EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Rolling Stone interviews BIDDER 70 hero, Tim DeChristopher
by Jim Sconyers 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

Tim is the son of founding WVSC chair Chris DeChristopher. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lauren Swain <video(a)mindseyeworld.com> Date: Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:27 PM Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Rolling Stone interviews BIDDER 70 hero, Tim DeChristopher To: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Rolling Stone interviews BIDDER 70 hero, Tim DeCristopher: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/tim-dechristopher-is-a-free-man-w… By Alexander Zaitchik<http://www.… [View More]rollingstone.com/contributor/alexander-zaitchik> April 22, 2013 4:35 PM ET There are worse ways for a climate activist to celebrate getting out of jail than speaking to a packed theater of comrades and supporters. Tonight, that's how Tim DeChristopher will publically mark his release from two years of state custody, spread over four states and five institutions – from the isolation wings of federal prisons to the halfway house he left yesterday. Following an address that will represent DeChristopher's public return to grassroots climate activism, Salt Lake City's Tower Theater will screen *Bidder 70* <http://www.bidder70film.com/>, a documentary about his 2009 trial. Both the talk and the screening will be live-streamed to 50 theaters around the country. The Fossil Fuel Resistance: Meet the New Green Heroes<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-fossil-fuel-resistance-meet-…> It's a happy coincidence that the event is taking place on Earth Day – but there was never any question it would be in Salt Lake City. It was there, in December 2008, that DeChristopher disrupted a federal Bureau of Land Management auction by submitting nearly $2 million in bids on oil and gas concessions. For the crime of what the prosecution called "obstruct[ing] lawful government proceedings," DeChristopher was whisked from the courthouse following his sentencing to begin his term, which ended yesterday. The 31-year-old activist talked to *Rolling Stone* about his time served and the future of the climate movement. *What are your immediate plans now that you're out? * I'll be traveling around a bit over the summer. Then in the fall, I start Harvard Divinity School. I see divinity school and the ministry as an extension of my activism, not as a new direction. It's probably the best outlet for the skills I've built so far. I take inspiration from the activist leaders of the past, whether it's the [antiwar activist] Berrigan brothers, or Martin Luther King, or many ministry leaders that have also been at the front of social movements throughout American history. *Will you keep up an activist's schedule w**hen you start school**?* Obviously I won't be able to do quite as much. I expect divinity school to be pretty demanding, so I won't be keeping up the full-time schedule that I had when I was a full-time activist. But I will still be doing certain speaking events and stuff like that. *Are you prepared to return to prison in the future? * Definitely. Especially having experienced it and knowing that I can handle it. If the opportunity comes up again to do something impactful, then I'd have to take that opportunity. *A lot of famous activists over the years have spoken about the benefits of prison time. Did you find that to be the case?* There are certainly upsides. They call it "doing time" for a reason. You just have a lot of time on your hands. So I read a lot. A lot of my day consisted of exercising and walking and reading. It was a very reflective environment and very low-stress environment. It kind of naturally lent itself to introspection. *Did you have a lot of conversations about climate and energy issues with other inmates? * I had a lot of conversations more about general social justice issues, about corporate control of our government, how the criminal justice system works. *Looking ahead, it seems activism around climate and energy is moving into a more militant posture. For example, the anti-fracking leader Sandra Steingraber and some of her colleagues in the so-called "Seneca Lake 12" went to jail in New York just as you were being released. * I certainly think the climate movement is going to get more aggressive. There's been a tremendous amount of movement in the past few years. And with changes like the Sierra Club completely overhauling the way they were operating [in terms of civil disobedience] – that's a massive shift, and I think those changes will continue. And I think there will also be more kind of bottom-up actions in the future. More things like the tar sands blockade in Texas, things that are not necessarily done by big organizations saying, "This is what you need to do and this is how you're going to do it." The grassroots side of the movement is really stepping up in a big way, and that's been the big shift since 2009. The grassroots side is no longer willing to limit themselves to the directions given by the big green groups and the Washington-centric side of the movement. The big green groups failed horribly in 2009 with the Waxman-Markey bill. Up until that time, they kind of kept everyone in check by saying, "We know how change happens, we know how to do things in Washington. This is what's politically feasible." And they fell on their face. Now a lot of folks are saying, "Well, we tried it your way. Now we're going to do it our way." *And your group, Peaceful Uprising, was part of that shift. * Yeah, Peaceful Uprising was forming during that time, largely out of an awareness that what the climate movement was doing wasn't working and we needed to do something else. It was started largely for the purpose of experimenting, and simply trying something new. Not saying this is the one right way. But saying we need a new way of doing things. And hopefully there will be more experimenting in the climate movement. A movement that gets a little bit out of control – that's what we need. One that's more spontaneous, trying more things and is more willing to do things even if it's not the exact right thing to do, but just because we need to move forward. *Will you stay involved with Peaceful Uprising? * I handed over the reins when I was convicted. I was pretty much out of the picture once I was incarcerated. I am not really in a leadership position there anymore. *Because of the publicity around your trial and incarceration, and now with the documentary, you have achieved a national profile and will be seen as a sort of spokesperson for the movement. Are you comfortable with this new level of fame? * As far as being seen as a speaker and that sort of thing, that's a role that I'm willing to serve. I kind of ended up in the role as the guy who always talked about civil disobedience just because that was the opening that the movement had in 2008 and 2009. So I sort of ended up in that role by default. Now I'll try and fill whatever role is needed. And I feel like I naturally look at things from a holistic perspective. I tend to be good at articulating a vision of where we need to go. I feel like I'm well suited for the role that I'm in right now. Bidder 70* opens in New York for a limited run on May 17th. * Lauren Swain (303) 964-9592, (303) 887-5951 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This email list is associated with the Hydrofracking Team on the Sierra Club's Activist Network. Join the Hydrofracking Team at http://sc.org/frac. This list is open to the public and subscribers are not moderated. Please be aware that information you share may be forwarded to or read by others beyond this list. To unsubscribe from the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, send any message to: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last. *There is no Planet B!* [View Less]

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] EPA - water pollution from power plants rulemaking
by Paul Wilson 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <baumling(a)aol.com> Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [Coal Volunteers List] EPA - water pollution from power plants rulemaking To: dave.oleary(a)mdsierra.org, coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org Hi Dave, I have seen our statement about the rule on another list, see below. I don't think we know yet if there are going to be hearings but I am sure we will collect comments. This is an important rule and … [View More]there will be activities around it. Stay tuned. Verena FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 22, 2013 *After 30 Years of Inaction, EPA Finally Proposes Plans for Power Plant Water Pollution* *Includes options protecting waters from toxic pollution as well as weaker standards that maintain the status quo* Washington, D.C. – The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a number of regulatory options late last Friday night, known as steam electric effluent limitation guidelines for power plants<http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm>, two of which will finally clean up water pollution from hundreds of power plants. Power plant water discharges are filled with toxic pollution such as mercury, arsenic, lead, and selenium – heavy metals that can cause neurological and developmental damage, cause harm *in utero*, damage internal organs and cause cancer. Power plants are the biggest sources of water pollution in the country, yet the EPA has not reviewed regulations for this industry in more than 30 years. To address this unacceptable delay, environmental groups filed a lawsuit in 2010 to force the EPA to take action and regulate this dirty industry. The following statement is from Appalachian Voices, Clean Water Action, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, Prairie Rivers Network, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and Waterkeeper Alliance on today’s proposal: “After 30 years of inaction, the EPA has finally offered a plan that utilizes affordable, available pollution controls to clean up toxic power plant waste water. We need strong protections that limit the amount of mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, and other heavy metals that power plants are dumping into the rivers, lakes, and streams where we fish, boat, swim, and drink. The technology to clean up power plant water discharges exists, and in many cases is already being used. While the EPA has presented a menu of options, there are two options (Options 4 and 5)<http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm> that address all of the contaminated wastewaters of concern across the industry. We are heartened to see that the EPA has identified these options as both achievable and affordable, and we urge the agency to settle on a final choice that will keep America’s waters safe and clean as the Clean Water Act requires. “In addition to the protective alternatives identified by the agency, the EPA also included many weaker options that would allow power plants to continue to dump poisons unabated from unlined pits. Some of these options also create sweeping exemptions. “Toxic water pollution from coal-fired power plants makes people sick. Those who live in the communities around these plants have had all kinds of concerns about the pollution – everything from reduced property values to extremely rare forms of cancer. We applaud the EPA for taking this next step to address the problem, and we will keep fighting to ensure the EPA chooses the strongest regulation to protect our health and our water.” -----Original Message----- From: dave o'leary <dave.oleary(a)mdsierra.org> To: coal-volunteers-list <coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org> Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2013 10:26 pm Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] EPA - water pollution from power plants rulemaking Hi - I haven't seen this noticed shared yet and I'm wondering about the plans to engage in this process. Has anyone reviewed the four options yet and is there any guidance on comments? Thanks, David O'Leary Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter U.S. EPA News Release: EPA Proposes to Reduce Toxic Pollutants Discharged into Waterways by Power Plants > 04/19/2013 > CONTACT: > Stacy Kika (News Media Only) > Kika.stacy(a)epa.gov > 202-564-0906 > 202-564-4355 > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > April 19, 2013 > > > EPA Proposes to Reduce Toxic Pollutants Discharged into Waterways by Power > Plants > > WASHINGTON — In accordance with a consent decree and in line with > requirements under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection > Agency (EPA) > today will propose a range of options to help reduce dangerous pollutants, > including mercury, arsenic, lead, and selenium that are released into > America’s waterways by coal ash, air pollution control waste and other > waste from steam electric power plants. Today’s proposal includes a variety > of options > for whether and how these different waste streams should be treated. EPA > will take comment on all of these options, which it will use to help inform > the > most appropriate final standard. > > Steam electric power plants currently account for more than half of all > toxic pollutants discharged into streams, rivers and lakes from permitted > industrial > facilities in the United States. High exposure to these types of > pollutants has been linked to neurological damage and cancer as well as > damage to the > circulatory system, kidneys and liver.Toxic heavy metals do not break down > in the environment and can also contaminate sediment in waterways and > impact aquatic life and wildlife, including large-scale die-offs of fish. > > “America’s waterways are vital to the health and well-being of our > communities,” said Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe. “Reducing the > pollution > of our waters through effective but flexible controls such as we are > proposing today is a win-win for our public health and our economic > vitality. > We look forward to hearing from all stakeholders on the best way forward.” > > EPA has put a focus on ensuring any final rule would protect public health > while being sensible and achievable, and in line with that goal, under > every preferred option proposed by EPA today, more than half of America’s > coal fired power plants would be in compliance without incurring any > additional cost. > > The proposal updates standards that have been in place since 1982, > incorporating technology improvements in the steam electric power industry > over the last three decades as required by the Clean Water Act. The > proposed national standards are based on data collected from industry and > provide flexibility in implementation through a phased-in approach and use > of technologies already installed at a number of plants. Under the > proposed approach, new requirements for existing power plants would be > phased in between 2017 and 2022, and would leverage flexibilities as > necessary. > > Fewer than half of coal-fired power plants are estimated to incur costs > under any of the proposed preferred options, because many power plants > already have the technology and procedures in place to meet the proposed > pollution control standards. > > The four preferred options differ in the number of waste streams covered > (such as fly ash handling systems, treatment of air pollution control waste > and bottom ash), the size of the units controlled and the stringency of > the treatment controls to be imposed. EPA estimates that the regulations > would reduce pollutant discharges by 470 million to 2.62 billion pounds > annually and reduce water use by 50 billion to 103 billion gallons per year. > > EPA also announced its intention to align this Clean Water Act rule with a > related rule for coal combustion residuals (CCRs, also known as > “coal ash”) proposed in 2010 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery > Act. The two rules would apply to many of the same facilities and > would work together to reduce pollution associated with coal ash and > related wastes. EPA is seeking comment from industry and other stakeholders > to ensure that both final rules are aligned to reduce pollution > efficiently and minimize regulatory burdens. > > There are approximately 1,200 steam electric power plants that generate > electricity using nuclear fuel or fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and > natural gas in the U.S. Approximately 500 of these power plants are coal > fired units which are the primary source of the pollutants being addressed > by the proposed regulation. Power plants that are smaller than 50 > megawatts would not be impacted by these new standards, and the majority of > coal-fired power plants would incur no costs under the proposed standards. > > The public comment period on the proposed rule will be open for 60 days > after publication in the Federal Register. The agency is under a consent > decree > to take final action by May 22, 2014. > > More information: > http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/index.cfm > > > -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ To sign up for this list, email becki.clayborn(a)sierraclub.org with the subject and message "SUBSCRIBE #coal-volunteer" --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org. To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org. -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ To sign up for this list, email becki.clayborn(a)sierraclub.org with the subject and message "SUBSCRIBE #coal-volunteer" --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org. To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org. -- 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 [View Less]

1 0

Fwd: Re: We won the 6th Circuit appeal on NWP 21!
by Jim Sconyers 22 Apr '13

22 Apr '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Aaron Isherwood" <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Apr 22, 2013 11:44 AM Subject: Re: We won the 6th Circuit appeal on NWP 21! To: "Mark Kresowik" <mark.kresowik(a)sierraclub.org> Cc: "Bruce Nilles" <bruce.nilles(a)sierraclub.org>, "Mary Anne Hitt" < maryanne.hitt(a)sierraclub.org>, "David Muhly" <david.muhly(a)sierraclub.org>, "Ed Hopkins" <ed.hopkins(a)sierraclub.org>, "Bill Price" < bill.price(a)… [View More]sierraclub.org>, "Jim Sconyers" <jimscon(a)gmail.com>, "Lane Boldman" <lanebold(a)earthlink.net>, "Rick Clewett" < rick.clewett(a)insightbb.com>, "Axel C Ringe" <onyxfarm(a)bellsouth.net>, "Alex DeSha" <alex.desha(a)sierraclub.org>, "Marley Green" < marley.green(a)sierraclub.org>, "Bonnie Swinford" <bswinford1(a)yahoo.com>, "Sean Sarah" <sean.sarah(a)sierraclub.org>, "Glen Besa" < glen.besa(a)sierraclub.org>, "Peter Morgan" <peter.morgan(a)sierraclub.org>, "Pat Gallagher" <pat.gallagher(a)sierraclub.org> Just got this draft from Jim... Sean, are you available to make suggestions? This is a national case, so should we include a quote from Mary Anne or Ed? Aaron *Appeals Court Invalidates Nationwide Permit* *Used to Bury Streams with Mining Waste* * * The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today invalidated the 2007 version of the nationwide permit used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to authorize the dumping of coal mining waste into hundreds of miles of Appalachian headwater streams. **** ** ** “The Court agreed with us that the Corps failed in 2007 to demonstrate that filling streams with mining waste has minimal cumulative impacts and that the mining companies can mitigate those environmental impacts to insignificance, ” said Jim Hecker, Environmental Enforcement Director at Public Justice in Washington, DC. “This permit should never have been issued, because it was based on the Corps’ unsupportable assumption that filling these streams has minimal environmental effects.”**** ** ** Since 2003, coalfield residents and state and national environmental groups have been challenging the legality of Nationwide Permit 21 in West Virginia and Kentucky federal courts. A West Virginia federal court enjoined the permit’s use in that state in 2009, but a Kentucky court disagreed with that decision in 2011 and allowed its use in that state to continue. The Sixth Circuit today reversed that Kentucky decision and agreed with the earlier decision by the West Virginia court. **** ** ** The Clean Water Act only authorizes nationwide permits for stream-filling activities that have minimal environmental effects, both individually and cumulatively. Mountaintop removal coal mining produces enormous quantities of waste that is commonly disposed of in adjacent valleys and streams. Scientific studies have shown that the waters downstream from valley fills are degraded, and there is no scientific evidence that buried headwater streams can be re-created successfully elsewhere.**** ** ** The Sixth Circuit found that the Corps’ determination that the 2007 NWP 21 would have cumulatively minimal effects was irrational, for two reasons. First, the Corps failed to analyze the present effects of its past actions allowing the filling of hundreds of miles of streams prior to 2007, and instead improperly limited its analysis to the effects of future filling from 2007 to 2012. Second, the Corps had no documented information showing that mitigation could offset the loss of headwater streams at mining sites. **** ** ** The Sixth Circuit stayed its decision for 60 days to give the lower court and the parties time to assess its impact on existing projects. While the appeal in the Sixth Circuit was pending, the 2007 NWP 21 expired, but the Corps reissued the NWP in 2012 for five more years with more stringent conditions (namely, a 300-foot limit on filling and a prohibition against valley fills). In reissuing that permit, the Corps created a new loophole that gave about 70 uncompleted projects under the old 2007 NWP 21 five more years to use it without meeting the more stringent conditions of the 2012 NWP 21. That loophole is now likely to be closed. At a minimum, these grandfathered projects will require additional analysis and should have to comply with the more stringent 2012 conditions.**** ** ** More broadly, the court’s decision raises serious questions about the Corps’ entire approach to cumulative impacts and compensatory mitigation for coal mining projects. The court directed the Corps to use past mining impacts more carefully to assess cumulative impacts and to document in detail whether mitigation can effectively reduce cumulative impacts. Up to now, the Corps has refused to take these issues seriously and to measure mitigation effectiveness. Recent scientific studies on the relationship between the percentage of mining in a watershed and the severity of downstream biological impairment indicate that surface coal mining is having serious cumulative impacts. **** ** ** “This decision has been a long time coming. Every year we see the health of rivers and streams in eastern Kentucky declining. In 2010, according to the Kentucky Division of Water, only 1% of eastern Kentucky streams fully supported fish and other aquatic life. I’d say that we can see an impact from mining,” stated Judy Petersen, executive director of Kentucky Waterways Alliance.**** ** ** The groups that have challenged NWP 21 in court actions are: in Kentucky—Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, and Kentucky Riverkeeper; in West Virginia—Ohio River Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, and Natural Resources Defense Council. The legal team opposing NWP 21 has been led by Jim Hecker at Public Justice in Washington, D.C., assisted by Joe Lovett at Appalachian Mountain Advocates in Lewisburg, WV, and Stephen Sanders at the Appalachian Citizens Law Center in Whitesburg, KY. On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Mark Kresowik <mark.kresowik(a)sierraclub.org > wrote: > Congrats! Is anyone working on media about this already? Seems like > something we'd want to highlight? > > Mark > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Aaron Isherwood < > aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: > >> Excellent news...! >> >> Aaron >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Jim Hecker <JHecker(a)publicjustice.net> >> Date: Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:33 AM >> Subject: We won the 6th Circuit appeal on NWP 21! >> To: Joe Lovett <jlovett(a)appalmad.org>, Derek Teaney <dteaney(a)appalmad.org>, >> Mike Becher <mbecher(a)appalmad.org>, Margaret Janes <mjanes100(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: cindy rank <clrank2(a)gmail.com>, Aaron Isherwood < >> aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org>, Peter Morgan < >> peter.morgan(a)sierraclub.org>, dianne bady <dbady.ovec(a)gmail.com>, Alan >> Banks <alan.banks(a)eku.edu>, Judy Petersen <judy(a)kwalliance.org>, Kevin >> Pentz <kevin(a)kftc.org> >> >> >> After eight years of litigation, the Sixth Circuit reversed our loss at >> the district court level and agreed with the prior decision by Judge >> Goodwin in the 2009 Hurst case that NWP 21 violates NEPA, both the >> cumulative impacts and mitigation issues.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I will have more analysis later.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Jim Hecker**** >> >> Public Justice**** >> >> 1825 K Street, NW Suite 200**** >> >> Washington, D.C. 20006**** >> >> (202) 797-8600**** >> >> fax (202) 232-7203**** >> >> jhecker(a)publicjustice.net **** >> >> ** ** >> >> > > > -- > Mark Kresowik > Eastern Region Deputy Director > Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign > mark.kresowik(a)sierraclub.org > 202-675-7914 (o) > 319-621-7393 (c) > 50 F St NW Eighth Floor > Washington, DC 20001 > [View Less]

2 1

KEN WARD ARTICLE IN GAZETTE RE COAL FUNDED "SCHOLARSHIP"
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 22 Apr '13

22 Apr '13

HERE IS A LINK<http://books.google.com/books?id=OTNQLteehOgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage…>TO THE COAL INDUSTRY FUNDED RESEARCH INTENDED TO CAST DOUBT ON MICHAEL KENDRYX'S PEER-REVIEWED HEALTH STUDIES. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Fwd: Coal companies don't want you to see this:
by Paul Wilson 09 Apr '13

09 Apr '13

check out the report and the "Ask the Scientist" question. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Union of Concerned Scientists <action(a)ucsusa.org> Date: Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:38 AM Subject: Coal companies don't want you to see this: To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com *Read this issue on the UCS website.<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=rZCgHspScqPPufjdGDp9lw> * [image: The Pulse: Facts you need from experts you trust] Dear Paul, <http://action.ucsusa.org/… [View More]

1 0

Coal squeezed by Nat gas?
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 09 Apr '13

09 Apr '13

Fuel Prices, Emission Standards, and Generation Costs for Coal vs Natural Gas Power Plants <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es4001642> Lincoln F. Pratson<http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&author=Pratson%2C+L+F&qsS…> * <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021%2Fes4001642#cor1>, Drew Haerer<http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&author=Haerer%2C+D&qsSear…> , and Dalia Patiño-Echeverri<http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?… [View More]action=search&author=Pati%C3%B1o%5C-Ech…> Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, United States Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP *DOI: *10.1021/es4001642 Publication Date (Web): March 15, 2013 Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society *Phone: (919) 681-8077; fax: (919) 684-5833; e-mail:lincoln.pratson@du<lincoln.pratson(a)duke.edu> ke.edu <lincoln.pratson(a)duke.edu>. ABSTRACT [image: Abstract Image] Low natural gas prices and stricter, federal emission regulations are promoting a shift away from coal power plants and toward natural gas plants as the lowest-cost means of generating electricity in the United States. By estimating the cost of electricity generation (COE) for 304 coal and 358 natural gas plants, we show that the economic viability of 9% of current coal capacity is challenged by low natural gas prices, while another 56% would be challenged by the stricter emission regulations. Under the current regulations, coal plants would again become the dominant least-cost generation option should the ratio of average natural gas to coal prices (NG2CP) rise to 1.8 (it was 1.42 in February 2012). If the more stringent emission standards are enforced, however, natural gas plants would remain cost competitive with a majority of coal plants for NG2CPs up to 4.3. Print<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/study-the-coal-i…> ------------------------------ Study: The coal industry is in far more trouble than anyone realizesBy Brad Plumer, Updated: April 8, 2013 Here’s some bleak news for the coal industry: As much as 65 percent of the U.S. coal fleet could find itself under threat in the years ahead, thanks to cheap natural gas and stricter air-pollution regulations. That’s according to a new peer-reviewed study<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021%2Fes4001642> by three researchers at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, who take a detailed look at the costs of operating both coal-fired power plants and natural-gas plants around the United States. Their conclusion? Coal power is far more economically vulnerable than most analysts have realized to date. Here’s why: *Cheap natural gas is crowding out coal: *Already, a glut of cheap natural gas from shale deposits in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere is upending the electricity sector. The researchers found that around 9 percent of the U.S. coal fleet has become uneconomical — it’s now cheaper to burn natural gas for electricity than to keep running those coal plants, which are now slated for retirement. The chart below sums up the ongoing shift quite vividly. Many coal plants are now operating at far lower capacity in 2012 than they were back in 2007: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/coal-capacity.png> *And new pollution rules could accelerate that shift: *But the shift to gas could become even more dramatic in the years ahead. Under the Obama administration, the EPA has been tightening various standards for air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury. By 2016, power-plant operators will have to start installing costly new emissions controls at their coal units to comply with these rules. And that will further sway the economics of power generation. By looking carefully at operating costs, the Duke researchers found that an additional 56 percent of the U.S. coal fleet could become more expensive than natural gas, assuming the ratio of gas prices to coal stayed around its current level. That poses a huge challenge to the coal industry — far bigger than previous analyses have suggested. “That was the most surprising thing to come out of this analysis,” says Duke’s Lincoln Pratson, who led the study. “There has been a lot of focus on those 9 percent of coal plants set for retirement — mostly smaller, older plants. But what were seeing is that there are a very large number of younger plants that would become more costly to run than the median natural-gas plant if they were to upgrade their emissions controls.” *That said, there are some caveats: *That doesn’t mean 65 percent of the coal fleet is set to shut down in the years ahead. This analysis all depends on a number of assumptions. First and most obviously, natural gas prices could start rising again — the early glut of gas from the fracking boom already appears to be leveling off<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/what-happens-whe…>. That would help many coal plants hang on. Yet, surprisingly, Pratson and his colleagues found that natural gas would stay competitive even if the ratio of natural gas to coal prices rose from its current level of 1.7 to 4. ”Even in that case, we wouldn’t see the situation we had [in the early 2000s] where every coal plant was cheaper to run than every single natural gas plant,” Pratson says. The study makes a few other debatable assumptions as well. For one, it assumes that power plant operators will comply with the EPA rules by installing new emissions controls — rather than, say, buying allowances under cap-and-trade systems like the acid-rain program. On the flip side, the study doesn’t take into account further potential EPA regulations on cooling water or coal ash. As such, says Pratson, the analysis is offering a “mid-range estimate” on coal’s vulnerability. As a side note, the study also helps referee a contentious political debate. During the 2012 campaign, there were two big theories for what, exactly, was killing the U.S. coal industry. Many conservatives blamed the EPA’s air pollution rules, part of President Obama’s “war on coal.” Other analysts largely chalked it up to cheap natural gas — this was just the market at work. This new study suggests that *both* are crucial factors, and tries to look at how, precisely, natural gas and the EPA will interact with each other in the years ahead. *Further reading:* –The decline of coal, in three charts<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/the-decline-of-u…> . –The shift from coal to natural gas has helped drive down U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions. But natural gas will only be effective in tackling climate change if the industry gets a handle on methane leaks<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/04/methane-leaks-ar…> . –What happens to America’s coal if we don’t burn it? Mining companies will try to ship it abroad<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/what-happens-to-us-coal-i…>, mainly to China. But that all depends on whether they can build new export facilities<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/can-the-united-states-inf…> in the Pacific Northwest. © The Washington Post Company -- 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 [View Less]

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: Halliburton's Dirty Secrets Pumped Into WV?
by Paul Wilson 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Chuck is quoted in this WVNS story. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:25 AM Subject: WVNS story: Halliburton's Dirty Secrets Pumped Into WV? To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Halliburton's Dirty Secrets Pumped Into WV? Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31805-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://… [View More]www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (04/08/13) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Landowners, citizen groups and environmentalists are concerned about legislation now before the House of Delegates that would allow drilling companies to keep secret the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Outreach coordinator Chuck Wyrostok, West Virginia Sierra Club, said the industry, led by the huge oilfield service company, Halliburton Corp., has convinced lawmakers in several states to treat the chemical formulas as trade secrets. The drilling service company wants to do the same thing is West Virginia, Wyrostok warned. That is acting with contempt for the people living around Marcellus natural gas drilling, he said. "It's pretty ludicrous to say, 'We're gonna pump secret chemicals into the ground, and we're gonna transport them through your towns, past your schools. And I'm sorry, you just can't know what they are,'" Wyrostok said. Senate Bill 243 <http://goo.gl/DpM0w> inserts what Wyrostok and others call the "Halliburton dirty-secrets amendment" into a bundle of rules proposed by the Department of Environmental Protection. It has passed the Senate and is now before the House Judiciary Committee. Drillers use hundreds of chemicals to help break up the rock deep underground and get the gas out. Halliburton spokesmen have said the company wants to keep competitors from learning its formulas. But critics say it is more likely they don't want landowners and residents to know. There are practical reasons for not treating the fracking formulas like CIA secrets, Wyrostok pointed out. "Say a truck going through a town in West Virginia crashes or ruptures, and no one knows what the chemicals are. How do the first responders react to that? They don't know what's in that truck." Landowners have a hard time testing their well water for contaminates if they don't know what they're looking for, he said, noting that doctors would have to ask the companies what chemicals might be making their patients sick. No one knows how long the company might take to respond, Wyrostok said, or even if it would. Plus, if the doctors find out what the chemicals are, the new rule would forbid them from telling anyone, he added. "Basically, it's a gag order," he said. "I don't think the medical community is gonna go along with that. Doctors in Pennsylvania are suing the state over it." Information about the status of SB 243 is available at http://www.legis.state.wv.us <http://goo.gl/DpM0w>. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31805-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31805-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- 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 [View Less]

2 1

Fwd: WVNS story: Justice Loughry: Public Financing Offers An Alternative To Cynicism
by Paul Wilson 04 Apr '13

04 Apr '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 AM Subject: WVNS story: Justice Loughry: Public Financing Offers An Alternative To Cynicism To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Justice Loughry: Public Financing Offers An Alternative To Cynicism Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31726-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService… [View More]<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (04/04/13) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - As lawmakers consider two bills<http://goo.gl/54PU9>making public financing for State Supreme Court elections permanent, the justice elected under the pilot program says it worked because it gave people a chance to feel good about politics for a change. Justice Allen Loughry accepted public financing for his campaign last year and won, astounding many seasoned political observers. The justice said he cannot endorse legislation, but he added that it is vital that people get a chance not to feel cynical about judicial elections. "You should not be able to buy a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court like you go into a convenience store and buy a candy bar off the shelf," Loughry said. When he accepted public financing, Loughry also accepted strict limits on how much he could spend. That meant he faced opponents with a lot more money, which caused most observers to dismiss his chances. Loughry noted one thing his election proved: You do not have to match your opponents dollar for dollar. "We were still able to reach average West Virginians," he said, "and part of that was because we ran a very positive campaign." To qualify for public financing, Loughry had to raise hundreds of small donations from registered voters across the state's congressional districts. He said that was hard to do, but stressed that it should be hard, to make sure only candidates with a real shot at being elected get a chance at public money. "I don't want to see that change," he said. "You have to be able to show that enough average West Virginia voters would support your campaign. Only at that point should you qualify for that funding." House Bill 2805 would make the pilot program permanent. It has passed the house and is now awaiting action in the senate. HB 2805 and its companion bill in the senate, SB 413, are available at http://www.legis.state.wv.us<http://goo.gl/54PU9> . Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31726-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31726-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- 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 [View Less]

1 0

Fwd: Re: AEP utilities seek incentive for energy efficiency programs
by James Kotcon 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

This looks like one we should examine carefully, as we may want to support AEP on this case, or perhaps even urge a more aggressive EE target. Jim Kotcon >>> Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net> 4/3/2013 9:17 AM >>> I haven't studied their incentive plan, because I'm out of town. But incentives are absolutely vital for expanded efficiency programs. When power companies sell less power, they still have to cover their basic overhead costs. Unless they can still … [View More]cover those costs, they have no interest in selling less power. Even with the incentives, EE will save people money in fuel costs and operating costs. Bill Howley Research -- PO Box 3 -- Chloe, WV 25235 -- 304-655-8255 On 4/2/2013 4:14 PM, Daniel Chiotos wrote: AEP utilities seek incentive for energy efficiency programs ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857235/aep-utilities-seek-incentive-for… ) Posted: Apr 02, 2013 2:39 PM EDTUpdated: Apr 02, 2013 2:48 PM EDT By Pam Kasey - email ( mailto:pkasey@statejournal.com?body=http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857235/aep-utilities-seek-incentive-for-energy-efficiency-programs ) Energy What does Patriot propose for escaping bankruptcy? ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857934/what-does-patriot-propose-for-es… )WV House votes to expand Mine Safety Technology Tax Credit ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857500/wv-house-votes-to-expand )Coal Association supporting transfer of Harrison to Mon Power ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857653/coal-association-supporting-tran… )AEP utilities seek incentive for energy efficiency programs ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21857235/aep-utilities-seek-incentive-for… )Two WV AEP subsidiaries not seeking rate increases ( http://www.statejournal.com/story/21854023/two-wv-aep-subsidiaries-not-seek… ) More>> ( http://www.statejournal.com/category/222501/energy ) Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power want a financial incentive for the energy efficiency programs they offer customers. The companies made their case in an April 1 filing ( http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI… ) with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. Both AEP's Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power and FirstEnergy's Mon Power and Potomac Edison have in recent years established basic energy efficiency programs for their customers, ordered and approved by the PSC. The AEP companies' programs include, for residential customers, subsidized sales of compact fluorescent light bulbs, home energy audits with recommendations for improvements and offers of rebates, and support for the state's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. To commercial and industrial customers, the companies offer rebates for more efficient lighting and heating and cooling. In 2012, the programs saved 51 million kilowatt-hours, up from 22 million in 2011. The AEP companies take in about $6.1 million a year in customer rates to support the programs, and propose to continue that for the coming year. But they also seek an incentive. A challenge in asking utilities to promote energy efficiency among their customers is that utilities make a return on investments that increase supply but they lose money on energy efficiency investments that decrease demand: not only do they get no return on the investments, but, by reducing demand, the programs also cut sales. The companies propose to receive 5 percent of the pre-tax net benefits of the programs as their incentive, up to a total of 12 percent of program cost. The incentive for 2012 would come to about $605,000, according to the filing. The companies said in the filing that regulators in other jurisdictions have allowed their sister companies incentives for energy efficiency efforts and that, as a result, those companies have much larger energy efficiency programs, both in terms of spending and of kilowatt-hour savings achieved for participating customers. An incentive, or lack of an incentive, will figure into the companies' future plans for expanding their energy efficiency programs, they said. To follow the case, subscribe to case number 13-0462 on the Public Service Commission's website ( http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/CaseSubscriptions/SubscriberLogin.cfm ). [View Less]

4 3

Fwd: Major tar sands oil spill in Arkansas
by Jim Sconyers 02 Apr '13

02 Apr '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vanessa Kritzer <feedback(a)lcv.org> Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM Subject: Major tar sands oil spill in Arkansas To: jimscon(a)gmail.com [image: LCV logo header] *Enough is enough! Join us in saying NO to more tar sands spills. Help us reach one million comments against the dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=YSpaol2X6uByoV4T0a89mw>* Jim, * <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=… [View More]f0CfeDHryI_732JC-dMuIg>* *[image: Arkansas oil spill large]<http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=6ij8fMTNox5wfguVPR8CLA> * *More than 500,000 gallons of tar sands oil and water just spilled in Arkansas. Don’t let this dirty oil nightmare ooze across America. * *Help us gather 1 million comments to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline! Submit your comment here >><http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=NCmCSdaIdRIiSQm9IrTcYQ> * Imagine coming home to this: Oil oozing down your driveway, pooling in your back yard, and filling up your local waterways. Sounds like a nightmare, right? This is the reality that families in Mayflower, Arkansas, have had to deal with since more than 500,000 gallons of dirty tar sands oil and water spilled out of a ruptured Exxon Mobil pipeline this past Friday. This spill is terrible and our hearts go out to the community in Mayflower affected by this disaster. This shouldn’t have happened. That’s why it’s critical that President Obama and Secretary Kerry reject the construction of a much bigger pipeline, Keystone XL, which could cause even more devastating spills of tar sands crude in waterways and lands across America. *We need you to raise your voice now. Tell the State Department to keep us safe from more tar sands spills by rejecting the dangerous Keystone XL pipeline! <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=I2xAhD4B16VzpIeBIfYMtg>* Unfortunately, the spill in Arkansas repeats a story we know too well. In 2010, an Enbridge Energy pipeline in Michigan broke and spilled more than 800,000 gallons of toxic tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River -- and it still hasn’t been fully cleaned up. That same year, TransCanada, the company that wants to build the Keystone XL pipeline now, built a pipeline that experienced 12 separate spills in a single year. In 2011, one of Exxon Mobil’s pipelines in Montana ruptured and contaminated the Yellowstone River. And even just last week, a train derailed in Minnesota and spilled 30,000 gallons of tar sands crude. If these stories make your stomach churn, I know how you feel. It’s absolutely infuriating that we keep allowing Big Oil to put our lands, water, and wildlife at risk, when we have seen over and over how it ends. *The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be a monster -- carrying 20 times more oil than the Exxon pipeline that burst in the Yellowstone River two years ago. If we have any hope of stopping it, we need you to tell Secretary of State John Kerry that this dirty pipeline is all risk and no reward. Send a message asking him to reject it here >><http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=EUQrqZvtSk6V_BwT-zwWsg> * Right now, the State Department is accepting comments on its review of the potential environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline. The initial draft of this review was completely off-base, downplaying the risks of spills and the devastating impact that this dirty oil would have in fueling climate change. Luckily, we have the chance to weigh in on this draft and push them to change it to recommend what many scientists have attested to -- that this pipeline is too dangerous to build and the tar sands oil needs to stay in the ground. *So we’re joining with groups across the environmental movement to gather one million comments opposing the dirty Keystone XL pipeline by the end of the comment period on April 22. With only 20 days to go, we need you to send a message now. <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=WLCqlKdGJk5pIotkzABNww>* Thanks to contributions from more than 3,000 LCV members, we hit our goal in our fundraising drive for this campaign and now we’ve got all the resources we need to win this fight. But we can’t do it without your help. So thanks for taking a moment to make your voice heard today<http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=ouNexmqd2GvWguXc0DtedA> . Let’s do this, [image: Vanessa] Vanessa Kritzer Online Campaigns Manager League of Conservation Voters Update Your Profile <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=NR9awocIis0FyYJZTj9_IA> To Unsubscribe Click Here<http://action.lcv.org/site/CO?i=ma1nN4n3fm81MDSdw0YRmIdfNA9o-eo8&cid=0> 1920 L Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202-785-8683 [image: powered by CONVIO] <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=nWJcPOJ6rfOEmr81Bo2qRA> nonprofit software <http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=mxgUgD0DkbYc6b2ThDv75Q> -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last. *There is no Planet B!* [View Less]

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC