MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1015 discussions

Response to Longview @ PSC
by Duane330＠aol.com 07 Dec '06

07 Dec '06

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON Longview Power, LLC And Longview Power, LLC Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN Case No. 05-1467-E-CN RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS OF BARBARA BORN, ET AL. TO THE PETITION OF LONGVIEW POWER, LLC FOR WAIVER OF MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT REQUIREMENT FOR SITING CERTIFICATE TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF POWER PRODUCED I. INTRODUCTION On June 26, 2006, the Public Service Commission (PSC) granted certificates to Longview Power to construct at 600 MW coal-fired electric generation station and associated transmission line in the Cass District of Monongalia County, WV. On November 8, 2006, Longview Power submitted a Petition to the PSC to increase the power output of this plant to 695 MW with an increase in water usage but no increase in coal input. Barbara Born, et al. (Concerned Citizens) now responds and raises significant objections to the proposed plant. The resolution of these issues is of importance to the State and its citizens, particularly those residing in Monongalia County. Now, herewith, Concerned Citizens submits this Response and Objections to the Petition of Longview of November 8th, and requests a full hearing so that said objections can be considered, and related issues as stated herein can receive proper resolution. II. ARGUMENT The power output is to increase from 600 to 695 MW at constant maximum design heat input of 6,114 MM Btu per hour. And, the cooling water usage is to increase by about 12% to approximately 5,000 gallons per minute. This raises a number of issues and concerns for the Concerned Citizens and for the PSC, as follow: 1. The increased power generation level means an increase in the overall thermal efficiency of the plant, yet the increase in the cooling water rate means a decrease in the overall thermal efficiency of the plant. These conditions are at odds with each other, and a full explanation is necessary. A variety of impacts to the local environment will be precipitated by these changes, as indicated below. 2. An increased cooling water usage will require more or larger cooling towers, which will result in additional environmental impacts. The steam plume quantities in the local environment will be greater with attendant increased local rainout of pollutants and other impacts. The noise from cooling fans will be greater and, the view shed profiles will be increased. These problems are examined further below. 3. It is stated by Longview that “No modification of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued by DEP to Longview is necessary due to the increased water usage by the facility.” This is a premature statement since no evidence of such a determination by WV-DEP is given, and because the existing permit is under appeal before the WV-Environmental Quality Board. 4. It is stated by Longview that the boiler building will increase from 257 feet high to 270 feet high, and the steam turbine building will increase from 100 feet high to 120 feet high. It is these heights that determine the plant primary stack height, currently at 557 feet. Good engineering practice will necessitate that the stack height be recalculated, to become a larger number, i.e. a higher stack will be required. Further, the air pollution modeling for the plant was based upon the previous values for the building and stack heights as well as previous values for the boiler exit temperature and the temperature profile in the stack. The air modeling needs now to be repeated to determine the impacts of pollutant dispersion on the local environment. Further, the stack height currently exceeds federal guidelines for obstacles in the vicinity of public airports; so the changes will require a re-examination of the stack height. 5. The issues raised in Argument 4 above will necessitate that the Air Quality Permit granted to Longview by the WV-DEP Division of Air Quality be reconsidered. Among the issues in need of consideration are (a) the new stack height determined from best engineering practice, (b) the number and quantity of cooling towers and the quantity and quality of the evaporated cooling water, (c) atmospheric dispersion modeling for the new stack and cooling towers given the new boiler building and steam turbine building, and other possible considerations some of which are mentioned below. 6. Longview reports that the view shed problems due to the boiler building and steam turbine building will increase from 2.08 square miles to 2.176 square miles. “The increase in building height causes a 0.6 percent increase in the area that can see the buildings.” However, the view shed problems are not well represented by these numbers or by this analysis technique. The residents of Ft. Martin, Bakers Ridge and Stewartstown will see a substantial increase in the size of the plant profile on the horizon as well as the extremely large steam plume that will dominate the day and night sky continuously. The views of the plant and its plumes from important observation sites at Coopers Rock, Dorsey’s Knob, and from the Evansdale and Medical Center campuses of West Virginia University will be significantly increased. 7. The cost of the proposed 600 MW power plant has gone from $940 million to $1.8 billion. Whether these are realistic estimates is not known to the Concerned Citizens; but clearly, it is important that the PSC know and understand the estimates for the capital and operating cost for the proposed plant. [Estimates for two coal-fired power plants proposed by Duke Energy to the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) were brought into question this past September; and, in late October Duke Energy notified the NCUC that the cost of these plants had gone up by 50% to $3.0 billion. The NCUC has now reopened the record and additional hearings will be held in January.] The cost issue is relevant to the financial viability of the proposed Longview power plant as well as to whether the public interest is served by the “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) and other agreements pertaining to the proposed plant. 8. The decision of whether to build a conventional power plant such as a pulverized coal boiler unit or an advanced power plant such as an integrated gasification combined cycle system (IGCC) should involve environmental impacts and costs. Clearly, “best available control technology” (BACT) takes some account of the costs to achieve low environmental impacts. Given the high costs for a conventional power plant, as recently presented by Longview, it is now time to understand why the State of West Virginia cannot or should not benefit from advanced technology as represented by the IGCC option. Other BACT options may also be feasible given the new cost domain associated with the proposed plant. If Longview is to benefit from advances in boiler design, in achieving an increase from 600 to 695 MW with the same coal input, then the public should benefit from advances in environmental control at the same coal input level. III. RELIEF For these reasons, including other possible questions of financial viability, cooling tower performance and noise control that are still under study, it is appropriate that a full hearing on the various proposed changes be held. Only after the complete extent of the proposed changes have been determined and examined can a proper judgment be made as to the appropriate course for the future. It is the Public Service Commission that has the responsibility to gather the relevant information, hold hearings as appropriate to gain a complete understanding of the issues and information involved, and to render decisions in the public interest. The Public Service Commission must place the burden of proof upon Longview to establish that the public is protected. The primary purpose of the Commission is to serve the interests of the public. WHEREFORE, the Concerned Citizens respectfully request that the Petition of Longview Power of November 8, 2006, be denied subject to a full hearing for examination of all the details of anticipated impacts from the proposed changes. Barbara Born et al. (Concerned Citizens) By Counsel ________________________ Phillip D. Gaujot, Esquire (WVSB # 1355) 445 Lakeview Drive Morgantown, WV 216505 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON Longview Power, LLC And Longview Power, LLC Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN Case No. 05-1467-E-CN As counsel for Barbara Born, et al. (Concerned Citizens), I do hereby certify that on this 7th day of December 2006, copies of the foregoing “Response and Objections of Barbara Born, et al., to the Petition of Longview Power, LLC for Waiver of Modification or Amendment Requirement for Siting Certificate to Increase the Amount of Power Produced” were served upon the parties and/or counsel of record in this proceeding, and addressed as follows: Leslie J. Anderson, Staff Attorney Vincent Trivelli, Esquire Public Service Commission The Calwell Practice 201 Brooks Street 178 Chancery Row Charleston, WV 25301 Morgantown, WV 26505 Leonard Knee, Esquire Kathryn L. Patton, Esquire Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP Allegheny Power 600 Quarrier Street 800 Cabin Hill Drive Charleston, WV 25301 Greensburg, PA 15601-1689 ______________________ Phillip D. Gaujot, Esquire WV Bar # 1355 445 Lakeview Drive Morgantown, WV 216505

1 0

WV sustainable communities project
by Duane330＠aol.com 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

Arbogast to lead WV Sustainable Communities Project CHARLESTON – An expert in sustainable communities with a special interest in ecotourism has been named project leader of the next West Virginia Sustainable Communities Project. Doug Arbogast, a Pennsylvania native and avid outdoor enthusiast, will lead six young adult interns in their efforts to conduct pollution prevention projects focused on energy efficiency, water conservation and waste minimization throughout 2007. The project will begin in January and will focus on all four sectors of the community including homes, schools, businesses and community institutions. “This is such an amazing opportunity for us, not only to continue on with this grassroots effort, but to see what people can do when you give them the right tools,” Arbogast said. “We are right now building an enthusiastic and committed team of interns who are willing to roll up their sleeves and make a difference one person, one community, one county at a time.” The project is a joint effort of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation and the Student Conservation Association – Students Conserving America. In 2005-2006, a team of SCA interns was based in Summersville to target Nicholas and Braxton counties. In 2007, the momentum will continue in those areas while also targeting Gilmer and Fayette. There will be a statewide outreach and education campaign, but these four counties are targeted specifically because they are Alliance of West Virginia Champion Communities, which is a publicly and privately funded grassroots movement to empower communities to achieve sustainable development. “We will strive to have as broad an impact as possible while working hard to make a difference to individual citizens and communities,” he added. Arbogast earned his bachelor’s in environmental geo-science and a master’s in recreation, parks and tourism resources from West Virginia University. He was involved in the implementation in Richwood and Pineville of “Creating A Value Added Community Curriculum,” a pilot project for Appalachian communities developed to provide a business plan for poverty reduction and the creation of community wealth. He has served as a project coordinator for the West Virginia Ecotourism Association and earned a certificate in ecotourism planning and management from Humboldt State University in Arcata, Calif. He, his wife Susan and daughter Abby will reside in Fayette County during the project. For more information on the program, contact Arbogast at (304) 846-4268, (304) 619-0668 or _darbogast(a)thesca.org_ (mailto:darbogast@thesca.org) . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wednesday, October 25, 2006 @ 1:16 PM ============================================================ Sustainable communities program seeking interns CHARLESTON – Young adults with an interest in the environment and sustainability are encouraged to apply online for an internship with the West Virginia Sustainable Communities Project. This unique internship, which begins in January, offers young adults a chance to make a difference in the Mountain State. They will be part of a team that will conduct pollution prevention projects focused on energy efficiency, water conservation and waste minimization. The project focuses on all four sectors of the community: homes, schools, businesses and community institutions. Online applications will be accepted through Nov. 20. Members of the corps will conduct energy audits, help communities start recycling and composting programs, construct rain barrels, promote national and state programs related to conservation, and provide outreach and education through group presentations. They also will operate displays at community events and develop educational programs for schools and youth groups. Interns will spend half of their time in the field and the other half conducting research and coordinating events. They will report to a project leader. The project is a joint effort of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation, and the SCA – Students Conserving America. In 2005-2006, the program was based in Summersville so interns could target Nicholas and Braxton counties. In 2007, it will keep the momentum going in those areas while also targeting Gilmer and Fayette. There will be a statewide outreach and education campaign, but these four counties are targeted specifically because they are Alliance of West Virginia Champion Communities, which is a publicly and privately funded grassroots movement to empower communities to achieve sustainable development. Candidates must have a valid driver’s license and a clean driving record. They should have strong interpersonal skills, the willingness to work as part of a close team, the ability to work independently when necessary, a strong commitment to service, and a passion for sustainability issues. Experience in pollution prevention projects and programs as well as a background in environmental studies and sustainable practices are also desired. Housing and a stipend will be provided. Interns will be based in Fayette County. For more information and to apply online, go to www.thesca.org, select internships and jobs then West Virginia Sustainable Communities Project. For more information on the project, contact Doug Arbogast, project leader, at (304) 846-4268 or (304) 619-0668. E-mail him at darbogast(a)thesca.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 0

Reducing Global Warming Impacts
by Duane330＠aol.com 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

**************For immediate Release************** Subject: The Cool Cities Program on Global Warming Title: Reducing the Impacts of Carbon Dioxide Emission Contact: Joshua Rutkowski 304-296-3967 jrutkow(a)gmail.com Date: Wednesday, November 15th 2006, at 7 pm. Place: Morgantown Public Safety Building Concerned about global warming and its influence on our future? Join us for a meeting about taking charge of our own carbon dioxide emissions. Citizens, businesses and community leaders will be meeting this Wednesday at 7 p.m. in the Morgantown Public Safety Building to discuss our local impact on global climate change. The meeting will cover how Morgantown can take responsibility for its carbon dioxide emissions. The Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition joins the Monongahela Chapter of the Sierra Club as sponsors of this event. Please come on out, and help out; it's not too early; and, it's not too late.

1 0

Letter to the Army Corps
by Linda Shuster 02 Nov '06

02 Nov '06

>> The message below is from the WV Highlands Conservancy. Consider >> sending a letter, and checking out the link to an alternative energy >> blog at the end of the message. -Linda >> West Virginia Highlands Conservancy www.wvhighlands.org >> > In 1997 Jimmy Weekly walked into Joe Lovett’’s law office and asked >> for help to fight a 3,000 acre (~5 square miles) mountaintop removal >> coal mine planned for the hollow where his family had lived for >> decades. Spruce #1 was to be a continuation of the nearly 9,000 acre >> Dal-Tex mine that had already destroyed the community of Blair on the >> other side of Rt 17 in Logan County. > > The mountains surrounding the Weekly home would be blasted apart >> and Pigeonroost Branch would be filled from its beginning high in the >> hills for over a mile on down to within spitting distance of Jim and >> Sibbey Weekly’’s home. > > WV Highlands Conservancy joined the Weeklys and >> five other families whose homes were threatened by other similar >> mining proposals in the lawsuit titled Bragg v Robertson. Ruling on >> part of that litigation in 1998, Judge Charles Haden found that the >> 3,000 acre mine in Pigeonroost hollow would cause significant >> irreversible damage and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) >> would be necessary before the large fills of the Spruce #1 mine > could be allowed. > > The final EIS has been released and comments are due by >> November 22, 2006. Talking points are below. Send your comments to >> Mrs. Teresa Spagna, Regulatory Project Manager, U.S.Army Corps of >> Engineers, 502 8th St., Huntington, WV 25701 or email to >> Teresa.D.Spagna(a)lrh01.usace.army.mil >> >> > Mingo Logan Spruce No. 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): > > Talking Points >> The Mine: Mingo Logan, Spruce No 1 Mine, six valley fills with >> permanent discharge of fill material into approximately 36,814 linear >> feet of intermittent and ephemeral jurisdictional streams (i.e. >> approx. 7 miles) and .12 acres of wetlands. The project will also >> have terrestrial impacts of 2,278 acres or 3.55 square miles. The >> proposed project is located in the Spruce Fork watershed of the > Little Coal River near Blair in Logan County, West Virginia. >> > > Talking points: >> >> · The Corps has issued a final Environmental Impact Statement >> (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on this >> mine. Under NEPA, the Corps’’ EIS must consider all past, present and >> future direct and indirect environmental harms of a proposed action. >> Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Corps cannot issue a 404 permit >> if it would cause significant degradation of the environment. > >> · The Corps’’ entire rationale for finding no significant >> environmental degradation hinges on its claim that, even though >> Spruce Mine No. 1 would bury seven miles of streams, those losses >> are offset by environmental gains due to compensatory mitigation. > >> · That rationale is both dishonest and unscientific. > >> · The company’’s mitigation plan is based on a phony stream >> assessment method that the company made up and that, >> according to the Corps’’ own regulatory chief, is “not scientifically >> defensible.” > >> · Contrary to CWA requirements, the Corps has no other approved >> method for assessing and mitigating the biological, chemical and >> physical functions of buried streams. > >> · Despite the absence of any functional assessment method, the >> Corps claims that the mitigation plan has a “high” chance of success. > >> · That claim of mitigation success is unfounded, since the >> Corps itself admits that functioning headwater streams have >> never been created successfully anywhere in the country. > >> · The mitigation plan would also trade minor enhancements of a >> different stream (e.g. bank stabilization) for total destruction of >> headwater streams, even though there is no scientific evidence that >> this enhancement will compensate fully for the functions of the lost >> streams. > >> · The Corps requires no meaningful long-term monitoring to >> ensure that mitigation will actually work as planned. > >> · Cumulatively, past and planned mines and valley fills in the >> Spruce Fork watershed cover 35.5% of total stream length and an >> alarming 44% of first order stream length. In the entire Coal River >> watershed (of which Spruce Fork is a part), past and planned mines > and > valley fills conservatively cover 11.5% of total streams and > 14.9% of first order streams. Although the Corps claims that this > cumulative >> devastation is insignificant, expert stream biologists believe that > it is very significant and alarming. > >> · The Corps has ignored the information it collected in >> preparing the October 2005 Mountaintop Removal Programmatic >> Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). That information also >> demonstrates that the cumulative impacts of past and present mining >> are significant. > >> · The Corps fails to evaluate adequately the harmful effects of >> selenium contamination on streams and aquatic life, even though the >> Mountaintop Removal PEIS identified the Spruce mine area as a >> selenium hot spot. > >> · The Corps does not independently evaluate the risk of >> flooding and ignores information in the Mountaintop EIS that says >> flooding risk is increased at mining sites. > >> · The Corps erroneously claims that reforestation at mining >> sites has been successful despite the fact that experts say >> restoration of forests to former productivity under current generally >> used planting protocols does not occur at all and that even less >> desirable forests will take more than a hundred years to develop if >> they develop at all. > >> · The Corps fails to consider significant and irreparable >> impacts on the citizens living in the area including flooding, danger >> from coal trucks, traffic, dust, decline of property values, noise, >> blasting impacts, aesthetic loss and community disruption. >> >> Conclusion >> >> The Corps’’ FEIS for the Mingo Logan Spruce No. 1 Mine does not > comply > with the NEPA or the CWA. Over and over again the Corps has > made unsubstantiated claims minimizing the individual and cumulative >> damages from MTR and embellishing the benefits of the planned >> mitigation. If the Corps had thoughtfully used prevailing science to >> evaluate the project, it would have to conclude that significant harm >> to the environment and communities has already occurred and the >> proposal will add to the devastation. Thus, because the FEIS is >> flawed the only alternative is for the Corps to either deny the > permit or to extensively reevaluate the FEIS, the project, and the > mitigation plan. >> >> >> "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, things aren't going >> to get better, they're not!" From The Lorax by Dr. Suess >> >> What you do is of little significance; but it is very important that >> you do it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948) >> >> For The Mountains >> Julian Martin >> Vice-President for State Affairs >> West Virginia Highlands Conservancywww.wvhighlands.org >> 1525 Hampton Road, Charleston, WV 25314 > > > Contact me(martinjul(a)aol.com) for a trip to Kayford Mountain to see >> active and so-called reclaimed mountain top removal. Also contact me >> for I Love Mountains t-shirts, hats and bumper stickers(for pictures >> go to wvhighlands.org ) and for speakers, information and exhibits on >> environmental issues in West Virginia. > >> And check out these blogs on mountain top removal >> >> http://www.clipfile.org/antrim/http://mtrinfo.wordpress.com >> >> This one on alternative energy >> http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2006/10/clean-coal-or-dirty-coal.html

1 0

Thanks!
by William Wonderlin 01 Nov '06

01 Nov '06

A week ago today, several CALP/MVCAC members made the trip to Charleston for our final appeal to the WV Supreme Court to overturn the Public Service Commission's approval of Longview's siting and transmission line certificates. The road to our day in court was, in fact, much longer than a 160 mile drive down I-79, because it really was the culmination of the effort to stop Longview that we began organizing in late 2002 and continued through the PSC's review from 2003 until now. As you have probably heard, the Supreme Court voted 4 to 1 not to hear our appeal. The justices' decision was a bitter disappointment given the many good arguments and the weight of evidence on our side. Although Longview still needs more permits, the Supreme Court's decision is the end of the road for challenging the PSC's approval of Longview's certificates. This truly was a battle of David versus Goliath, and the big money and political influence wielded by Longview's proponents outweighed the public's welfare. It has been a reminder that the people who ultimately make the big decisions that influence our communities and environment often fly under the public's radar. Too few people are aware of the irresponsible decisions made by our County Commission, the pro-business appointees on the Public Service Commission, the corruption and incompetence of the Supreme Court justices, or the myopic lobbying by the construction trades. With West Virginia now being "Open for Business", we need to be even more vigilant and active in protecting our communities and environment. I am certainly looking at the recent deluge of election flyers from the Affiliated Construction Trades in a different light now. So, where does this leave us? First of all, as Jim Kotcon has frequently reminded us, "we haven't lost--they haven't built Longview." We have been successful in delaying the construction of Longview, and perhaps it never will be built. Although coal-fired power plants are a hot commodity these days, the delay might have bought enough time for potential investors to want to take a closer look at whether it really is a good idea to build a new coal-fired power plant with out-of-date technology. Some utility companies are beginning to push for higher-tech, cleaner coal-fired power plants in anticipation of new and costly regulations that are likely to come into effect during the lifetime of the power plants. Perhaps those concerns will diminish the interest of investors in Longview. Second, our experience with Longview has greatly increased the local awareness of air quality issues, and we must continue to work on these issues. Our opposition to Longview was a reactive effort--it's time to be proactive. ----------------------------------- Now, for the important part! Thanks to the all of the people who: *wrote letters to our County Commissioners, the DEP and the PSC *spoke out in favor of better air quality *made donations to help stop Longview *handed out flyers *attended countless organizational meetings *wrote letters to the editor opposing Longview *generally helped raise public awareness of our concerns about air quality A special thanks must also go to Phil Gaujot, our fearless lawyer who led us through the legal jungle of the PSC & Supreme Court. Phil displayed a lot of passion and professionalism in preparing for the PSC & Supreme Court and going toe-to-toe with the lawyers for Longview. He ensured that we left no stone unturned in developing our case against Longview, and, judged on its merits, we should have prevailed. Thanks, Bill Wonderlin

4 3

Next MVCAC meeting
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Oct '06

22 Oct '06

Dear Friends, it's time to plan our next meeting of the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition......... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COOL ROOFS - AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOLUTION CBS 3 - TV News (Philadelphia) featured a segment on alternative energy solutions on Aug. 3, during its 4 p.m. news. Meteorologist Maria LaRosa discussed the environmental and economic benefits of cool roofs with EPA's Stephanie Lamster. Cool roof technology can be a boon on hot days. The technology coats a roof surface with a reflective material that can lower a building's roof surface temperature by up to 100 degrees Farenheit. Interior temperatures are also lowered, reducing cooling costs by up to 50 percent.

1 0

Doing Our Part, RE: Climate Change
by Duane330＠aol.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

Will Morgantown Become a Cool City? The Monongahela Group of Sierra Club has been encouraging the Morgantown City Council to participate in the Cool Cites Campaign by signing the U. S, Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. This Agreement pledges the City to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 % below 1990 levels by the year 2012. The real goal of this Campaign is not so much in passing a resolution, but in providing a long-term mechanism to develop an emissions baseline, implement emissions reductions, and track success in a meaningful way. It is clear that, although we might get a resolution passed in City Council, the effort needed to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require community support beyond what can be generated by any one organization. Thus it is our hope to engage the broader community in this effort as a long range campaign to conserve energy and reduce pollution emissions. While many money-saving practices can be adopted easily, some of the changes needed may require substantive efforts by the City, and this can only happen if their is broad support in advance. Thus we want to engage other organizations in this effort early, and identify ways that each can build on the strenghts of the others to encourage wider participation. While there has been some support in Morgantown City Council, it is clear that a broader community-wide effort is now needed. Therefore, we plan to host a meeting of community leaders at 7 PM on Nov. 15 at the Morgantown Public Safety Building. Our tentative agenda would include: 1) Introduction of the organization representatives and interested citizens, 2) Introduction to the U. S, Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement and resources available through the the Cool Cities Campaign. 3) Informal brainstorming and planning to identify specific needs of each entity and how they can contribute most effectively. 4) Develop a list of actions and tactics as "next steps" in the campaign. 5) Social hour for further informal discussions Submitted by : Jim Kotcon, Sierra Club, MVCAC, CLEAR, et al. Would the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition be willing to co-host this event? Tell me your questions or comments if you have any reservations, as our decision process is by "consensus". Thanks, Duane Nichols

1 0

proposed Longview plant-- news
by Duane330＠aol.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

NOTICE: The "concerned citizens of Monongalia County" will present their Appeal of the Longview siting and transmission certificates to the state Supreme Court this coming Tuesday, October 24th, shortly after 10 am in the East Wing of the Capitol Complex, in Charleston, WV. These proceedings are open to the public. Our lawyer Phil Gaugot will have about 5 minutes to review our case, which has already been presented in written form as a petition. Longview, the PSC, and the Building Trades will each have about 5 minutes for rebuttal. Then, within a day or two the Supreme Court will decide whether to schedule the case for full hearing or to set it aside (reject it). Jarrett Jamison will be driving a new Suburban and invites anyone who wishes to ride along to join him; please call Jarrett on 292-2323 to arrange to park in Westover and meet him at around 7 am on October 24th. [Jarrett has an email address: Jarrett425(a)aol.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recent Information On Longview Power, LLC I presented the following information to the Mon County Commission yesterday. 1. The ownership of Longview Power, LLC, has changed to: 10% GenPower, LLC (the former owner) 90% GenPower Holdings, L.P., a Cayman Islands Limited Partnership. 2. The above change was made after First Reserve Corporation joined GenPower as a venture partner. First Reserve has been in business for a number of years to promote a wide variety of energy related projects. 3. Longview has changed the estimated cost of the proposed power plant to 1.8 billion dollars, from an initial estimate of around 900 million, to an estimated 1.2 billion this past April. 4. First Reserve has put 500 million on the table as equity financing. Now, I don't believe that a check was actually written, rather a letter was probably provide to state their intention. So 1.8 billion minus 500 million, that leaves 1.3 billion yet to be raised. [Seems to me, if you raise the cost by 600 million, then claim equity of 500 million, you now have more to raise than before.] SO, FINANCING FOR THIS PROPOSED PLANT IS STILL UP IN THE AIR. 5. Longview stated that they are aiming for a start of construction this January. This is not feasible since they must submit blue prints 120 days before construction, and they still have a number of outstanding permits to secure. 6. I pointed out that I would have preferred a county wide referendum on this proposed plant as the majority of citizens have questions about it. Commissioner Kennedy said that according to the law, they are not allowed to put this question out for referendum. 7. I pointed out that the Ft. Martin Church received a letter from Longview requesting permission to place a noise monitor on the Church, and this the same day that Longview submitted a brief to the Public Service Commission stating that the Ft. Martin Church was uncooperative. 8. I pointed out some of my own problems with the Longview plant, to night glow, the large steam plume, the fine particulates (non-attainment) problems, noise and traffic on local roads, and a very very large addition to greenhouse (carbon dioxide) gas emissions in the county. Commissioner Kennedy said that he understood these problems and had some concerns too. He said that he had been told that there would be no steam plume (but there will be). He said that he liked the idea that some trees are being planted around the region to help bring the carbon dioxide problem under control; and I said that this will be an insignificant improvement, and he nodded agreement with that. 9. I talked about Longview's incomplete information to the PSC regarding estimated taxes, the offense PILOT agreement, the noise studies and the incomplete specification of the plant equipment and viewshed. They were very attentive and thanked me for presenting this information. 10. Commissioner Bell (President of the Commission) said that he was going to refer some of these questions to the County Development Authority, that he didn't know whether the agreements with Longview would be affected. Both Commissioners said they were trying to do their best, believing the benefits to the county will be substantial, with some disadvantages. Duane Nichols, Convenor, Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition, P. O. Box 4679, Morgantown, WV 26504-4679

1 0

proposed Longview power plant............
by Duane330＠aol.com 17 Oct '06

17 Oct '06

THE PROPOSED LONGVIEW POWER PLANT On October 12th, 90% Ownership of Longview, LLC was assigned to GenPower Holdings, L.P., a Cayman Islands Limited Partnership, according to documents filed with the WV Public Service Commission. See below. [Note: The announcement that Longview has acquired $1.8 billion in financing is incomplete without a full disclosure of all the conditions and stipulations attached thereto. It would be in the public interest for these conditions to be known, as they are relevant to the public understanding of this proposed power plant project. We do know that the Siting and Transmission Certificates are under appeal to the WV Supreme Court of Appeals, the preliminary hearing being scheduled for October 24th at 10 a.m. in Charleston. We also know that the Storm Water permits for construction and for operation have not been granted, as is the case for a few other permits.] Duane Nichols, Convenor, MVCAC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF LONGVIEW POWER, LLC Comes Longview Power, LLC (“Longview”) by counsel, and provides notice to the Public Service Commission (“PSC” or “Commission”) that the ownership of Longview Power, LLC has been transferred in part to a third party. Longview will retain both the Siting Certificate for the facility and the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the transmission line. Longview makes this notice even though a change in the ownership of Longview does not require notice to the Commission under either the certificate of site approval statute or regulations. The PSC’s regulations, as quoted below, require notice to the Commission only if the Siting Certificate itself is transferred or assigned to a new owner. In the case of the transmission line certificate of convenience and necessity, Commission approval is required only when a public utility holds the certificate, and Longview is not a public utility. 1. Under the Exempt Wholesale Generator (EWG) Siting Regulations, 5 150-30-7.1, the Commission must be given thirty days’ notice of a transfer of ownership or assignment of an siting certificate: [The owner or operator shall, at least 30 days prior to the closing date of such transfer or assignment, provide the Commission with notice of the identity of the transferee, the mailing address of the transferee, the name and mailing addresses of the management members or officers of the transferee and an affidavit of the transferee stating that the transferee agrees that it is bound by all terms and conditions of the Siting certificate for the 24-2-1 1 (c) facility.] 2. Under West Virginia Code (“WVC”) §24-2-12(g) a public utility must obtain advance approval from the Commission before a third party “acquires directly or indirectly a majority of the common stock of any public utility organized and doing business in this state.” 3. The Commission has specifically held that Longview, like other EWG facilities, is not a public utility. Longview Power, LLC, Case No. 03-1 860-E-CS, Order entered August 27, 2004, (“[T]he Commission recognizes that an exempt wholesale generator is not a regulated public utility., .”), p. 117. 4. The Commission has specifically held that the “enactment of W.Va. Code $24-2-1 IC, clarified that the requirements of W.Va. Code §24-2-12(g) do not apply when an EWG decides to sell or otherwise transfer a siting certificate issued by the Commission.” [Nedpower Mount Storm, LLC and Shell Windenergy, Inc., Case No. 05-1486-E-PC, Conclusion of Law, No. 1, Order entered December 14,2005, p. 10. ] 5. Though the Siting Certificate and the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity are not being transferred or assigned, Longview has elected to provide this notice to the Commission of the transfer of ownership. 6. On October 12, 2006, GenPower, LLC transferred ninety percent (90%) of its membership interest in Longview to GenPower Holdings, L.P., a Cayman Islands Limited Partnership: On that date the ownership of Longview became: 90% Ownership - GenPower Holdings, L.P. 10% Ownership - GenPower, LLC. 7. The mailing address of GenPower, LLC is 1040 Great Plain Avenue, Needham, MA 02492. 8. The names and addresses of the managing members of GenPower, LLC are as follows: Robert D. S. Place, Chairman and Managing Director, 1040 Great Plain Avenue, Needham, MA 02492. John A. O’Leary-Vice Chairman and Managing Director, 1040 Great Plain Avenue, Needham, MA 02492. 9. The mailing address of GenPower Holdings, L.P., is 1 Lafayette Place, Greenwich, CT 06830. 10. The directors of GenPower Holdings, L.P. are as follows: Anne E. Gold, 1 Lafayette Place, Greenwich, CT 06830 Mark McComiskey, 1 Lafayette Place, Greenwich, CT 06830 11. Longview acknowledges that it remains obligated and bound by all terms and conditions of the Siting Certificate and Certificate of Convenience and Necessity issued by the Commission in the above-referenced cases and will ensure that the terms and conditions of the Siting Certificate and Certificate of Convenience and Necessity are met. 12. Longview will continue to be responsible for compliance and reporting on the same to the Commission. Longview will continue to honor all agreements entered into with third parties relating to the construction and operation of the EWG facility and transmission line. LONGVIEW POWER, LLC By Counsel Lynn C. Photiadis, Esquire (SB #284) Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP 600 Quarrier Street, Post Office Box 1386 Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1386 Counsel for Longview Power, LLC

2 1

Slogan
by Linda Shuster 16 Oct '06

16 Oct '06

Some of you may have noticed the "Open for Business" slogan that has been added to the West Virginia signs at the borders. Many people have objected to this slogan, because it implies that we will welcome any business, no matter how negative its effects might be on the state and the environment. There is an online petition to Governor Manchin that asks that the slogan be removed. According to the Charleston Gazette: "It was the 20th most popular petition on an international site that boasts thousands of petitions." If you would like to sign the petition, go to the url below:. www.petitiononline.com/open4biz/petition.html Linda

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC