MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1014 discussions

Re: [MVCAC] BE ACTIVE Re: transmission line
by Paul Brown 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

Jim, I think I speak for all of us in thanking you for your analysis. It would make an important contributiin as a letter to the editor (fewer than 600 words in the Dom Post) - I'd be willing to draft one for you if you like. It would also be an excellnt argument against the power line, especially n combination with the battery argument. Something like this: The stated reason is invalid on its face because new technology makes the power line obsolete. Then expose the actual motive, which screws customers in order to enrich allegheny. Thanks again. Could I use your analysis in my column? Paul Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512 >>> "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> 07/05/07 5:43 PM >>> Paul, et al.: You have obviously made the mistake of believing what Allegheny Energy says about their transmission line. :-) The purpose of the transmission line is NOT to relieve congestion or increase system reliability, no matter how many times Allegheny says so. The purpose is to make more money from Allegheny's old dirty power plants. They can do that by supplying more electricity to East Coast cities during peak periods. Installing batteries in those cities would allow those customers to recharge the batteries at night when demand is low and electricity is cheap, but Allegheny makes more money by selling during peak daytime periods. This is primarily due to the obscure way that electricity is priced on the wholesale market. The congestion is not so much a "capacity" congestion, but an "economic" congestion. It costs Allegheny approximately 3 cents per kilowatt to generate electricity, and another 3 cents per kilowatt to transmit it through the grid to your home. (All numbers used are approximate and may vary from year to year, but they illustrate the principles involved.) That retail price of 6 cents is a monthly average of all the plants and transmission lines and all their expenses used over a period of years. But at any given time, cheap base load plants like Fort Martin can generate electricity at 1-2 cents, while more expensive natural gas plants require up to 6-12 cents per kilowatt. Coal-fired base load plants take a lot of time to ramp up and shut off, so they are mostly used full time for "base load. Because it takes time to heat them up and cool them off, utilities keep looking for ways run their plants at night so they do not have to waste money and energy during start-ups and shut-downs. Natural gas plants can be turned on and ramped up very quickly, but their fuel costs are higher, so they are turned on only a few hours per day when needed for peaking power. The natural gas plants, and their higher costs, are averaged into your monthly bill with the coal plants. Within a given service territory, it makes sense to use the batteries to more completely utilize the lowest cost plants. But on the wholesale market, electricity is sold on an hour-by-hour, or even minute-by-minute basis. When demand is high, utilities need to buy the more expensive peaking power, often at prices of 12, 15, or even 25 cents per kilowatt. The Regional Transmission Operator (PJM) holds an hourly auction to determine the price of electricity, so each plant bids to deliver so many megawatts at whatever price they can afford. PJM then accepts bids, in order, from the lowest to the highest cost generators, until they have enough generation capacity to meet the demand for that particular hour. But every power plant whose bid is accepted is paid the same rate as the highest accepted rate, and any plants whose bids are higher (and whose electricity is not needed) will not sell any electricity and must be shut down until they are needed. This auction is rigged to provide an incentive for generators to bid the lowest price they can while still making a profit, as they make no money at all if they do not operate their plants. But the net effect is that wholesale generators who can generate very cheaply (1-3 cents) can sell that electricity for e.g., 24 cents if they can get it to the market and displace generators who cost 25 cents per kilowatt. Hence use of storage batteries would make good energy policy, but it does not make fabulous windfall profits for Allegheny because recharging the batteries at night (using nighttime base-load rates) would only make Allegheny 2-3 cents, not 12-24 that they can make during peak load periods. In fact, under this auction system, Allegheny wants to maximize the loads during peak daytime periods, so investments to even out the day/night peaks are counterproductive (for Allegheny). The only thing standing in Allegheny's way is the economic congestion on the current transmission grid, which prevents them from actually delivering the electricity to the highest paying customers. This is what the US-DOE describes as "economic congestion" which means that there is already enough generating capacity to meet the demand in East Coast communities, but with a new transmission line, electricity from these expensive East Coast plants could be economically displaced by Allegheny's older, dirtier, cheaper plants. US-DOE and Allegheny want us to believe that their is a "capacity congestion" which could lead to blackouts and system-wide collapse. But the capacity congestion really only occurs a few days per year, and could be addressed much more cheaply, while the economic congestion is the real driver that makes the power line cost-effective. Thus the real effect of the new transmission line is to dramatically increase Allegheny's profit potential, while making everyone's air dirtier. (Incidentally, this is the same mechanism that Enron used to manipulate the California markets and led to their energy crisis in 2000.) I am still unclear if it would assure that West Virginia customers would have to pay an increased cost for our electricity (in addition to paying for the power line) so that East Coast customers can pay less, but it seems likely. And that is the real reason for the new power line. JBK >>> "Paul Brown" <pbbrown(a)hsc.wvu.edu> 7/5/2007 4:09 PM >>> It can now be argued that the transmission line is no longer the optimal solution to power distribution problems, because a better technology is already in use in West Virginia and elsewhere. See following story: New battery packs powerful punch, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2007-07-04-sodium-battery… By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY Batteries have long been vital to laptops and cellphones. They are increasingly supplying electricity to an unlikely recipient: the power grid itself. Until recently, large amounts of electricity could not be efficiently stored. Thus, when you turn on the living-room light, power is instantly drawn from a generator. A new type of a room-size battery, however, may be poised to store energy for the nation's vast electric grid almost as easily as a reservoir stockpiles water, transforming the way power is delivered to homes and businesses. Compared with other utility-scale batteries plagued by limited life spans or unwieldy bulk, the sodium-sulfur battery is compact, long-lasting and efficient. Using so-called NaS batteries, utilities could defer for years, and possibly even avoid, construction of new transmission lines, substations and power plants, says analyst Stow Walker of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. They make wind power * wildly popular but frustratingly intermittent * a more reliable resource. And they provide backup power in case of outages, such as the one that hit New York City last week. Such benefits are critical, because power demand is projected to soar 50% by 2030 and other methods of expanding the power supply are facing growing obstacles. Congress is likely to cap carbon dioxide emissions by traditional power plants to curtail global warming. Meanwhile, communities are fighting plans for thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to zap electricity across regions. A test case in West Virginia American Electric Power (AEP), one of the largest U.S. utilities, has been using a 1.2 megawatt NaS battery in Charleston, W.Va., the past year and plans to install one twice the size elsewhere in the state next year. Dozens of utilities are considering the battery, says Dan Mears, a consultant for NGK Insulators, the Japanese company that makes the devices. "If you've got these batteries distributed in the neighborhood, you have, in a sense, lots of little power plants," Walker says. "The difference between these and diesel generators is these batteries don't need fuel" and don't pollute. The NaS battery is the most advanced of several energy-storage technologies that utilities are testing. The oldest and most widespread form of energy storage in the USA, pumped hydroelectricity, collects water after it spins a turbine and uses a small amount of electricity to send it back and repeat the process. Lead-acid batteries * the same kind used in cars * were installed by Southern California Edison in 1988. But the batteries, though inexpensive, typically fill warehouse-size buildings and last about five years. That's because the acid that connects positive and negative electrodes corrodes components. An NaS battery, by contrast, uses a far more durable porcelain-like material to bridge the electrodes, giving it a life span of about 15 years, Mears says. It also takes up about a fifth of the space. Ford Motor pioneered the battery in the 1960s to power early-model electric cars; NGK and Tokyo Electric refined it for the power grid. Since the 1990s, Japanese businesses have installed enough NaS batteries to light the equivalent of about 155,000 homes, says Brad Roberts, head of the Electricity Storage Association. In the USA, AEP is using the 30-foot-wide by 15-foot-igh battery to supply 10% of the electricity needs of 2,600 customers in north Charleston, says Ali Nourai, AEP manager of distributed energy. The battery, which cost about $2.5 million, is charged by generators from the grid at night, when demand and prices are low, and discharged during the day when power usage peaks. By easing strains on the grid, especially on the hottest summer days, the battery lets AEP postpone by about seven years the roughly $10 million upgrade of a substation and reduce the chances of a blackout, Nourai says. After it upgrades the substation, AEP can move the battery to another location. "Our vision is to have (batteries) throughout our system," he says. Storing wealth from wind farms A more intriguing goal is to wring more energy out of the wind farms that are cropping up across the country. Wind typically blows hard at night when power demand is low, producing energy that cannot be used. When demand peaks midday, especially in the summer, wind is often sporadic or absent. NaS batteries could let AEP store wind-generated power at night for daytime use. Next year, AEP plans to install another NaS battery in West Virginia to provide backup power in case of an outage * the first such application of the technology, Nourai says. The battery would kick in automatically, so customers would see no disruption. Other utilities are planning or considering the technology. In Long Island, N.Y., a group of utilities plans this summer to install an NaS battery at a bus depot. The battery is charged at night, when power prices are low, and discharged during the day to pump natural gas into tanks to provide fuel for the buses, says Mike Saltzman of the New York Power Authority. That cuts electric costs for the bus company and eases stresses on the grid. Pacific Gas & Electric is leaning toward installing a much larger, 5-megawatt battery by 2009, enough to power about 4,000 homes, says PG&E's Jon Tremayne. The biggest drawback is price. The battery costs about $2,500 per kilowatt, about 10% more than a new coal-fired plant. That discourages independent wind farm developers from embracing the battery on fears it will drive the wholesale electricity prices they charge utilities above competing rates, says Christine Real de Azua, spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association. Mass production, however, is expected to drive prices down, Mears says. He predicts NaS batteries will start to become widespread within a decade. Meanwhile, other storage devices are gaining traction, too. A group of Iowa municipal utilities plans to use wind turbines to compress air during off-peak hours that will be stored in an underground cavern. The air would be released at peak periods to run turbines and generate power for about 200,000 homes. Another technology, the flywheel, has a massive cylinder that can spin for days after being started by a generator. The cylinder can then activate a turbine to supply electricity for a few seconds or minutes when it's needed, for instance, to head off an interruption to a computer center from a lightning strike. "We'd like to see storage ubiquitous," says Imre Gyuk, head of energy storage for the Department of Energy, which helped fund the AEP project. "Stick it any place you can stick it." Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512 >>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 7/5/07 3:50 PM >>> REMEMBER: The DOE National Interest Electricity Transmission (NIET) Corridor comments DEADLINE is July 6th! You should submit comments electronically at: http://nietc.anl.gov You can attach one file no larger than 10MB. So write a letter and attach it to an email. Or, just send an email letter. Address it to: The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20585 "If you are commenting on Docket No. 2007-OE-01 (the draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor), your comments must be marked "Attn: Docket No. 2007-OE-01." So let's get all of our comments submitted a.s.a.p. Getting comment in on the excessively large area of the NIET Corridor is extremely important, covering essentially the northern half of West Virginia. Note that Gov. Manchin first supported this Corridor, but now opposes it, more or less. NOTE: There is no crisis in power on the East Coast. The eastern states need to (1) practice conservation and energy efficiency to the greatest extent possible, then (2) devise a plan that involves alternative fuels such that carbon dioxide emission can be REDUCED, not EXPANDED in the near and long term future. The "greenhouse effect" is real and huge! Duane Nichols, CLEAR and Board Member of MVCAC. See what's free at AOL.com.

1 0

BE ACTIVE Re: transmission line
by Duane330＠aol.com 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

REMEMBER: The DOE National Interest Electricity Transmission (NIET) Corridor comments DEADLINE is July 6th! You should submit comments electronically at: _http://nietc.anl.gov_ (http://nietc.anl.gov) You can attach one file no larger than 10MB. So write a letter and attach it to an email. Or, just send an email letter. Address it to: The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20585 "If you are commenting on Docket No. 2007-OE-01 (the draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor), your comments must be marked "Attn: Docket No. 2007-OE-01." So let's get all of our comments submitted a.s.a.p. Getting comment in on the excessively large area of the NIET Corridor is extremely important, covering essentially the northern half of West Virginia. Note that Gov. Manchin first supported this Corridor, but now opposes it, more or less. NOTE: There is no crisis in power on the East Coast. The eastern states need to (1) practice conservation and energy efficiency to the greatest extent possible, then (2) devise a plan that involves alternative fuels such that carbon dioxide emission can be REDUCED, not EXPANDED in the near and long term future. The "greenhouse effect" is real and huge! Duane Nichols, CLEAR and Board Member of MVCAC. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

3 2

URGENT - NIETC Comment Period nearly over
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

July 6th is the last day to leave comments with the DOE concerning NIETC at http://nietc.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm . How important is this? If the National Interest Electric Transmission Congestion Corridors becomes a reality, then even if WVPSC rejects TrAIL we will still have to contend with the fact that FERC may implement TrAIL. TrAIL won't be the last transmission line we end up opposing due to the fact that every large power utility in the United States has signed up for an early inclusion in Section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. How can you comment?: Many feel the comment period should have been extended, so at the very least send in a comment saying NO to the question " Would designation of one or more National Corridors in these areas be appropriate and in the public interest?," and request that the comment period be extended for the public. I used these guidelines provided by DOE in their Congestion Study document to provide comments to questions they have for the public: 1. Would designation of one or more National Corridors in these areas be appropriate and in the public interest? A. Does a major transmission congestion problem exist? B. Are key transmission constraints creating the transmission congestion? C. What is the magnitude of the problem? D. What are the relevant transmission or non-transmission solutions? 2. How and where should DOE establish the geographic boundaries for a National Corridor? 3. How would the costs of a proposed transmission facility be allocated? It's a lot of fun answering these questions, but I must admit I haven't had enough time to perform adequate research, however I'm giving it my best try. Keep in mind that the deregulation of the electricity market in 1996 is a key factor in today's congestion, due to shoddy practices by Power Utilities like Enron. It's not clear to me as a Citizen of the United States of America that we actually have a congestion problem, but what we do have are businesses very interested in making money under the guise that the National Security of America is under threat. In that case, the DOE should be interested in creating a decentralized electricity solution, and should recognize that Global Warming is a much greater threat to National Security than the energy economics of congestion. Here's how I answered 1(C). C. What is the magnitude of the problem? It's an insignificant problem compared to Global Warming. This is a perfect time for the DOE to become a significant part of the Global Warming solution. In the process of applying practices that reduce Global Warming, the transmission congestion problem will dissipate and eventually disappear. Jonathan

1 0

Global Warming to uproot millions
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Jun '07

23 Jun '07

from the June 21, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0621/p10s01-wogi.html Global warming may uproot millions In the coming decades, the effects of global warming are likely to turn millions into refugees. By _Brad Knickerbocker_ (http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=C2F2E1E4A0CBEEE9E3EBE5F2…) | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor GLOBAL WARMING IS likely to uproot millions of people, forcing them to leave their homes and in the process create large-scale political, economic, and military challenges. In fact, say a growing number of experts, it's already beginning to happen. "Human-induced climate and hydrologic change is likely to make many parts of the world uninhabitable, or at least uneconomic," writes Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York, in the current online issue of Scientific American. As a result, he says, "Over the course of a few decades, if not sooner, _hundreds of millions of people may be compelled to relocate because of environmental pressures_ (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=31&articleID=E82F5561-E…) ." Rising sea levels, stronger cyclones, the loss of soil moisture, more intense precipitation and flooding, droughts, melting glaciers, and changing snow-melt patterns are among the problems humanity will face, says Dr. Sachs. He warns: "Combined with the human-induced depletion of groundwater sources by pumping, and the extensive pollution of rivers and lakes, mass migrations may be unavoidable." The Christian Aid agency predicts that by 2050 global warming could displace as many as 1 billion people. "All around the world, predictable patterns are going to result in _very long-term and very immediate changes_ (http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12976) in the ability of people to earn their livelihoods," Michele Klein Solomon of the International Organization of Migration told Reuters. "It's pretty overwhelming to see what we might be facing in the next 50 years. And it's starting now." Forced migration linked to climate change is part of a larger problem: refugees due to floods, famine, and other environmental conditions. In 2002, the United Nations estimated that there were about 24 million environmental refugees. _By 2010, about 50 million people will have migrated for environmental reasons_ (http://www.enn.com/globe.html?id=1651) , according to a 2005 study by Norman Myers, a professor of environmental science at Duke University in Durham, N.C., the Associated Press reported recently. Thomas Downing, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute, told French news service AFP: "There is going to be a lot of population movement linked to climate. ... Not all will be permanent refugees, but _when you add climate to other forces that push people beyond the capacity to cope_ (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Could_Lead_To_Millions_O f_Climate_Refugees_999.html) , the numbers will increase." While concern is rising for low-lying island nations and sub-Saharan countries especially vulnerable to drought, some experts say climate-caused forced migration already has happened on a large scale in North America – in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute points out that the 2005 hurricane _"forced a million people from the [city] of New Orleans_ (http://sundaytimes.lk/070527/Columns/inside.html) and other small towns on the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts in the United States to move inland, either within states or neighboring states, such as Texas and Arkansas," according to an article in Sri Lanka's The Sunday Times. But the largest numbers of those forced to move by climate change are likely to be in developing countries, especially those threatened by desertification, AFP reported this week after the United Nations' annual World Day to Combat Desertification on June 17. "By 2025, _Africa could lose as much as two-thirds of its arable land_ (http://www.terradaily.com/2007/070615023018.6zxs5ha8.html) compared with 1990, and there could be declines of one-third in Asia and one-fifth in South America. Migration – from the Sahelian regions to the West African coast, from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, from Mexico to the United States – will be an inevitable consequence as poor people are driven off their land." Among the most threatened are people in Bangladesh, reports the Chicago Tribune. Writes Tribune foreign correspondent Laurie Goering: "Bangladesh is hardly the only low-lying nation facing tough times as the world warms. But scientists say it in many ways represents _climate change's 'perfect storm' of challenges_ (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705010817may02,1,703300…) because it is extremely poor, extremely populated, and extremely susceptible.... The extent of Bangladesh's coming problem is evident in Antarpara, a village stuck between the Jamuna and Bangali rivers five hours northwest of Dhaka, the capital. In it and other low-lying villages nearby, more than half of the 3,300 families have lost their land to worsening river erosion. Some have moved their homes a dozen times and are running out of places to flee." Meanwhile, according to a report on the People & the Planet website, "_climate refugees are already fleeing from the catastrophic rise in sea levels" in the Ganges River delta_ (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3036) of India. According to Sugata Hazra, director of Jadavpur University's school of oceanographic studies, over 70,000 people will be rendered homeless in the next 13 years due to the rising seas. By contrast, officials in Israel worry that climate change will mean less water for them. Warns Gidon Bromberg, director of the Israeli office of Friends of the Earth – Middle East, on the website of The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh: "There will be less water available for Israel, but there will also be less water available for Israel's neighbors, and that will make [compliance with] existing peace treaty commitments more difficult between Israel and Jordan. ... And it makes difficult future agreements to be struck between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, between Israel and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon." Thousands of people have died or been driven from their homes in the Darfur region of Sudan, says UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon in a recent column in The Washington Post. Mr. Ban sees _a direct link between social and political unrest in Darfur and its roots in an ecological crisis_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR200706150…) , at least partly attributable to climate change. Ban writes: "Two decades ago, the rain s in southern Sudan began to fail. ... Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming." Similarly, _political instability resulting from climate-caused forced migration is becoming a major concern among senior military officers_ (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/15/america/NA-GEN-US-Global-Warming-…) , reports the International Herald Tribune . In a recent report, retired senior officers warned that in the next 30 to 40 years, wars could be fought over water resources, hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels, and refugees fleeing other effects of global warming. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicted. "We will pay for this one way or another," wrote retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of US forces in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms, and that will involve human lives." ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

CO2 Uptake In The Oceans
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Jun '07

22 Jun '07

CARBON UPTAKE RECONSIDERED.... Approximately half of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning remains in the atmosphere; the rest is absorbed by the ocean or incorporated by the terrestrial biosphere in roughly equal measures. Two studies reassess the uptake of CO2 by these sinks (see the Perspective by _Baker_ (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5832/1708) ). In order to understand the relative role of different parts of the terrestrial biosphere as carbon sinks, global measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration must be interpreted by "inversion" models to determine how uptake, emission, and transport contribute to the seasonal and regional differences. Previous studies have suggested that there must be a strong carbon sink in the Northern Hemisphere, and that the tropics are a net carbon source. Stephens et al. (p. _1732_ (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5832/1732) ) report that global vertical distributions of CO2 in the atmosphere are not consistent with that interpretation but are more consistent with models that show a smaller Northern Hemispheric carbon sink and possibly strong carbon uptake in the tropics. The rate of uptake of CO2 depends on the difference between the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and that which would exist if the ocean and the atmosphere were at equilibrium. Le Quéré et al. (p. _1735_ (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5832/1735) , published online 17 May) report that the rate of uptake by Southern Ocean, one of the most important CO2-absorbing regions, has slowed relative to what would be expected based solely on how fast the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen since 1981. They attribute this shortfall to an increase in windiness over the Southern Ocean that increases the outgassing of natural CO2. The increased windiness has also been ascribed to human activity, and the authors predict that this relative trend will continue. This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 316, Issue 5832 dated June 22 2007 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Urgent. NIETC vote Mon. or Tue.
by Duane330＠aol.com 17 Jun '07

17 Jun '07

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS WHO AREN'T CONNECTED YET. THANKS! Dear Citizen: On April 26, 2007, the Department of Energy issued two draft National Interest Electric Transmission (NIET) Corridor designations. SEE ATTACHMENTS 1 AND 2 for maps of the corridors. If these draft NIET Corridor designations are approved, they would include all or parts of eleven states and the District of Columbia for 12 years or more. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED CONGESTION AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, PARTS OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, THE MIDDLE OF CALIFORNIA, AND SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO THE DOE WEBSITE. All across the country, citizens are expressing serious objection to these draft NIET Corridor designations. Citizens are concerned about the size and life span of the corridors, the process by which they are being considered, and the potential eminent domain and environmental ramifications of the corridors. Even citizens who do not reside in states that would be impacted by these draft NIET Corridor designations are objecting to them. SURELY OUR NATION COULD FORMULATE BETTER 21ST CENTURY ENERGY POLICY THAT WOULD NOT INVOLVE THE DESIGNATION OF MASSIVE NIET CORRIDORS! In response to the draft NIET Corridor designations, Congressman Hinchey (D - New York) and Congressman Wolf (R - Virginia) have co-sponsored an Amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2008, that says: NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE IN THIS ACT MAY BE USED BY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY TO DESIGNATE ANY GEOGRAPHIC AREA AS A NATIONAL INTEREST ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR UNDER SECTION 216(a) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT (AS ADDED BY SECTION 1221 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005), AND NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE IN THIS ACT MAY BE USED BY THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TO TAKE ANY ACTION RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OR ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT UNDER SECTION 216(b) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. This Hinchey/Wolf Amendment would postpone the designation of NIET Corridors for a one-year period. SEE ATTACHMENT 3 FOR THE CONGRESSMEN’S LETTER DATED JUNE 12, 2007, WHICH ADDRESSES THE REASONS WHY YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR CONGRESSWOMAN SHOULD SUPPORT THEIR AMENDMENT. The Hinchey/Wolf Amendment probably will be introduced on the House floor for a vote on Monday or Tuesday of this week. That’s why it’s so important for you to EMAIL AND FAX your Congressman NOW if you oppose the DOE’s draft NIET Corridor designations and if you support the Hinchey/Wolf Amendment. Use this link to email your Congressman and to identify a fax number: _http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/?lvl=L_ (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/?lvl=L) SEE ATTACHMENT 4 FOR SAMPLE LETTERS YOU CAN USE OR MODIFY IN PREPARING YOUR EMAIL AND FAX. Thank you for your attention to this important issue! Barbara Kessinger Haymarket, Virginia PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS WHO AREN'T CONNECTED YET. THANKS! ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Action for Sustainability
by Duane330＠aol.com 31 May '07

31 May '07

EPA TO HOST PHILADELPHIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE [EPA-Region 3]. Philadelphia formally announced its Energy Action Plan for Sustainability, and a new workgroup whose goal is to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in buildings throughout the city. EPA is part of the work group and will host the initial planning event at the regional office on July 18, 19 and 20. EPA collaborated with city officials, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and others to make this happen. Cities are responsible for three-quarters of the world's energy consumption, so Philadelphia has a critical role to play in the reduction of carbon emissions and the reversal of climate change. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

EPA Region 3 Updates
by Duane330＠aol.com 31 May '07

31 May '07

EPA'S BIOLOGY TEAM DETERMINING CAUSE OF FISH KILLS The Wheeling Freshwater Biology Team began conducting a 7-day chronic toxicity test on May 15 for eight sites along the _South Branch of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers_ (http://www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/rivers/potomac-shenandoah.html) to identify the possible source or cause of the mysterious fish kills occurring there. Recent reports of dead and dying fish in the South Branch of the Potomac River are being investigated as is a substantial fish kill in the Shenandoah River and its tributaries in Virginia. Both states are actively cooperating and conducting research. EPA UPDATES AIR QUALITY WEBSITE EPA has made several air quality maps available depicting the current air quality conditions of the Mid-Atlantic region. The maps use the latest Air Quality Index (AQI) values for ozone and particulate matter, and can be found at EPA's "Air Quality" web page at _http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airquality/airquality.htm#currentcond_ (http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airquality/airquality.htm#currentcond) . The AQI describes the daily extent of pollution in the air, what associated health effects might be present, and what health effects may be experienced a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. For more information on the AQI visit EPA's AirNow web site at _http://www.airnow.gov_ (http://www.airnow.gov/) . ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Pennsylvania perspectives on powerline
by Duane330＠aol.com 29 May '07

29 May '07

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DeWeese seeks help on fighting high-voltage lines Thursday, April 26, 2007, By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette WASHINGTON -- Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese yesterday called on Congress to repeal a federal law that could potentially allow energy companies to bypass state approval for the construction of new high-voltage power lines. At issue is Allegheny Power's plans to partner with Dominion Virginia Power in building a 240-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line that would extend from Washington and Greene counties to substations in West Virginia and end in northern Virginia. Allegheny Power is seeking approval from Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission, but the company is also asking the federal government to designate the project as a "national interest electric transmission corridor," or NIETC, meaning construction permits and eminent domain approval could be fast-tracked to circumvent state regulations. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 permits the creation of the electric transmission corridors. "This is an unprecedented usurping of state power," Mr. DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, told a U.S. House committee hearing yesterday. He argued that states have played a central role in approving the building of energy infrastructure "since the invention of the light bulb." He has joined a group of local activists, _stopthetowers.org_ (http://stopthetowers.org/) , in opposing Allegheny Power's Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Project, or TrAIL, which would include new substations at the 502 Junction in Dunkard, southern Greene County, and North Strabane, Washington County. They say the project is unnecessary and would mostly benefit energy-hungry areas in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere. But David Neurohr, spokesman for Allegheny Energy, the parent company of Allegheny Power, said the new line is only aimed at local Pennsylvania energy demands, especially in rapidly growing areas of Washington County. He also noted that the project is mandated by PJM Interconnection, which manages electric transmission services of the Mid-Atlantic power grid in 13 states and Washington, D.C. During yesterday's hearing, local officials and activists from Maine, New York, and Virginia joined Mr. DeWeese in expressing concerns about the new federal law, and they seemed to have the sympathy of Democrats who won control of Congress last year. They're considering several bills that would restore some state powers. "As the law is written, a state may have little or no ability to determine whether a transmission line goes through one of its state parks, a historic battlefield, land protected by conservation easements, or private land," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee hearing. Mr. Neurohr said Allegheny Power is focused on winning Pennsylvania state government approval for its project, even though it is also exploring the option of having the U.S. Department of Energy designate a national interest corridor in the state. "That's a bridge that we'll cross way down the road," he said. Allegheny Power's portion of the line extends about 210 miles at a cost of $820 million, with the total project estimated at more than $1 billion. The smaller portion of the line will be built and paid for by Dominion Virginia Power. Allegheny Power has said it will raise consumer rates to pay for the upgrades. Currently, customers pay 5 percent of their bill for transmission costs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE FORMAT FOR THE PUBLIC MEETINGS IN JUNE WILL BE AS PRESENTED IN THE FOLLOWING INTERNET WEB SITE: _http://www.energetics.com/NIETCpublicmeetings/_ (http://www.energetics.com/NIETCpublicmeetings/) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the allegheny front News Analysis: Proposed National Electric Transmission Corridors Raise Questions Ann Murray, Air date: 05/16/2007 OPEN: After the big electrical blackouts a few years ago, the US Department of Energy studied which parts of the country need the most help getting additional power to communities. The DOE has just proposed two National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. The proposed Mid-Atlantic Area Corridor passes through Pennsylvania and surrounding states. Ann Murray joins me to talk about questions being raised about these power pathways. M: What does the DOE mean by calling these electrical corridors National Interest Electric Transmission corridors? A: The federal government believes these corridors- pathways for electrical transmission- serve the entire country in the sense that electrical power loss affects the national economy. In an effort to speed up development of major energy transmission lines that would help feed an always growing energy demand in the US, the federal government is trying to make the necessary lands available. M: How would the federal government make sure land is available for transmission lines? A: If corridor designations are approved, the DOE would set up a process that lets local governments, industries, individuals, and others haggle over energy transmission corridors for a period of time, then allow the federal or state government to sanction the use of eminent domain if necessary to make sure the corridors work on county, city, and private lands. M: How did the federal government get the authority to condemn land for transmission lines? A: It's the so-called "backstop" siting authority that Congress granted to the agency in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 It gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the right to issue permits for construction of transmission lines and condemn right of way for those transmission lines. Until now, only state regulators and siting authorities possessed this authority. M: Eminent domain is a really controversial approach for securing land. I assume that prospect has raised some hackles? A: Yes, the prospect of government seizing property doesn't sit well with a lot of people including some local governments, people in Congress. The DOE is now taking comments during a public comment period that will run through July 6th. M: I understand that the DOE says because the current electrical grid is aged and stressed, the agency plans to be more assertive about getting these kinds of projects rolling. A: Yes, that right. US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said in a recent press meeting that the government would take a more aggressive role in energy projects opposed by local groups. I'm quoting here:"The parochial interests that shaped energy policy in the 20th century will no longer work." M: There will be a public hearing in Pittsburgh to talk about the proposed corridor. When will that happen? A: The DOE hasn't announced the exact date but has said that the hearing will take place next month. Hearing are also underway in Washington,DC and New York and on the West Coast. M: The West Coast hearings cover the other proposed corridor? A: Yes, the other corridor is proposed for areas in the Southwest through California, Arizona and Nevada. M: How did the DOE decide where electric transmission corridors are needed? A: The agency did a study in 2005 that looked for areas on the electrical grid that are clogged and need additional pathways to get power. The DOE is charged with doing similar studies every three years. M: Will there be an environmental impact assessment on the land included for the proposed corridors? A: DOE contends that there's no need for an environmental assessment of these corridors, since they don't involve a proposal to build a specific line or any siting decisions. But the agency concedes that an environmental assessment of some type would be needed if a specific line is proposed within a corridor. The National Corridor designations don't necessarily mandate building new lines since the process still allows for other ways of reducing demand like conservation, improved energy efficiency, or locating extra generation close to customers. M: Where does the proposed corridor run through Pennsylvania? A: Through all the counties except in the north central and northwestern part of the state. M: Will the DOE designate other national power corridors ? A: Right now,there aren't any immediate plans to designate a National Corridor anywhere else in the country. M: Could trends in generation of alternative energy have any effect on building transmission lines? A: Trends in decentralized energy could make the need for transmission lines less relevant. Some energy experts predict that energy sources will become smaller and more localized by using solar, geothermal and wind power. M: Thanks , Ann. A: You're welcome, Matthew. More information about the proposed corridors and how to comment are on our web site alleghenyfront.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Power line project has wider relevance New Allegheny Power application asks for another transmission line Sunday, May 27, 2007, By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette As protesters and publicists alike gear up for state and federal hearings into plans for a high-voltage power line through Washington and Greene counties, it's become apparent that the consequences of the project could be felt statewide.Allegheny Power submitted an application last month to the state Public Utility Commission, seeking approval for the construction of 37 miles of 500-kilovolt power lines from a substation to be built in North Strabane, called Prexy, to a substation planned for Dunkard, Greene County. It also wants to build three 138-kilovolt power lines that would extend outward from the Prexy station. The project is part of a 240-mile transmission line to extend from Pennsylvania to existing substations in West Virginia and end in northern Virginia. The company has submitted a similar application to West Virginia. The Virginia portion of the line will be built by Dominion Virginia power company. Allegheny's portion of the total project extends about 210 miles at a cost of $820 million, with the total project estimated at more than $1 billion. As part of its review process, the PUC will conduct public hearings to determine if there is a need for additional power in the region and whether Allegheny Power has the best solution. Complaints from ratepayers and property owners are to be submitted to the PUC by Tuesday. The hearings, expected this summer, haven't been scheduled. All those who protest the project may offer comment at the hearings, even if they haven't filed a written complaint. A grass-roots organization that opposes the project, Stop the Towers, plans to fight the plan on two levels. The group, along with the more than 4,000 people who have signed petitions opposing the power lines, will protest the location of the line, which would affect hundreds of property owners. A newly formed legislative branch of the group, called the Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania, will litigate the need for the power line and concentrate its efforts on lobbying. Local opposition leaders say it's vital to win the battle with the PUC, especially because of federal intervention, and because other Pennsylvania communities could be facing the same issues soon. "If we don't win this in front of the PUC, we've lost," said Robbie Matesic, executive director of the Greene County Planning and Economic Development Department. If the project is turned down by the PUC, it could kick in a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that allows the federal government to override state and local laws in certain cases. Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy designated a large swath of the northeastern United States., including 50 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties, as a potential "national interest electric transmission corridor," or NIETC. If the designation is approved by the DOE, it clears the way for the federal government to step in. If a state withholds construction approval for more than one year, denies approval, or if too many conditions are placed on construction of electric transmission lines within a NIETC, the federal government can intervene and approve the project. The law also authorizes the taking of private property by eminent domain for rights of way. Efforts to repeal that portion of the Energy Act are under way in Congress, including a bill recently co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, who, like most other public officials in southwestern Pennsylvania, opposes the project. The DOE is planning a public hearing for the Pittsburgh area next month on the NIETC designation. Rebecca Foley, of Jefferson, Greene County, said she and about 20 other Pennsylvania and West Virginia residents chartered a bus to attend a NIETC hearing May 15 in Virginia. She said she spoke briefly to DOE panelists and said they were "visibly moved" by the testimony from people who would be affected by the power line. Greene and Washington county commissioners have said the power line is becoming the most significant grass-roots issue in their memory. "People are concerned about the environmental issues for our children and what government does to property owners," Greene County Commissioner Pam Snyder said. The local power line issue also is seen as a harbinger of several other transmission projects being proposed for the state. The local upgrade was mandated by PJM Interconnection, which manages electric transmission services of the Mid-Atlantic power grid in 13 states and Washington, D.C. The line is part of PJM's five-year regional electric transmission plan, meant to address future energy needs at certain points in the grid. As part of a longer range 15-year plan, PJM is considering several additional proposals, including a joint venture between Allegheny Power and American Electric Power that calls for a $3 billion, 550-mile, 765-kilovolt transmission "superhighway," beginning at the Amos power station in Putnam County, in western West Virginia. It would travel through Maryland and southeastern Pennsylvania and end in Middlesex County, N.J. AEP also proposed a line closer to home, from Kammer-Mitchell power plant near Moundsville, W.Va., into Pennsylvania to the Prexy substation in North Strabane. From there, the line would traverse Central Pennsylvania to Conemaugh power plant in West Wheatfield, Indiana County, ending near the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg. In Ohio, north of the Kammer-Mitchell plant, AEP proposed a line into Western Pennsylvania to the Keystone power plant in Shelocta, Armstrong County, east to the Sunbury Power Plant near Shamokin Dam in Snyder County. PJM spokesman Ray Dotter said the proposals and routes haven't been finalized and only are under consideration. "They are being analyzed," he said. "It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen." Local opponents of the project cite concern about property values, quality of life, and health and safety. They have questioned the need for the power lines and the rate increases that will go with it. Allegheny Power says the plan, called the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Project, or TrAIL, is necessary to address power shortages in the East, and to provide additional power to the developing areas of central and northern Washington County, which could begin to experience rolling blackouts and brownouts within a few years if nothing is done. In its application to the PUC, Allegheny Power outlined four reasons the power line was needed, each involving the failure of existing 138-kilovolt lines because of demand. The outages would be widespread, and likely to occur during the early evening hours on hot days. "When it gets to be a hot day, everybody turns on their air conditioners," said David Neurohr, Allegheny Power spokesman. "If the existing 138-kilovolt system goes, the lights will go out," he said. But, Stop the Towers members and local officials have argued that Washington County has more than enough power for years to come, and that the company's intention is to tap local power plants for low-cost, coal-generated energy to ship to the power-strapped Eastern U.S., where energy plants are closing without being replaced. Even though the local plan is outlined in detail in the PUC application, it isn't mentioned at all in the application last year to the DOE, asking that the area be designated as a NIETC. Mr. Dotter said the reason was the DOE was looking at the issue from a regional perspective. The agency is trying to supply power to the East Coast, from New York to northern Virginia, an area which it identified as in "critical" need of more power in a study done last summer. "Everything is tied together," Mr. Dotter said. It's clear that power is no longer a local issue. Planning occurs on a regional level and ,perhaps, the best evidence for its necessity came in August 2003, when a downed tree near Cleveland resulted in a widespread blackout from New York to Canada. "The grid is like a net," Mr. Dotter said. "It pulls everything together." Mr. Dotter said that, while PJM can't force companies to build power plants, it can and does order new transmission lines built to serve power needs wherever necessary. The company has no stake in who builds the lines or how it's accomplished, only that the job gets done. "Whether the line gets built or not, we don't make money. We don't make money, period," Mr. Dotter said. "Our goal is to keep the lights on. We have to look at the needs and make that determination." ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Big Subsidies for Coal proposed..........
by Duane330＠aol.com 29 May '07

29 May '07

Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process New York Times, May 29, 2007, By _EDMUND L. ANDREWS_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/edmund_l_andre… er) WASHINGTON, May 28 — Even as Congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases linked to _global warming_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…) , a powerful roster of Democrats and _Republicans_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republi…) is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels. Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years. With both House and Senate Democrats hoping to pass “energy independence” bills by mid-July, coal supporters argue that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline and potentially greener than ethanol. “For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word,” said Representative Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. “These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand.” Environmental groups are adamantly opposed, warning that coal-based diesel fuels would at best do little to slow global warming and at worst would produce almost twice as much of the greenhouse gases tied to global warming as petroleum. Coal companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy independence and reduced global warming. But the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol. Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel. Coal companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying on the issue, and have marshaled allies in organized labor, the Air Force and fuel-burning industries like the airlines. _Peabody Energy_ (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com… ymb=BTU) , the world’s biggest coal company, urged in a recent advertising campaign that people “imagine a world where our country runs on energy from Middle America instead of the Middle East.” Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat whose district is dominated by coal mining, is writing key sections of the House energy bill. In the Senate, champions of coal-to-liquid fuels include _Barack Obama_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/i… t-per) , the Illinois Democrat, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans. President Bush has not weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he has carefully referred to the need for “alternative” fuels rather than “renewable” fuels. Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal. The political momentum to subsidize coal fuels is in odd juxtaposition to simultaneous efforts by Democrats to draft global-warming bills that would place new restrictions on coal-fired electric power plants. The move reflects a tension, which many lawmakers gloss over, between slowing global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Many analysts say the huge coal reserves of the United States could indeed provide a substitute for foreign oil. The technology to convert coal into liquid fuel is well-established, and the fuel can be used in conventional diesel cars and trucks, as well as jet engines, boats and ships. Industry executives contend that the fuels can compete against gasoline if oil prices are about $50 a barrel or higher. But coal-to-liquid fuels produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Coal industry executives insist their fuel can actually be cleaner than oil, because they would capture the gas produced as the liquid fuel is being made and store it underground. Some could be injected into oil fields to push oil to the surface. Several aspiring coal-to-liquid companies say that they would reduce greenhouse emissions even further by using renewable fuels for part of the process. But none of that has been done at commercial volumes, and many analysts say the economic issues are far from settled. “There are many uncertainties,” said James T. Bartis, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, who testified last week before the Senate Energy Committee. “We don’t even know what the costs are yet.” The clash between “energy independence” and global warming will break into the open next month. The Senate energy bill, being drafted by Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, would promote renewable fuels — but not coal-to-liquid fuels — and would require electric utilities to produce 15 percent of their power with renewable fuels by 2020. But coal-state Republicans have vowed to resume their push for coal incentives when the bill reaches the Senate floor, and many Democrats are likely to support them. In the House, Democrats like Mr. Boucher and Mr. Rahall will be pushing in the same direction. But some energy experts, as well as some lawmakers, worry that the scale of the coal-to-liquid incentives could lead to a repeat of a disastrous effort 30 years ago to underwrite a synthetic fuels industry from scratch. When oil prices plunged in the 1980s, the government-owned Synthetic Fuels Corporation became a giant government albatross that lost billions and remains a symbol of misguided industrial policy more than 25 years later. “This is the snake oil of energy alternatives,” said Peter Altman, a policy analyst at the National Environmental Trust, an environmental advocacy group. “The promises are just as lofty and the substance is just as absent as the first snake oil salesmen who plied their trade in the 1800s.” Coal executives contend that the technology for converting coal to “ ultraclean” diesel fuel for use in cars and trucks has been around for decades. Known as the Fischer-Tropsch process, the technology dates to the 1920s. It was used by Germany during World War II and by South Africa during the apartheid era, in both cases because the countries were blocked by international embargoes from buying oil. SASOL, a South African chemical conglomerate, is the world’s largest producer of coal-based liquids and operates a plant that produces 150,000 barrels a day. “Greener and cleaner — we can do it, and we will do it,” said John Baardson, president of Baard Energy, a firm in Vancouver, Wash., that is trying to build a $4 billion coal-to-liquid plant in Ohio. But no company has built a commercial-scale plant that also captures carbon, and experts caution that many obstacles lie ahead. “At best, you’re going to tread water on the carbon issue, and you’re probably going to do worse,” said Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at the _Massachusetts Institute of Technology_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/massach…. html?inline=nyt-org) and a co-author of “The Future of Coal,” a voluminous study published in March by M.I.T. “It goes against the whole grain of reducing carbon.” The M.I.T. team expressed even more skepticism about the economic risks. It estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. The study estimates that the construction costs for coal-to-liquid plants are almost four times higher than the costs for comparable petroleum refineries, and it argues that cost estimates for synthetic fuel plants in the past turned out to be “wildly optimistic.” In a new report last week, the Energy Department estimated that a plant capable of making 50,000 barrels of liquefied coal a day — a tiny fraction of the nearly 9 million barrels in gasoline burned daily in the United States — would cost $4.5 billion. But the Energy Department also estimated that such a plant could produce a 20 percent annual return if oil prices remain about $60 a barrel. Coal executives say that they need government help primarily because oil prices are so volatile and the upfront construction costs are so high. “We’re not asking for everything. All we’re asking for is something,” said Hunt Ramsbottom, chief executive of _Rentech Inc._ (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com… &symb=RTK) , which is trying to build two plants at mines owned by Peabody Energy. But coal executives anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two years ago that the value of Peabody’s coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to $3.6 trillion, if it sold all its coal in the form of liquid fuels. Coal industry lobbying has reached a fever pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006, three times what it spent each year from 2000 through 2004, according to calculations by _Politicalmoneyline.com_ (http://politicalmoneyline.com/) . Peabody, which has quadrupled its annual lobbying budget to about $2 million since 2004, recently hired _Richard A. Gephardt_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/richard_a_geph…) , the Missouri Democrat who was House majority leader from 1989 to 1995 and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2004, to help make its case in Congress. One of the most vociferous champions of coal-to-liquid fuels is the Southern States Energy Board, a group organized by governors from 16 states. Last year, the group published a study, which cost $500,000, that concluded that coal-to-liquid fuel could and should replace almost one-third of imported oil by 2030. As it happens, the coal industry supplied much of the financing for the study and subsequent marketing. Peabody Energy contributed about $150,000 and the National Mining Association added $50,000, officials at the Southern States Energy Board said. The inducements under discussion would not only subsidize up to 10 coal-to-liquid plants, but also guarantee a minimum market through long-term contracts with the Air Force and minimum prices for at least some producers. “There is financial uncertainty, which is inhibiting the flow of private capital into the construction of coal-to-liquid facilities,” said Mr. Boucher, who supports most of the proposals and is drafting portions of the energy bill. In addition to construction loan guarantees, Mr. Boucher would protect the first six liquid plants from drops in energy prices. If oil prices fell below about $40 a barrel, the government would automatically grant loans to the first six plants that make coal-based fuels. If oil prices climbed to $80 a barrel, companies would have to pay a surcharge to the government. But the most important guarantee, many coal producers said, is the prospect of signing 25-year purchase contracts with the Air Force. The Air Force consumes about 2.6 billion gallons a year of jet fuel, and Air Force officials would like to switch as much as 780 million gallons a year to coal-based fuels. Air Force officials strongly support the idea of extremely long contracts, but others at the Defense Department worry that the military could be left holding the bag for years if oil prices dropped significantly. For Mr. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, there is no reason to be timid. “If America has the will to be one of the great energy centers of the world,” he told an industry conference last year, “we have the resources right under our feet.” ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC