EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fw: Ken Ward in DAILY UPDATE 14 February 2012.
by James Kotcon 20 Feb '12

20 Feb '12

Sorry, I just ran across this. ken ward is one of the best environmental reporters in the state, and his blog is a must-read for anyone following the coal industry. I highlighted a key sentence in red. Thanks to Don Strimbeck for his daily round-up of the news. Jim Kotcon >>> "Donald C. Strimbeck" dcsoinks(a)comcast.net> 2/14/2012 4:05 AM >> ( mailto:dcsoinks@comcast.net ) Charleston Gazette Tuesday 14 February 2012: Hoppy Kercheval continues pro-coal ‘puffery’ February 13, 2012 by Ken Ward Jr. It’s really no wonder that so many West Virginia political leaders won’t confront the coming crisis in our state’s coalfields. ( http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2012/02/10/states-energy-spin-ignores… ) That’s especially so if you just look at the media coverage these issues generally get from most of the state’s newspapers, television stations and radio outlets. There have been some noticeable improvements of late ( http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/10/13/wake-up-call-more-media-st… ), but my buddy Hoppy Kercheval’s latest West Virginia MetroNews commentary shows how far our media have to go in doing their job of forcing powerful interests to confront what is — and perhaps isn’t — in the public interest. Hoppy’s headline is “Environmental puffery ( http://www.wvmetronews.com/hoppy.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=50873 ),” and it focuses on the Sierra Club reaction to last week’s announcement of power plant closings by FirstEnergy ( http://wvgazette.com/News/MiningtheMountains/201202080125 ). Hoppy writes: The closings are a tough blow for those communities; jobs are lost and tax revenue from the utilities will dry up. “This is going to take a pretty big chunk out of the operating budget of the town,” said Rivesville Mayor Jim Hershman, who worked at the power plant for 25 years. The Sierra Club is positively euphoric. The environmental organization’s “Beyond Coal” campaign is geared toward shutting down all coal-fired power plants. “The retirements represent a major improvement in the lives of local residents, who have been exposed to pollution from these plants for decades,” read a statement from the Sierra Club. I suspect the Sierra Club might have trouble getting laid off workers or the leaders of a community that will have trouble paying the bills for street lights to join them in the victory dance. Now, there’s no question that some people within the Sierra Club are pretty darned tone-deaf when it comes to how their campaigns are viewed in communities that still rely so heavily on the coal industry … for example, one of the group’s bloggers and magazine writers posted on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/#!/paulrauber ) after the First Energy announcement: Boom boom boom, another one bites the dust… But Hoppy’s commentary didn’t mention that the Sierra Club also hosted a meeting in Albright ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/16534879/with-planning-power-plant-closur… ), one of the communities where FirstEnergy is closing a plant, to try to get the conversation going about how the closure might impact local residents and what alternatives might be once that closure happened. The effort was modeled after a successful collaboration in Washington state, where a coal plant closure was phased in and the company put together a $50 million fund to help ease the impacts and move toward cleaner energy. In West Virginia, Sierra Club officials tried to get FirstEnergy involved in such an effort in Preston County — but the company couldn’t be bothered to show up for a town meeting. Hoppy also took the Morgantown City Council to task for approving a resolution in support of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to deal with the climate crisis: So Jackson, who has done more than any one individual in recent history to undermine fossil fuel production in this country, now has the town fathers in the middle of coal and gas country on her side. And the City of Morgantown is doing its best United Nations imitation. And he wraps it all up by arguing that coal isn’t going away anytime soon, citing recent statements from new AEP CEO Nick Akins: The inevitable energy transition that’s taking place in this country is going to be a long, drawn out affair. American Electric Power President and CEO Nick Atkins said earlier this week “We’ll still need coal” for the foreseeable future. “If someone is trying to eliminate that, it’s just not going to happen.” Maybe the adversaries of fossil fuels actually know that, which is why they are reduced to relishing their small victories and embellishing their meaningless symbolism. As did other media who quotes Akins without reservation, Hoppy ignores that, while coal overall is expected to remain a major part of the energy picture ( http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4950 ), production from Appalachian — especially Central Appalachia — is expected to decline significantly over the next 25 years ( http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/01/19/must-read-report-the-decli… ). No honest forecast ignores this trend — but Hoppy, much of the media, and West Virginia political leaders insist on pretending this crisis isn’t waiting out there for us. I tuned into my local MetroNews station this morning, to see if perhaps Hoppy was going to be talking about what state officials should be doing to plan for the coming coal collapse … but all I heard was a Friends of Coal ad. This entry was posted on Monday, February 13, 2012 at 10:47 am

1 0

Fwd: AAAS Science Meeting Coverage on Fracking
by Paul Wilson 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Dow <DDOW420(a)comcast.net> Date: Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM Subject: AAAS Science Meeting Coverage on Fracking [image: Sciencenow Logo][image: Up to the minutes news from science][image: Main Image]<http://app.aaas-science.org/e/er?s=1906&lid=12192&elq=f9bed8ca410a4a6382e9e…>Mixed Verdict on Fracking<http://app.aaas-science.org/e/er?s=1906&lid=12192&elq=f9bed8ca410a4a6382e9e…> No evidence that hydraulic fracturing for gas contaminates groundwater, report finds, but problems exist at the surface. -- 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

Energy Efficient West Virginia Alert!
by Jim Sconyers 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

Important - We need to help two very important energy bills - now! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Molly McLaughlin <molly.eewv(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:25 PM Subject: [eewv] Energy Efficient West Virginia: February 13 Weekly Update To: eewv(a)lists.riseup.net Be sure to visit and share EEWV's website - www.eewv.org - so you can stay up to date on Energy Efficiency during the legislative session. Here is this week's update! * * *Take Action! Email Senator Palumbo!* * * *Support Least Cost Planning Legislation by emailing Senator Palumbo *at corey.palumbo(a)wvsenate.gov. Appalachian Power, Mon Power and Potomac Edison are working hard to stop this bill, but we can't let them. Email Senator Palumbo and let him know you want him to support lower utility rates. Here is a sample of what to say in your email: *Hi Senator Palumbo, > > Please put a strong version of SB162, the Integrated Resource Planning > bill, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for a vote. We need a > bill that requires power companies to identify the resources that will > serve customers at the "lowest system cost" so that the PSC can effectively > manage electric rates. > > Least cost planning will save us money. Putting a strong version of this > bill on the agenda will show you’re against rate increases. Please pass > Senate Bill 162 without amendments.* > *Email Senator Palumbo today. <corey.palumbo(a)wvsenate.gov>* Once you've emailed him, send this email to your friends and family so that they can support S.B. 162 and lower utility rates, too. * * *Legislative Update* - The Least Cost Planning Bill, S.B. 162, has not been put on the agenda for the Senate Judiciary Committee yet, despite the support of the majority of committee members, because of opposition from the power companies. These companies know that West Virginians are upset about the drastic electricity rate increases, but don't want to stop. *Now, more than ever, it is important that you call Senator Palumbo and insist he run a strong S.B. 162. * See the action alert above for how you can email Senator Palumbo in support of this bill. Here is a link to the bill<http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb162%20int…> . - The Energy Efficiency Resource Standard Bill has not been introduced yet.* We need you to email Delegate Miley and the other members of the House Judiciary Committee and pressure them to put this bill on the agenda. *Here's how <http://www.eewv.org/contacting-your-legislators>. We'll let you know as soon as the bill is introduced. *Energy Efficiency "Call your Legislators" Lunch!* * * *Who: *YOU! *What:* Energy Efficiency "Call your Legislators" Lunch *When: *February 16, 11AM - 1PM *Where:* Downstream Strategies 295 High Street Morgantown, WV Lunch will be provided. Link to the Facebook Event<https://www.facebook.com/events/364150090261978/> . Join Energy Efficient West Virginia (EEWV) on February 16 from 11AM - 1PM to learn about two energy efficiency related bills the WV State Legislature is considering this year and to call your legislators and let them know West Virginians NEED Energy Efficiency. Over t*he past three years, the average West Virginian’s utility bill has increased by 30-60%. Many families in West Virginia spend one-fourth of their incomes on utilities and rates are still increasing. Something needs to change. Energy efficiency in West Virginia will lower utility bills, create jobs and make our state healthier and happier to live in.* * * *Join EEWV as we learn about these bills and the potential of energy efficiency in West Virginia and then call our legislators and let them know West Virginians NEED energy efficiency.* Because lunch will be provided, please RSVP to molly.eewv(a)gmail.com if you plan to attend. *Questions?* Email Molly at molly.eewv(a)gmail.com or visit our website at www.eewv.org. -- Molly McLaughlin Energy Efficient West Virginia www.eewv.org -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

2 1

Fwd: Intro to Efficiency and Utility Rate Making
by Jim Sconyers 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Becki Clayborn <becki.clayborn(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:19 PM Subject: Intro to Efficiency and Utility Rate Making To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org To: Coal-Campaign-Alerts(a)lists.sierraclub.org From: Jen Miller via Becki Clayborn Save the Date! Intro to Efficiency and Utility Rate Making March 8, 2012 @ 3PM EST and 8PM EST In traditional utility rate making, a utility makes more money when it sells more power. As coal fighters and efficiency advocates, we need to advocate for a new utility business model which prioritizes investments in energy efficiency and helps us retire coal and other dirty forms of energy. This introductory webinar is for Sierrans only and will be taught by a champion for the environment and consumers, Janine Migden Ostrander of the Regulatory Assistance Project. Building upon our recent Energy Efficiency 101 webinar, Janine will teach us the basics about energy efficiency and ratemaking. We will learn about different incentive mechanisms, decoupling, and much more. Watch for a future email with registration information! thanks jen -- Jen Miller (614)563-9543 Senior Campaign Representative for Energy Efficiency Sierra Club National Beyond Coal Campaign pst....My work is now national, but I'm still based in Columbus( the Eastern Time Zone)! -- Becki Clayborn Beyond Coal Campaign Internal Capacities and Communications Coordinator Chicago, IL 312-251-1680 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

2 1

Fw: PATH Disappears from AEP Investor Call
by Frank Young 12 Feb '12

12 Feb '12

WordPress.com ----- Original Message ----- From: The Power Line To: fyoung(a)mountain.net Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:56 PM Subject: [New post] PATH Disappears from AEP Investor Call New post on The Power Line PATH Disappears from AEP Investor Call by Bill Some of us read the quarterly investor call transcripts, so you don't have to. Here is the latest from AEP. You can also find the accompanying slide show at this link. One thing you won't find in Nick Akins' presentation or in his slide show is any mention of PATH. Look at slides 14 and 39 where Akins touts AEP's transmission joint ventures. See PATH there? Didn't think so. It looks like AEP has moved on. As Mr. Akins says, we helped AEP "refocus" their transmission strategy away from big projects: Unlike previous presentations where we were dealing with long-term-type projects, it was very difficult to project out the earnings potential of transmission. Everyone wondered, "Well, okay, when, it's great to talk about the project, but when are the earnings going to happen?" And our transmission organization has been refocused on developing those short-term projects and real projects through the Transco development and specific joint ventures associated with smaller, less-lead-time, more -- less-risky projects, going forward. And We fully expect transmission to continue to increase at this, at a pretty rapid rate, but we want to make sure that we only show you the projects we actually know of. And then there's other joint-venture projects that are in discussions, as you might suspect, because AEP is a great partner, people recognize AEP is a great partner. "[P]rojects we actually know of?" So you don't "know of" PATH, or you have forgotten about it? And how did you like that "great partner" stuff? Akins also states that AEP will be trying to get their AEP Transco recognized as a utility in WV. One more item from the conference call that should interest WV rate payers. AEP is selling all of Ohio Power's share in the John Amos power plant and the Mitchell plant near Moundsville to Appalachian Power. That means that APCo's capital rate base will increase, which will surely lead to another big APCo base rate increase on top of the big increases of the last five years. Akins says this increase will be offset by increased capacity payments that will be captured by APCo, but that remains to be seen. Bill | February 11, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Tags: Power Companies & PATH | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/piwFb-1ud Comment See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://calhounpowerline.com/2012/02/11/path-disappears-from-aep-investor-ca… Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

1 0

Marcellus Zoning Meeting
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 11 Feb '12

11 Feb '12

This is the next strategy Morgantown is looking at in regards to the Shale Gas industry. This is a public meeting., everyone is invited. Below sent by Heather Digman: The City of Morgantown will hold a workshop to discuss proposed zoning regulations regarding Extractive Industries on Monday February 20th at 6pm in City Council Chambers. As a key stakeholder in this industry we would like to invite you to please attend this workshop. Thank you, and please contact me with any questions, comments, or ideas. Heather Extractive Industries Planning and Zoning Workshop Planning Commission President Peter DeMasters has, in accordance with the Planning Commission's Bylaws, duly called a workshop. The purpose of the workshop will be to study the issue of extractive industries under the Planning and Zoning Code. Workshops are not considered regular or special meetings and may not include the formal conduct of business, the rendering of decisions, or taking action for which the Commission is charged. Workshops are open to the public and are intended to serve as training, study, public education, etc. Heather Whitmore Dingman, AICP Principal Planner City of Morgantown, WV 304.284.7431 <tel:304.284.7431>

1 0

WV Press on plant closings
by James Kotcon 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Thanks to Don Strimbeck for collecting these. We might want to consider how to capitalize on the quote below from First Energy. They want to blame the closure on EPA rules, but the reality is they can't even justify further maintenance, let alone needed pollution controls. But they do get to mislead politicians like our Governor who are looking for excuses to curry favor with the coal industry. How might we on the front lines use media to highlight this disconnect? (I share Jim Sconyer's concern that this has to be about local people, the Bloomberg contribution is being used to attack us here). "FirstEnergy spokesman Mark Durbin said his company chose the closer closure date because it couldn't justify additional capital expenditures for maintenance and other projects at the West Virginia plants if they were going to close in a few years anyway." Jim Kotcon P.S. I wonder if that quote is an acknowledgment that they knew they were going to lose on the coal ash lawsuit? Charleston Gazette: February 8, 2012 3 W.Va. plants latest to close under utility restructuring By Ken Ward Jr. ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/contact/xjneq+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/2012… ) The Charleston Gazette CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Three FirstEnergy power plants in West Virginia will close in September in the latest move by a utility to shutter decades-old units that can't meet new federal air quality standards that limit mercury and other toxic pollutants. Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy said it would shut down the Albright Power Station in Preston County, the Rivesville Power Station in Marion County and the Willow Island Power Station in Pleasants County. Together, seven boilers at the three plants have electric generating capacity of about 660 megawatts, about the equivalent of a medium-sized modern coal plant. All three facilities date back to the 1940s and 1950s. They were not equipped with the latest pollution control devices, and FirstEnergy used all three in recent years on a very limited basis to provide power in times of peak demand. James R. Haney, president of West Virginia operations for FirstEnergy, cited high costs to implement the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as the reason for his company's action. FirstEnergy said 105 employees at the plants are affected, but that some will be considered for openings within the company or may accept special retirement packages. The EPA air toxics rule has become a new focus for industry officials, coalfield business groups and regional political leaders who complain the Obama administration is waging a "war on coal" aimed at shutting down all mining. "This is another example of how the EPA is costing us good jobs in West Virginia and throughout Appalachia," Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said in a prepared statement. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson says the rule was needed to cut emissions of mercury and toxic air pollutants like arsenic and cyanide. EPA estimates the new standards will prevent up to 96 premature deaths in West Virginia, while creating up to $790 million in health benefits in 2016. Also, EPA officials note that proven pollution controls are already available -- and in use at more than half of the nation's power plants -- to meet the new limits. FirstEnergy, for example, has announced no plans to close three of its much larger plants in West Virginia, Fort Martin Power Station in Monongalia County, Harrison Power Station north of Clarksburg, and Pleasants Power Station, located adjacent to Willow Island. Each of those facilities has nearly twice the generating capacity of the three plants targeted for closure combined. Each has been outfitted with expensive scrubbers that, while designed to cut sulfur dioxide emissions, help reduce air toxics as well. "When the older coal-fired plants are retired and removed from FirstEnergy's competitive and regulated generating fleet, nearly 100 percent of the power provided will come from resources that are non- or low-emitting, including nuclear, hydro, pumped-storage hydro, natural gas and scrubbed coal units," FirstEnergy said in a prepared statement. Last month, the West Virginia Sierra Club sponsored a meeting in Preston County, to try to begin a discussion among local citizens and FirstEnergy about the Albright plant's future, the impact of a potential closure, and other economic opportunities for the area. FirstEnergy officials did not attend, because the company had not yet announced a final decision on the facility. "Our goal was to engage FirstEnergy in a discussion about beginning a transition to cleaner energy sources," said the Sierra Club's Jim Kotcon. "There is a lot of concern there. FirstEnergy is a major taxpayer in the county." Kotcon said the meeting was modeled in part after work the Sierra Club did that led to a deal last year with TransAlta to phase out Washington State's only coal-fired power plant and create a $60 million fund to help the community there transition away from economic reliance on the facility. "We think something like that has to happen in a lot of areas," Kotcon said. "We see a continued decision to reduce use of coal-fired electricity as the health impacts become more obvious. Kotcon noted that FirstEnergy's closure date for the three West Virginia plants, as well as six other plants in Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania, was Sept. 1, 2012, two years before the first compliance dates in EPA's new air toxics rule. FirstEnergy spokesman Mark Durbin said his company chose the closer closure date because it couldn't justify additional capital expenditures for maintenance and other projects at the West Virginia plants if they were going to close in a few years anyway. But when American Electric Power announced similar plant closures in West Virginia, it set the deadline as Dec. 31, 2014, when the EPA rules were expected to kick in. Kotcon said public officials and companies in the coalfields need to give workers and communities more time to ease such transitions as coal production drops and more plants move away from coal. "It's important to being the path toward transition so we don't end up with more communities where a company just announces they are closing a plant," Kotcon said. Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...(a)wvgazette.com ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/contact/xjneq+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/2012… ) or 304-348-1702. "When the older coal-fired plants are retired and removed from FirstEnergy's competitive and regulated generating fleet, nearly 100 percent of the power provided will come from resources that are non- or low-emitting, including nuclear, hydro, pumped-storage hydro, natural gas and scrubbed coal units," FirstEnergy said in a prepared statement. Last month, the West Virginia Sierra Club sponsored a meeting in Preston County, to try to begin a discussion among local citizens and FirstEnergy about the Albright plant's future, the impact of a potential closure, and other economic opportunities for the area. FirstEnergy officials did not attend, because the company had not yet announced a final decision on the facility. "Our goal was to engage FirstEnergy in a discussion about beginning a transition to cleaner energy sources," said the Sierra Club's Jim Kotcon. "There is a lot of concern there. FirstEnergy is a major taxpayer in the county." Kotcon said the meeting was modeled in part after work the Sierra Club did that led to a deal last year with TransAlta to phase out Washington State's only coal-fired power plant and create a $60 million fund to help the community there transition away from economic reliance on the facility. "We think something like that has to happen in a lot of areas," Kotcon said. "We see a continued decision to reduce use of coal-fired electricity as the health impacts become more obvious. Kotcon noted that FirstEnergy's closure date for the three West Virginia plants, as well as six other plants in Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania, was Sept. 1, 2012, two years before the first compliance dates in EPA's new air toxics rule. FirstEnergy spokesman Mark Durbin said his company chose the closer closure date because it couldn't justify additional capital expenditures for maintenance and other projects at the West Virginia plants if they were going to close in a few years anyway. But when American Electric Power announced similar plant closures in West Virginia, it set the deadline as Dec. 31, 2014, when the EPA rules were expected to kick in. Kotcon said public officials and companies in the coalfields need to give workers and communities more time to ease such transitions as coal production drops and more plants move away from coal. "It's important to being the path toward transition so we don't end up with more communities where a company just announces they are closing a plant," Kotcon said. Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...(a)wvgazette.com ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/contact/xjneq+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/2012… ) or 304-348-1702. THE STATE JOURNAL: FirstEnergy to snuff Albright, Rivesville, Willow Island plants Posted: Feb 08, 2012 10:20 AM EST Updated: Feb 08, 2012 1:21 PM EST By Pam Kasey FirstEnergy announced Feb. 8 that 105 employees will be affected when its Monongahela Power Co. subsidiary retires its three oldest, least efficient and most polluting power plants in the state later this year. Albright Power Station in Preston County, Willow Island Power Station in Pleasants County and Rivesville Power Station in Marion County are to be closed by Sept. 1, the company said in a media release. The company cited environmental regulations as its reason for closing the plants. All are more than 50 years old and all are without advanced environmental controls and their closure has been widely expected. Some of the 105 affected employees will be considered for open positions at other FirstEnergy locations, the media release said. Severance benefits will apply to those eligible, and an additional unspecified benefit is being offered to those who are eligible for retirement, the company said. The three plants total 660 megawatts of generating capacity, about 3 percent of FirstEnergy's generation portfolio. Because they are expensive to run, though, they serve mostly as peaking plants and generate on average less than 1 percent of electricity produced by the company over the past three years. Among West Virginia-based power plants, the three facilities represented about two-tenths of a percent of generation and about 1 percent of coal burned for power in 2010. FirstEnergy announced last month that it would retire six older coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland by Sept. 1. Those plants total 2,700 megawatts' capacity and their closures affect 529 employees. The company said that, since the Clean Air Act became law in 1970, FirstEnergy and its predecessor companies have invested more than $10 billion in environmental protection. Since 1990, it has reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides by more than 76 percent, sulfur dioxide by more than 86 percent and mercury by about 56 percent. After Sept. 1, when these nine plants have been retired, nearly 100 percent of FirstEnergy's power will come from resources that are non- or low-emitting, including nuclear, hydro, pumped-storage hydro, natural gas and scrubbed coal units. Gov. Early Ray Tomblin issued a statement following the announcement urging the EPA to reconsider the effect of environmental regulations. "This is another example of how the EPA is costing us good jobs in West Virginia and throughout Appalachia," Tomblin said. "When the EPA adopts regulations they continue to fail to take into account the real-life effects these rules have on hard working Americans like those who have dedicated themselves to First Energy at the West Virginia locations. I urge the EPA to respectfully and accurately review the entire impact of their decisions-from environmental to economical- because individuals, families and communities are forever changed by their short-sighted decisions." DOMINION POST Thursday 9 February 2011: Albright Power Station to close Sept. 1 Its 61 employees can apply for other FirstEnergy jobs BY MICHELLE WOLFORD The Dominion Post KINGWOOD — FirstEnergy announced Wednesday it will close its Albright Power Station on Sept. 1. Also to be closed are the Willow Island and Rivesville facilities. Willow Island is 22 miles from Parkersburg on the Ohio River. The Rivesville plant is on the Monongahela River in Marion County. Ray Evans, executive director of FirstEnergy’s Environmental division, said the employees — 61 at Albright, nine at Rivesville and 35 at Willow Island — can bid on other positions with the company, accept an enhanced retirement package or accept a severance package. The announcement came just two weeks after the company announced it would close six coal-fired plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Those closings will impact more than 500 employees. New Environmental Protection Agency Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) set to take effect in 2015 are the reason for the plant shutdowns. “We looked at the MATS and we didn’t see a way forward for [the Albright] plant,” Evans said. “The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired,” James R. Haney, regional president of Mon Power and president of West Virginia operations for FirstEnergy, said in a statement. After Sept. 1, the company will secure the plant from unauthorized access, remove the chemicals and make sure all ongoing environmental obligations are met, Evans said. “In the next four to five years, we’ll be coming up with strategies for reuse of the plant. We have no firm plans now for this site.” Economic impact Robbie Baylor, executive director of the Preston County Economic Development Authority, said the agency is saddened to learn of plans to retire the Albright facility. “The Albright Station has been a stable contributor to the economy of Preston County for over 50 years,” Baylor said. “It will be difficult to replace the jobs and the revenue the station and the people working at the station bring to the Preston County community. We plan to work with Mon Power and the County Commission to make this closure as unproblematic as possible for all concerned. We have already offered to provide any assistance needed to help workers at the plant find alternate employment if they choose not to stay with Mon Power after the Albright facility closes.” Preston County Commissioners called the announcement “a blow” to the community. “Our first concern is with the families of those who will lose their jobs,” said Commission President Craig Jennings. Also impacted will be the “trickle down” industries — those who do business directly with the plant including trucking companies and tire shops, stores whose customers come from those businesses. “It’s a blow to us as elected officials and the fiscal agents of the county. It’s a blow to those who are losing their jobs, some of them the second generation working there. We’ve got a lot to do. This is the third major loss to the county [Mathews Bronze cut its workforce and Whitetail Mine shut down in 2009] and its hard to replace those.” “It’s a hard hit for the community and those employees,” Commissioner Dave Price said. Jennings said commissioners plan to meet with FirstEnergy “to ask them to at least fulfill their obligation to the schools for the bond. If they don’t help with that, it will fall back to the taxpayers.” The economic impact of the plant’s closing isn’t clear, Baylor said, though she said FirstEnergy did tell her it paid $2.7 million in taxes to West Virginia for the Albright plant alone. The taxes to be paid to the state in 2013 as the result of plant retirement is estimated at $48,000, Baylor said the company told her. She said it was unknown how much would be returned to Preston County. Preston County Assessor Terri Funk said she asked the State Tax Department for “its best estimate of what we would lose annually if we would lose the power plant.” The estimate is $849,196, including about $19,400 to the city of Kingwood. Each of the county’s municipalities also receives utility taxes from that money, as does the board of education. Marion County Assessor Jim Priester said that county saw “a $12 million loss in property value last year,” but couldn’t provide a dollar amount lost. ‘It makes me sad’ Charlie Wilson, of Kingwood, worked at both the Rivesville and Albright plants, and was at Albright in 1952 when the power station went online. He retired in 1982. “I started at Rivesville in August of 1951 when I got out of the service,” he said. “It was an old plant then. It was 1919 when it first went online.” The Albright Power Station “operated pedal to the metal for many, many years,” he said, but “it has gotten old and not nearly as efficient as some of the newer units. As new stations came on, Albright carried less and less of a load.” When he learned the plant is slated to be retired in September, Wilson said, “It makes me sad for the people that are going to be disrupted by it.” The plant “was a good part of my life,” the 84-yearold said. “It provided a good, steady job and decent wages, and an opportunity to provide for myself and my family. I’ll say this about that plant: I was never on strike and never missed a day’s work that was the company’s fault, and I never missed a payday.” “I hate to see the plant close, but the biggest factor has to be the environmental considerations. It just wouldn’t be cost-efficient to put scrubbers on it,” Wilson said. A $50 million grant to the Sierra Club, which the nonprofit boasted would be used to shut down coal-fired plants, probably didn’t help the plant’s chance of survival, he said. Lawmakers react “This is another example of how the EPA is costing us good jobs in West Virginia and throughout Appalachia,” Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said in a release. “When the EPA adopts regulations they continue to fail to take into account the real-life effects these rules have on hard working Americans like those who have dedicated themselves to FirstEnergy at the West Virginia locations. I urge the EPA to respectfully and accurately review the entire impact of their decisions — from environmental to economical — because individuals, families and communities are forever changed by their short-sighted decisions.” Delegate Larry Williams, D-Preston, said FirstEnergy told him it would take $300 million to upgrade the Albright plant to new EPA standards. Converting to natural gas is also not cost-effective for the company, he said. Williams said he also asked about demolition, if that’s in the works, and water impoundment. “These are questions that need to be part of the planning and analysis of what’s going to happen at that site,” he said. Williams said he met with Tomblin’s office about the plant closing. The governor’s office will offer economic development personnel to work with Preston County’s Economic Development Authority to see what jobs and businesses can be brought to the county. REPORTER DAVID BEARD contributed to this article. Sierra Club: Closings a victory for clean air BY MICHELLE WOLFORD The Dominion Post KINGWOOD — The closing of three power plants in West Virginia is “a victory for clean air and local residents’ health,” a Sierra Club release said. The three plants — Albright, Rivesville and Willow Island, near Parkersburg — are slated for retirement Sept. 1 as a result of new Environmental Protection Agency regulations, according to FirstEnergy, which owns the power stations. “In total, these closures will bring 660 megawatts of dirty, dangerous pollution to an end,” Sierra Club said. “The retirements represent a major improvement in the lives of local residents, who have been exposed to the pollution from these plants for decades. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants contributes to respiratory illnesses and asthma attacks, heart disease and cancer. Closure of these three plants will prevent approximately 40 premature deaths, 64 heart attacks and 620 asthma attacks, according to the Clean Air Task Force,” the release said. “This is good news for West Virginia, because those plants will no longer be polluting our air and water like they have been for 60 years,” said Jim Sconyers, chairman of the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club. “We want to ensure that the company has made a commitment to their workforce’s welfare once these plants close.” “Closing these old dirty plants is only the beginning of the responsibility that FirstEnergy owes to the surrounding communities. Instead of using public health safeguards as an excuse for the closure of three old and unnecessary plants, they need to increase investments in energy efficiency and create new jobs to assist the workers and community with a smooth transition to a clean energy future,” said Sierra Club Environmental Justice Organizing Representative Bill Price. The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign works in partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies and a nationwide coalition to retire onethird of the nation’s aging coal plants by 2020, replacing them with clean energy such as wind and solar by 2030, according to the release. The environmental group, along with West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, has sued FirstEnergy over “the illegal construction of Albright’s coal ash dumps.” In January, it hosted a forum in Albright to discuss the future of the plant. FirstEnergy did not send a representative, but Preston County Commissioners and local members of the state legislature attended. “These three plants bring the tally of coal plant retirements to 95 since the Sierra Club began its Beyond Coal campaign in 2002,” according to the release. Charles Wilson, of Kingwood, worked at both Rivesville and Albright for 30 years before his retirement in 1982. He said the Sierra Club bragged when it got the Bloomberg grant that “they could use it to close these coal-fired plants.” “Renewable power sources such as wind, solar and hydro can’t sustain the electrical grid as we know it, and demand that it be without the steady, versatile and reliable generation furnished by fossil fuel plants and nuclear. These furnish 50-60 percent of the nation’s base load,” Wilson said. “I think people want to do away with reliable generation before there is something to replace it. It was probably a factor in the closing of the Albright plant.”

1 0

ALBRIGHT and two more FE plants to be retired
by Frank Young 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

"The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired," said James R. Haney, regional president of Mon Power and president of West Virginia Operations for FirstEnergy. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Shanda Minney <sminney(a)wvrivers.org> Date: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM Subject: Re: Notices Out today To: Mike Becher <mbecher(a)appalachian-center.org> Cc: Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>, Jim Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>, Cindy Rank <clrank2(a)gmail.com>, Josh Stebbins <Josh.Stebbins(a)sierraclub.org>, Zachary Fabish <Zachary.Fabish(a)sierraclub.org> Dear All, I wanted to make sure you all had seen this announcement. Shanda http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firstenergy-citing-impact-of-environmental… FirstEnergy, Citing Impact of Environmental Regulations, Will Retire Three Coal-Fired Power Plants in West Virginia AKRON, Ohio, Feb. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- FirstEnergy Corp. /quotes/zigman/201722/quotes/nls/fe FE -0.30% announced today that its Monongahela Power Company (Mon Power) subsidiary will be retiring three older coal-fired power plants located in West Virginia by September 1, 2012. The decision to close the plants is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were recently finalized, and other environmental regulations. The following plants will be retired: Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and Rivesville Power Station. In total, 105 employees will be directly affected. The total capacity of these regulated plants is 660 megawatts (MW), about 3 percent of FirstEnergy's total regulated and competitive generation portfolio. Recently, these plants served mostly as peaking facilities, generating, on average, less than 1 percent of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the past three years. Mon Power recently completed a yearlong study of its older, unscrubbed regulated coal-fired units to determine the potential impact of significant changes in environmental regulations. It was determined that additional investments to implement MATS and other environmental rules would make these plants even less likely to be dispatched. As a result, the decision was made to retire these West Virginia plants rather than continue operations. This follows FirstEnergy's announcement last month that its competitive generation subsidiaries would retire six older, coal-fired power plants located in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland by September 1, 2012. "The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired," said James R. Haney, regional president of Mon Power and president of West Virginia Operations for FirstEnergy. The number of affected employees could be less than 105 as some will be considered for open positions at other FirstEnergy facilities and work locations. In addition, existing severance benefits will apply to eligible affected employees and certain employees may take advantage of an additional benefit being offered to those who are eligible for retirement. All of the recently announced plant retirements are subject to review for reliability impacts, if any, by PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that controls the area where they are located. Since the Clean Air Act became law in 1970, FirstEnergy and its predecessor companies have invested more than $10 billion in environmental protection efforts. Since 1990, FirstEnergy has reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides by more than 76 percent, sulfur dioxide by more than 86 percent and mercury by about 56 percent. When the older coal-fired plants are retired and removed from FirstEnergy's competitive and regulated generating fleet, nearly 100 percent of the power provided will come from resources that are non- or low-emitting, including nuclear, hydro, pumped-storage hydro, natural gas and scrubbed coal units. FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company dedicated to safety, reliability and operational excellence. Its 10 electric distribution companies comprise the nation's largest investor-owned electric system. Its diverse generating fleet features non-emitting nuclear, scrubbed coal, natural gas, and pumped-storage hydro and other renewables, and has a total generating capacity of nearly 23,000 megawatts. ........ SOURCE FirstEnergy Corp. Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved .... 'forward looking' statements at the link above....

1 0

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE: AIR SAMPLES FROM NATURAL GAS FIELD REVEAL HIGH METHANE EMISSIONS
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

[image: Scientific American] <http://www.scientificamerican.com/> Permanent Address: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-… Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-…> Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas | Tuesday, February 7, 2012 | 2<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-…> Advertisement By Jeff Tollefson of *Nature* <http://www.nature.com/news> magazine When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change. Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere--not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels. "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the *Journal of Geophysical Research*. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale." The results come as a natural-gas boom hits the United States, driven by a technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or `fracking', that can crack open hard shale formations and release the natural gas trapped inside. Environmentalists are worried about effects such as water pollution, but the US government is enthusiastic about fracking. In his State of the Union address last week, US President Barack Obama touted natural gas as the key to boosting domestic energy production. *Lack of data* Natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal per unit of energy when burned, but separate teams at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded last year that methane emissions from shale gas are much larger than previously thought. The industry and some academics branded those findings as exaggerated, but the debate has been marked by a scarcity of hard data. "It's great to get some actual numbers from the field," says Robert Howarth, a Cornell researcher whose team raised concerns about methane emissions from shale-gas drilling in a pair of papers, one published in April last year and another last month (R. W. Howarth et al. Clim. Change Lett. 106, 679-690; 2011 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5>; R. W. Howarth *et al. Clim. Change* in the press). "I'm not looking for vindication here, but [the NOAA] numbers are coming in very close to ours, maybe a little higher," he says. Natural gas might still have an advantage over coal when burned to create electricity, because gas-fired power plants tend to be newer and far more efficient than older facilities that provide the bulk of the country's coal-fired generation. But only 30% of US gas is used to produce electricity, Howarth says, with much of the rest being used for heating, for which there is no such advantage. *On the scent* The first clues appeared in 2007, when NOAA researchers noticed occasional plumes of pollutants including methane, butane and propane in air samples taken from a 300-metre-high atmospheric monitoring tower north of Denver. The NOAA researchers worked out the general direction that the pollution was coming from by monitoring winds, and in 2008, the team took advantage of new equipment and drove around the region, sampling the air in real time. Their readings led them to the Denver-Julesburg Basin, where more than 20,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled during the past four decades. Most of the wells in the basin are drilled into `tight sand' formations that require the same fracking technology being used in shale formations. This process involves injecting a slurry of water, chemicals and sand into wells at high pressure to fracture the rock and create veins that can carry trapped gas to the well. Afterwards, companies need to pump out the fracking fluids, releasing bubbles of dissolved gas as well as burps of early gas production. Companies typically vent these early gases into the atmosphere for up to a month or more until the well hits its full stride, at which point it is hooked up to a pipeline. The team analysed the ratios of various pollutants in the air samples and then tied that chemical fingerprint back to emissions from gas-storage tanks built to hold liquid petroleum gases before shipment. In doing so, they were able to work out the local emissions that would be necessary to explain the concentrations that they were seeing in the atmosphere (see `A losing battle<http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-fie…>'). Some of the emissions come from the storage tanks, says Pétron, "but a big part of it is just raw gas that is leaking from the infrastructure". Their range of 2.3-7.7% loss, with a best guess of 4%, is slightly higher than Cornell's estimate of 2.2-3.8% for shale-gas drilling and production. It is also higher than calculations by the EPA, which revised its methodology last year and roughly doubled the official US inventory of emissions from the natural-gas industry over the past decade. Howarth says the EPA methodology translates to a 2.8% loss. The Cornell group had estimated that 1.9% of the gas produced over the lifetime of a typical shale-gas well escapes through fracking and well completion alone. NOAA's study doesn't differentiate between gas from fracking and leaks from any other point in the production process, but Pétron says that fracking clearly contributes to some of the gas her team measured. Capturing and storing gases that are being vented during the fracking process is feasible, but industry says that these measures are too costly to adopt. An EPA rule that is due out as early as April would promote such changes by regulating emissions from the gas fields. Officials with America's Natural Gas Alliance, based in Washington DC, say that the study is difficult to evaluate based on a preliminary review, but in a statement to *Nature* they add that "the findings raise questions and warrant a closer examination by the scientific community". Environmental groups are pushing the EPA to strengthen pollution controls in the pending rule, but industry is pushing to relax many of the requirements. Many companies are already improving their practices and reducing emissions throughout the country, either voluntarily or by regulation, the alliance says. Not all studies support the higher methane numbers. Sergey Paltsev, assistant director for economic research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative in Cambridge, and his colleagues are gathering information about industry practices for a study on shale-gas emissions. He says that their figures are likely to come in well below even the lower EPA estimate. He calls the NOAA results "surprising" and questions how representative the site is. Pétron says that more studies are needed using industry inventories and measurements of atmospheric concentrations. "We will never get the same numbers," she says, "but if we can get close enough that our ranges overlap in a meaningful way, then we can say we understand the process." *This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine *Nature*. It was **first published*<http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-fie…> * on February 7, 2012*. Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with permission © 2012 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved. -- 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

from ScienceDaily e-newsletter: More environmental rules needed for shale gas, says geophysicist
by Paul Wilson 07 Feb '12

07 Feb '12

More environmental rules needed for shale gas, says geophysicist<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/-5E…> Posted: 06 Feb 2012 11:41 AM PST In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama praised the potential of the country's tremendous supply of natural gas buried in shale. But the "Halliburton exclusion" passed by Congress says gas companies don't have to disclose the chemicals used in fracturing fluids. That was a real mistake because it makes the public needlessly paranoid, says a geophysicist. -- 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

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC