capacity of the lines is ten
times
that needed for all existing and currently planned wind farms."
JBK
Thank you for your concern and support Pat.
Barbara
----- Original Message ----
From: "
Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org" <
Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org>
To: Barbara Fallon <
brbr_fallon@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:53:04 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: [EC] info somewhere about more plants
Thanks Barbara - I see the bind you're in. How much money are you looking
for ? I think something should be doable.
One thing I noticed - the Trail line was justified in part by the
Mountaineer plant. But that plant was rejected by the
PSC, correct ? So
has there been an effort to reopen/raise that issue ?
Pat Gallagher
Director of Environmental Law
Sierra Club
85 Second Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.977.5709
415.977.5793 fax
pat.gallagher@sierraclub.orgCONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client
communications and/or confidential attorney work product. If you receive
this e-mail inadvertently, please reply and notify the sender and delete
all versions on your system. Thank you.
Barbara Fallon
<brbr_fallon@yaho
o.com>
To
pat.gallagher@sierraclub.org 07/17/2008 12:27 cc
PM
Subject
Fw: Fw: Fw: [EC] info somewhere
about more plants
Pat, Jim has summarized our tentative and unsavory situation. I feel like
we are in a holding pattern, yet we need to raise funds in order to be
ready for several different outcomes. We are doing chapter fundraising and
also directed fundraising. I can't find outside sources of funding because
public foundations do not want to fund litagation and expert witnesses. It
was a hard blow to find out that we did not get the SES or the National
Coal grants.
I appreciate your interest in this case and in the difficulty we have in
fundraising. If you have any suggestions for fundraising I will pursue
them. Otherwise,
is there something the Law Program can do for us.
I do not know if you have had time to read the grant proposal to National
Coal. I have it attached.
Best REgards,
Barbara
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: James Kotcon <
jkotcon@wvu.edu>
To: Duane Nichols <
duane330@aol.com>; William DePaulo Esq
<
william.depaulo@gmail.com>; James Kotcon <
jkotcon@wvu.edu>; Barbara Fallon
<
brbr_fallon@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:51:31 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [EC] info somewhere about more
plants
No specific information has been filed for PATH, that I am aware of, as
they have not yet filed their application. The PATH website FAQs page
sidesteps this issue with double talk about the need to improve
"reliability", so it is not clear that they will even raise the issue of
additional power plants. They do, however, discuss "increasing demand" as
well as retirements of existing power plants as part of te justification
for the line.
Regardless of whether the increased electricity comes from new plants, or
increased generation from existing coal-fired plants, increasing demand
means more coal burned. Hence, we should not get bogged down in
nit-picking over whether the generation is from new plants versus older
ones, in either case it means more coal is burned.
Furthermore, the initial justification for the NIETC was an effort to move
an additional 5000 MW of "coal-by-wire"
from the mid-Ohio Valley to the
East Coast. While there are some long-range concerns over transmission
(although none would occur sooner than 4 to 8 years from now), the real
issue is that coal is cheaper than the existing sources on the East Coast,
so if they can overcome the transmission constraints, the coal could
displace the more expensive (and cleaner) generating plants on the East
Coast. This "economic congestion" is the real driver behind the lines, not
the hypothetical peak demand reliability issues. And that would mean even
more coal being burned, not just to meet the increased demand, but to
substitute for existing higher-priced generation.
I believe that our only hope is to delay PATH and TrAIL for a couple more
years until we can get Congress to revise the NIETC laws. As long as the
utilities are guaranteed an "Incentive Rate of Return" and powers of
eminent domain, they
will eventually win.
Note, the PATH website timeline (
http://pathtransmission.com) has them
filing in December 2008, so most of our legal expenses would be incurred in
2009. It is also important to note that PATH will actually be filing two
separate applications, one for the Amos-to-Bedington (north of Martinsburg,
WV) segment, the other from Bedington to a new substation at Kemptown MD.
Hence, WV will bear a double load in fighting this line, while the Maryland
Chapter will also need to get involved for the second segment. But under
this strategy, I suspect that much of the line will be built even if only
WV gives approval.
In any event, an awful lot will depend on what the WV-PSC does with the
TrAIL application, and how we respond. I think the priority for funding in
the second half of 2008 should be for appeals of a TrAIL
decision. If I
were a betting man, my current prediction is that the PSC will rule in
favor of TrAIL, and we will have to appeal to the WV Supreme Court. Even
if they rule in our favor and against TrAIL, I expect TrAILCo to appeal,
and we will need to be involved in that appeal as intervenors. The TrAIL
case this year will set the precedents that drive a PATH case next year.
And the TrAIL case is the one where they do claim that part of the benefits
will derive from four new power plants.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you need citations for any of the above.
JBK
>>> Barbara Fallon <
brbr_fallon@yahoo.com> 7/16/2008 4:07 PM >>>
Pat is interested in helping us fund the legal aspects of PATH. I have
sent him our recent grant request but I am not sure that he
has had time to
read it. Pat needs information from us re: more coal plants if PATH is
constructed. I sent him info re: TrAILCO, but he needs it for PATH if he
is going to be able to get us some money.
Do you guys have any infor on construction of coal power plants if PATH
goes through...
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "
Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org" <
Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org>
To: Barbara Fallon <
brbr_fallon@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [EC] info somewhere about more plants
Thanks - This pertains to TrailCo - do we have any similar evidence re PATH
? I'm a
believer in what you're doing - I just need to tie it directly to
coal plants to use coal litigation funds.
Pat Gallagher
Director of Environmental Law
Sierra Club
85 Second Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.977.5709
415.977.5793 fax
pat.gallagher@sierraclub.orgCONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client
communications and/or confidential attorney work product. If you receive
this e-mail inadvertently, please reply and notify the sender and delete
all versions on your system. Thank you.
-----Barbara Fallon <
brbr_fallon@yahoo.com> wrote: -----
To:
pat.gallagher@sierraclub.orgFrom: Barbara Fallon <
brbr_fallon@yahoo.com>
Date: 07/16/2008 07:21AM
Subject: Fw: [EC] info somewhere about more plants
Pat, more info on the connection of TrAILCO and more coal fired power
plants.
Barbara
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: James Kotcon <
jkotcon@wvu.edu>
To: Barbara Fallon <
brbr_fallon@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:18:35 PM
Subject: Re: [EC] info somewhere about more plants
My apologies for the delay, hope this is still timely.
The testimony submitted by TrAILCo witness Tom Witt calculated the economic
benefits of the
transmission line. In it, he claimed that the line would
support four new 600 MW coal-fired power plants, and further claimed that
the economic benefits from these plants were part of the economic benefits
to be derived from the line.
TrAILCo has not specifically proposed additional plants, but their line was
clearly intended to increase sales of coal-fired electricity from WV and
Ohio plants to the East Coast. TrAILCo also presented the scenario that
the line would merely support increased operation of existing plants. In
either case, it would mean a lot more coal being burned to generate
electricity to be sold on the East Coast where it would compete with
cleaner, but more expensive power plants.
This is the main reason that CPV Warren had intervened in the case. They
argued that the line would make their proposed natural gas-fired plant in
Warren VA economically unviable.
The argument appeared to be sufficiently
sound that Dominion Energy (Allegheny's partner in TrAILCo) bought the
rights to the CPV Warren plant.
The specific documentation for the above is filed as part of the official
record on the PSC web page, but it is buried among a large number of
documents. Let me know if you want me to dig out the specific citations.
JBK
(See attached file: Coal foundation608.doc)