MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1015 discussions

Huge turnout protests powerline in PA
by Duane330＠aol.com 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

(http://www.post-gazette.com/pghmap/) (https://ssl.post-gazette.com/placead) (http://classified.post-gazette.com/auto/) (http://www.post-gazette.com/xtras/a1pdf.asp) (http://www.post-gazette.com/aboutpg/emailheadlines/) 650 turn out to protest power line proposal Friday, April 06, 2007, By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette More than 600 angry Washington and Greene county residents turned out last night at the Washington County fairgrounds to oppose the construction of a high-voltage power line in their area. The event, organized by the citizen's group "Stop The Towers," also drew a flock of local and state politicians, most of whom vowed to fight the project by Allegheny Energy Inc. The plan involves the Greensburg-based energy company's proposed construction of a 240-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line, extending from Washington and Greene counties to existing substations in West Virginia, ending in northern Virginia. Also part of the plan is the construction of two substations, including a 502 Junction substation in Dunkard, southern Greene County, which will direct flow northward in Washington County and eastward into West Virginia. The other substation, nicknamed Prexy, will be built along Thomas Ei ghty-Four Road in North Strabane, Washington County. It will include three smaller transmission lines that will branch off into South Strabane, Nottingham and Somerset townships. Allegheny Energy's portion of the line extends about 210 miles at a cost of $820 million, with the total project estimated at more than $1 billion. The smaller portion of the line will be constructed and paid for by Dominion Virginia Power, which serves customers in Virginia. Company officials have said they believed there was a misunderstanding over who would benefit from the new lines. Misconceptions that southwestern Pennsylvania would be providing power for Virginia are incorrect, officials said. But many of the residents who turned out at last night's meeting, and another held Tuesday night by the company, said they don't buy it. "I don't believe that," said Washington County Commissioner Larry Maggi after a company open house Tuesday at the Bentleyville Fire Hall. "They are having problems on the East Coast." Tuesday's event was one of 10 open houses sponsored by Allegheny Energy during recent weeks to explain the company's plans. Although the Mid-Atlantic, from New York to northern Virginia, was identified by the federal government last year as an area in critical need of more power, company officials said power lines in southwestern Pennsylvania will serve electric needs in this area only. A separate line, at the 502 junction in Greene County, will transmit electricity to northern Virginia. Residents said they believed the project would decrease property values and the quality of life, and possibly be a health and safety hazard. They also questioned the company's claim that it owns rights of way along all but two miles of the proposed 38-mile route through Washington and Greene counties. "We are opposed to it," said Mr. Maggi. "We will do whatever we can to stop it. We do not want to lose our country charm." "What do we get out of it? Nothing. We lose," said county Commissioner Diana Irey. U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, in a letter made public last night, opposed the power line project for the first time. He is congressman for a large part of the affected area. Wendell Holland, chairman of the state Public Utility Commission, explained PUC procedures to last night's audience and said: "There's nothing like being here. There's nothing at all like coming to the people and listening to what they have to say." The upgrade was mandated by PJM Interconnection, which manages electric transmission services of the Mid-Atlantic power grid in 13 states and Washington, D.C. The proposed line is part of PJM's five-year regional electric transmission plan, meant to address future energy needs at certain points in the grid, such as southwestern Pennsylvania and northern Virginia. If local lines aren't updated to a higher capacity, company officials have said customers in southwestern Pennsylvania can expect rolling blackouts and brownouts by 2011. The existing 138-kilovolt lines aren't large enough to accommodate electricity load growth rates of about 4 percent in central and northern Washington County. Growth rates elsewhere in the region average about 11/2 percent, company spokesman David Neurohr said. PJM has asked Allegheny Energy to make the southwestern Pennsylvania line a priority, said company officials, requesting that the project be completed by 2010 if possible. It will be built even if a line to northern Virginia is not, Mr. Neurohr said. The company is expected to file an application with the PUC soon, as it did in West Virginia last week. If construction permits are denied or not issued within the next year, it could kick in a backstop provided for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which gives the federal government the right to intervene with construction permits. (http://www.post-gazette.com/popup.asp?img=http://www.post-gazette.com/image…) Bill Pollock, managing director of Energy and Environment Advisory, talks up the business and economic arguments against Allegheny Energy Inc.'s plan to build a high voltage power line through Washington and Greene counties. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Stopaptrail.org, Stopthetowers.org
by Duane330＠aol.com 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

Group opposes power line through counties Sunday, March 11, 2007, Pittsburgh PressBy Crystal Ola There's a grassroots campaign under way to stop the construction of a proposed power line that will stretch from Washington and Greene counties through Maryland and West Virginia and into northern Virginia. The face of the campaign is Rich Yanock, a South Strabane resident who is heading a group to halt the plans of Allegheny Energy Inc. to build a section of Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line. In Washington County, the line would pass through North Strabane, South Strabane, Somerset, West Bethlehem and Amwell. The 500-kilovolt transmission line also would require the construction of two new substations -- Prexy, to be built in North Strabane, and 502 Junction, to be built in Dunkard, just northeast of Mount Morris in Greene County. The line and other electric transmission upgrades are expected to cost $1.3 billion. Allegheny Energy's portion will be in excess of $850 million. The project is expected to be completed by 2011. "I oppose this line," Mr. Yanock told a standing-room-only crowd of more than 300 people during an informal Feb. 28 meeting in Emanuel United Presbyterian Church on Route 519 in Somerset. "I'll tell you the truth, this is wrong ... It's up to us to expose it for what it is, not a national defense issue, but a profit issue." Mr. Yanock believes the power line will scar the landscape, lower property values and be a detriment to the health and safety of the residents. He also was at a Feb. 27 meeting of the Somerset Township Board of Supervisors, where more than 100 people attended. Nellie Chester, a resident of the township, said one proposed route would be about three blocks from her home. She's also opposed to the Prexy substation and having to pay higher bills for a project she doesn't believe will benefit anyone locally. "I don't want it in my backyard," she said before the meeting. "We're not getting anything out of it." A final route has yet to be established, although it is expected to be filed with the state Public Utility Commission by the end of March or in early April, said David Neurohr, spokesman for Allegheny Energy. The PUC will hold public hearings on the matter. The line is part of a five-year regional electric transmission plan approved by PJM Interconnection, which manages electric transmission services of the Mid-Atlantic power grid in 13 states and Washington, D.C. Allegheny Power's transmission zone is in PJM's region. Dominion Virginia Power will construct the line within its transmission zone. The line in Allegheny Power's zone will be about 210 miles long and the entire line will be 240 miles long. PJM maintains transmission expansion is needed to address reliability issues. PJM's planning process indicated a new line is necessary to relieve overloading existing West Virginia and Virginia substations. "Throughout the PJM region, the demand for electricity has increased significantly, while the transmission infrastructure has not increased at a proportional pace," according to the TrAIL Web site. "Due to the growth in the demand for electricity, additional transmission lines are needed to improve the grid's reliability and reduce congestion so power can be transferred from where it is generated to where it is needed." Allegheny Energy held open houses last year, including one for Greene and Fayette counties on Dec. 13 and one in Washington County on Dec. 14. Mr. Neurohr said the open houses are proof that the company isn't doing this without letting anyone know. "We did them on our own to involve the public, to solicit information from the public and to inform the public," he said. Mr. Yanock, however, believes Allegheny Energy "dropped the ball on this." Part of his campaign is informing the public about the power line. "You'd be surprised at the widespread ignorance of this project," he said last week. Mr. Yanock didn't attend the open house because he wasn't aware of it beforehand. He heard about it after the fact and began meeting with a small group of 10 people or so. The group is planning to develop an official name and find the best legal structure in order to become an entity recognized by the PUC, he said. Mr. Yanock's first formal step was to ask South Strabane supervisors for an official letter of support. Township Solicitor Thomas Lonich said the township sent a Jan. 24 letter of protest to the chairman and the president of Allegheny Energy, Inc., the state Public Utility Commission, county commissioners and Amwell supervisors. The township didn't receive a response from Allegheny Energy. The letter, based on Mr. Yanock's suggestions, stated the supervisors were unanimous in acting on behalf of township citizens in objecting to and protesting the line crossing through the township. A petition with 24 signatures from a Jan. 9 meeting was included with the letter. The letter also was sent to state Sen. Barry Stout, D-Bentleyville; state Rep. Tim Solobay, D-Canonsburg; U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter. Mr. Stout and some other local politicians attended the Feb. 28 meeting, where Mr. Yanock urged the crowd to contact legislators for their support. "They are the best allies we have," Mr. Yanock said. "As a matter of fact, we're not asking for help, we're begging for help." The effort has grown from a small group to hundreds of people and is nearing a thousand participants, he said. Petitions are being circulated. Mr. Yanock and his group are planning to hold an even bigger meeting at a large venue, such as the Washington County Fairgrounds. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 5. Additional information and maps of proposed routes are available at _aptrailinfo.com_ (http://aptrailinfo.com/) . Mr. Yanock's group also has a Web site, _stopaptrail.org_ (http://stopaptrail.org/) ____________________________________ (Crystal Ola is a freelance writer. ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Power line gets negative reaction Residents fear impact of Allegheny project Sunday, March 25, 2007, By Lynda Guydon Taylor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette About 100 people jammed a North Strabane meeting room to object to a power line proposed by Allegheny Energy Inc. The 500-kilovolt line would pass through parts of Washington and Greene counties to provide power to Northern Virginia suburbs, where there's a huge demand for electricity, South Strabane resident Rich Yanock told supervisors Tuesday. "I don't know of any line that large," said Mr. Yanock, who is heading a grassroots campaign against the 210-mile line to be built by Allegheny Power, part of the Allegheny Energy system. The line also involves construction of two substations, Prexy, which would be built in North Strabane, and 502 Junction, to be constructed in Dunkard, northeast of Mount Morris in Greene County. Two informational meetings are scheduled next month -- one on April 3 at the Bentleyville Fire Hall and another April 5 at the Washington County Fairgrounds. Among Mr. Yanock's concerns are that the line will scar the landscape, ruin property values and pose health risks. Although he is neither a doctor nor a scientist, he said, all he's read about health risks indicate that further research is necessary. While a not-in-my-backyard response is typical, Mr. Yanock said "in my opinion, I don't want this line in anybody's backyard." J.R. Morton, a township resident, echoed that sentiment. Those who look at the maps of the proposed routes of the line on the Allegheny Web site at _aptrailinfo.com_ (http://aptrailinfo.com/) , and think they are not affected, should think again, Mr. Morton said. There's still a price to pay. Mr. Yanock said customer rates are expected to increase substantially to allow Allegheny Power to recoup its $820 million cost of building the line. So far, Washington and Greene County commissioners are opposing it and local legislators have expressed concerns, Mr. Yanock said. Although he said he was not telling North Strabane supervisors what to do, he urged them to look into it carefully. A lot of questions remain to be answered. Supervisor Brian Spicer said the April 3 meeting, sponsored by Allegheny Power, is expected to identify where the line will go. At that point, residents and public officials should have a better understanding of the project. Mr. Spicer also said the Public Utility Commission has the ultimate authority to decide about the line. But Mr. Yanock said don't count on it. He believes Allegheny is prepared to appeal and fight to the end. Furthermore, he cited the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which allows a PUC decision to be overridden by the federal government to make sure such corridors receive priority treatment. Under the act, the federal Department of Energy can identify areas experiencing electric transmission constraints or congestion. In addition to information about the line at Allegheny's Web site, there also is data at a Web site, _stopaptrail.org_ (http://stopaptrail.org/) , posted by Mr. Yanock's group. ____________________________________ (Lynda Guydon Taylor can be reached at _ltaylor(a)post-gazette.com_ (mailto:ltaylor@post-gazette.com) or 724-746-8813. ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Power line plan draws opposition By Steve Ferris, Uniontown Herald-Standard, 03/30/2007, Updated 03/31/2007 FRANKLIN TWP. - More than 300 people attended a meeting Thursday held by the Greene County chapter of a grass-roots organization to rally opposition against Allegheny Energy's plans to construction a high-voltage power line through the Greene and Washington counties. Stopthetowers.org already has the support of the county commissioners from both counties as well as state Rep. H. William DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, in its fight against the proposed 240-mile, 500-kilovolt Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line, or TrAIL. Rick Layton, of the Greene County chapter, said the line would not provide electricity or any other benefits to the county. He said he believes the purpose of the line is to transmit power that is inexpensively generated in the area to east coast cities where it is sold at a high price. "This is about profit, pure and simple," Layton said to the crowd that gathered in the Waynesburg Central High School auditorium. Layton said Allegheny Power is expected to file an application to construct the line with the state Public Utility Commission within a week or two. The line would begin at the Prexy Substation, which Allegheny Power would build in the area of Eighty-Four in Washington County, and take one of three proposed routes to the 502 Junction substation that would be built in Mount Morris. >From there, it would go to an existing substation in Mount Storm, W.Va., and then to a Dominion Virginia Power substation in Loudoun, Va. The anticipated completion date is 2011. Allegheny Power said the line is needed to ensure the stability of the regional power grid and the reliable flow of electricity in the region. The project grew from a June 2006 directive from PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization that manages electrical transmission services in all or parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee and the District of Columbia. Allegheny Power is hosting two open houses to explain and answer questions about the project. The first is in Greene County on Monday from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Jefferson Volunteer Fire Department on Route 188 in Jefferson. The second one is Tuesday from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Bentleyville Volunteer Fire Department on Main Street in Bentleyville. Stopthetowers.org is holding a second opposition rally Thursday at 7 p.m. in Hall No. 1 at the Washington County Fairgrounds. Layton said the line would impact the county in a number of ways and none of them are good. It would decrease property values, result in a rate increase, create huge eyesore in the county rural landscape and possibly cause health problems, said Layton. He said the right of way, which would be 200 feet wide with towers up to 160-feet tall, would be sprayed with herbicides and the county already has a poor air quality rating. Along with the county commissioners and DeWeese, supervisors from several townships have issued letters of opposition to the project, said Layton. Pam Snyder, chairwoman of the Greene County Commissioners, said the board first expressed its opposition in December and has written letters stating their opposition to state and federal officials. "We stand ready to do whatever it takes to keep this power line out of our pristine county," said Snyder. "Lets show them we're not positive they're not going to impact this county any more." DeWeese said his staff and eight "capital" attorneys in Harrisburg are researching the project. He said he met with Allegheny Power officials and he believes profit is the motive behind the line. "They did not have a series of solid and inflexible reasons to build this," DeWeese said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Power transmission line drawing protests Residents in Washington, Greene counties oppose Allegheny Power plans Tuesday, April 03, 2007, By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Residents in Washington and Greene counties have mounted a campaign to block plans for a new power transmission line through their neighborhoods, saying it will hurt property values and the quality of life without providing any local benefits. Allegheny Energy Inc. officials, though, say misconceptions about the plan have snowballed and that many residents and municipal officials don't realize the new power line is to transmit power into, not out of, Western Pennsylvania. Allegheny Energy is the parent of Allegheny Power, which provides service to most customers in Washington and Greene counties. Local, county and state officials have signed petitions against the plan, citing concerns about whether such a line is necessary. The Greensburg-based company has held 10 open houses to explain its plan for the Trans Allegheny Interstate Line, commonly referred to as TrAIL. The company's last scheduled meeting is set for tonight from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Bentleyville Fire Hall in Washington County, Company officials said they plan to emphasize details they believe have been misunderstood and reasons why they believe the project is needed. The company wants to build a 240-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line extending from southwestern Pennsylvania to existing substations in West Virginia and ending in northern Virginia. The final 30 miles of the line will be built and controlled by Dominion Virginia Power. Allegheny's portion of the cost is $820 million, while the total project is estimated at about $1.3 billion. The upgrade was mandated by PJM Interconnection, which manages electric transmission services of the Mid-Atlantic power grid in 13 states and Washington, D.C. The line is part of PJM's five-year regional electric transmission plan, meant to address future energy needs at certain points in the power grid. Grassroots organizations, including _stopthetowers.org_ (http://stopthetowers.org/) , are opposed to the plan, saying the project is a ploy by Allegheny Energy to make profits from outside the region at the expense of local customers. Residents have also expressed concern over rate hikes, and health and safety issues, and claim the company hasn't done all it could to avoid construction of the new lines, which will be supported by 125-foot towers along 200-foot rights-of-way. One of the group's organizers, Richard Yanock of South Strabane, said such large lines are over capacity for local demand, and he said the company has not made clear what it's plans are beyond five years. "We need to understand what the plan is before they put a 500-kilovolt monster into the countryside," he said. The company intends to submit it's plan to the state Public Utility Commission for approval soon, but even if the state opposes the plan or doesn't approve it within the next year, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives the federal government the right to intervene with construction permits. The company claims if the new lines aren't approved, the area could see rolling blackouts and brownouts by 2011 due to a growth rate of about 4 percent in central and northern Washington County. Growth elsewhere in southwestern Pennsylvania averages about 1.5 percent, Allegheny Energy spokesman David Neurohr said. The size of the current transmission lines, at 138 kilovolts, isn't large enough to accommodate the additional load. "You can't wait until the well's run dry to figure out where you're going to get your next cup of water," he said. ____________________________________ (Janice Crompton can be reached at _jcrompton(a)post-gazette.com_ (mailto:jcrompton@post-gazette.com) or 724-223-0156. ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

CO2 in the Clean Air Act
by Duane330＠aol.com 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

April 3, 2007, Editorial, New York Times. The Court Rules on Warming It would be hard to overstate the importance of yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court that the federal government has the authority to regulate the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by motor vehicles. It is a victory for a world whose environment seems increasingly threatened by climate change. It is a vindication for states like California that chose not to wait for the federal government and acted to limit emissions that contribute to global warming. And it should feed the growing momentum on Capitol Hill for mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas. The 5-to-4 ruling was a rebuke to the Bush administration and its passive approach to the warming threat. The ruling does not require the government to regulate greenhouse gases. But it instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal to regulate emissions, urges it to pay attention to the scientific evidence and says that if it takes the same stance, it has to come up with better reasons than its current “laundry list” of excuses. The ruling also demolishes President Bush’s main justification for not acting — his argument that because the Clean Air Act does not specifically mention greenhouse gases, the executive branch has no authority to regulate them. The president has cited other reasons for not acting, including costs. But his narrow reading of the Clean Air Act has always been his ace in the hole. The court offered a much more “capacious” reading of the act, as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The plaintiffs — 12 states and 13 environmental groups — had argued, and the court agreed, that while the act does not specifically mention greenhouse gases, it gives the federal government clear jurisdiction over “any air pollutant” that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger “public health or welfare.” This interpretation was first set forth by Carol Browner, administrator of the E.P.A. under President Clinton, and remained agency policy until Mr. Bush reversed it in 2001. The administration had also argued that the states did not have standing to sue on this issue because they could not show that they would be harmed by the government’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases. The court ruled that the states have a strong and legitimate interest in protecting their land and their citizens against the dangers of climate change and thus have standing to sue. The ruling reinforces state efforts in other ways. California and nearly a dozen other states have adopted their own regulations requiring lower greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. These rules, however, require federal approval, which seemed unlikely as long as the agency could claim that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant — a claim it can no longer make. The E.P.A. had also argued that reducing emissions would require it to tighten fuel efficiency standards, a job assigned by law to the Department of Transportation. The automakers have made much the same argument against California ’s emissions rules. But the court said that the E.P.A. could not shirk its responsibilities just because another department sets mileage standards. The agency is clearly in for some serious soul-searching. The decision was unnervingly close, and some of the arguments in the dissent, written by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., were cause for concern — especially his comments about the “complexities” of the science of climate change, which is too close for comfort to the administration’s party line. Still, the Supreme Court, for the first time, has said that global warming is a real and present danger. This can only encourage those on Capitol Hill and in the states who are growing increasingly impatient for aggressive action. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Search for New W.V.U. President
by duane330＠aol.com 26 Mar '07

26 Mar '07

RE: SEARCH FOR NEW W.V.U. PRESIDENT................ FROM: Duane Nichols, B.S.Ch.E. 1959. NOTE: You can send your comments as correspondence to the following email address, to which everything sent will be provided to the Search Committee: PresidentSearch(a)mail.wvu.edu If you would prefer a hard copy address, you can send to: WVU Board of Governors, c/o Board Secretary, West Virginia University, PO Box 6201, Morgantown, WV 26506. Profiles of the 3 finalists for president of WVU The Dominion Post Daniel Bernstine Daniel Bernstine, 59, has been president of Portland State University since August 1997. Portland State has about 24,000 students, 2,049 faculty, a budget of $429.7 million, and research expenditures of $40 million, according to the PSU Web site. Before coming to PSU, Bernstine served as dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School from 1990-’97. He served as general counsel of Howard University from 1987-’90 and also as the interim dean of Howard University Law School from 1988-’90. Bernstine graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with a B.A. degree in 1969, from the Northwestern University School of Law with a J.D. degree in 1972, and received his LL.M. degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1975. He received Honorary Doctor of Law degrees from Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea, in 1999, and from Waseda University, one of the top two private universities in Japan, in 2003. Bernstine was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Human Letters degree from Nizhny Novgorod Linguistic University, in Russia, in 2004. In 2005, Bernstine was awarded the Michael P. Malone International Leadership Award in recognition of his work in internationalization in higher education. He was given the International Citizen Award by the Oregon Consular Corps in 2004. >From 1972-’73, Bernstine was a staff attorney with the Office of the Solicitor at the U.S. Department of Labor, and from 1974-’75, he was the William H. Hastie Teaching Fellow at the University of Wisconsin Law School. From 1975-’78, Bernstine was assistant professor at Howard University Law School. He joined the University of Wisconsin Law School faculty in 1978 and was on leave from Wisconsin while serving as general counsel and interim law school dean at Howard. Among other schools, Bernstine has been a visiting law professor at the Inter-American Comparative Law Institute at the University of Havana Law School, in Havana, Cuba, and Justus-Liebig-Universitat in Giessen, Germany. He has served as a member of the National Conference of Bar Examiners Multi-State Torts Drafting Committee and the American Law Institute. He has served on the Association of American Law Schools Committee on Accreditation, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners. Bernstine has also been involved in Portland organizations such as the United Way of Columbia-Willamette. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Bernstine’s annual salary is about $340,000. He also receives about $50,000 toward his retirement. His total compensation is $390,000. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Mike S. Garrison Mike Garrison, 38, a native of Fairmont and the only finalist working in West Virginia, resigned Wednesday as chair of the Higher Education Policy Commission, a position he was named to in July 2006. The commission is responsible for developing, establishing and overseeing the implementation of a public-policy agenda for the state’s fouryear colleges and universities — including WVU. State law would have required Garrison to step down as chair if he was named WVU president. Garrison said he resigned prior to this week’s announcement that he is a candidate to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. According to the state Auditor’s Office, Garrison received no state salary for this job. He is a lawyer and the managing partner for the Morgantown office of Spilman, Thomas and Battle, PLLC, which has offices in West Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Garrison is registered as a lobbyist with the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office. His clients include companies in the Morgantown area such as Mylan Laboratories and Platinum Properties. Two members of the WVU Board of Governors are on the board of directors at Centra Bank, another of Garrison’s clients. Garrison received a bachelor’s degree in political science and English literature from WVU in 1992. He served his alma mater as student body president. Garrison spent a year in England as a Rotary Scholar at Oxford, then returned to Morgantown to attend the WVU College of Law, which he graduated from in 1996. He teaches “Politics in West Virginia” at the university, though he is not teaching this semester. Garrison said he does not draw a salary for teaching this course. Garrison’s public service experiences include work as a legislative assistant for both Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., and Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, D-W.Va. Garrison was a member of former Gov. Bob Wise’s administration when he was appointed cabinet secretary of the Department of Tax and Revenue, in January 2001. In May 2001, Garrison became the governor’s chief of staff, a position he held until October 2003. Wise later appointed him to serve as a member of the commission in 2003. Garrison was a member of Joe Manchin’s transition team when he was elected West Virginia governor, in 2004. Garrison is active on many boards and associations related to the university. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< M. Duane Nellis Nellis, 52, became Kansas State University’s provost in June 2004, after serving for seven years at WVU as dean of the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences. As provost, Nellis serves as chief academic officer of Kansas State, which has more than 23,000 students, 1,500 faculty, a budget of more than $683 million and research funding that exceeds $197 million. Nellis said he earns $220,000 a year as provost. Nellis also serves as a representative of the president and in place of the president during his absence. At WVU, Nellis led a capital fundraising campaign, oversaw the planning and construction of a $50 million Life Sciences building, and established a new Center for Writing Excellence and a Math Learning Institute. Nellis completed his Ph.D. in geography from Oregon State University in 1980 and accepted his first academic appointment at KSU. Prior to his departure in 1997 for WVU, Nellis served as head of Kansas State’s department of geography, and then senior associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, according to WVU News and Information Services. Nellis recently served as president of the Association of American Geographers, one of the largest professional geography organizations in the world. He is past president of the National Council for Geographic Education, past president of Gamma Theta Upsilon, the International Geographic Honor Society, past president of the Kansas Academy of Sciences, and serves as an executive committee member of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges Chief Academic Officers. Nellis is recognized for his research using satellite data and geographic information systems to analyze various dimensions of the Earth’s land surface, according to WVU News and Information Services. This research has been funded by grants totaling more than $3 million from sources such as NASA and National Geographic Society. He has been recognized through numerous awards, such as being named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Honors from the Association of American Geographers and the AAG’s John Fraser Hart Award for Excellence in Research, At WVU, he received the Neil S. Bucklew Award for Social Justice in 2003 and the University’s Leadership Award for Safety in 2002. He is also an honorary member of Phi Beta Kappa and Golden Key National Honor Society. Nellis completed his undergraduate degree at Montana State University before pursuing his graduate work at Oregon State University. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

2 1

Re: [MVCAC] Appeal of Longview Air Quality Permit
by Bill Reger-Nash 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Thank you, Duane, Phil, and the many others working so diligently on our behalf. The health and public health implications of this proposed antiquated monstrosity are monumental. Where and when will it ever end? Bill and Jan Reger-Nash WV Walks - 30 minutes or more daily Feel the power of half an hour! Bill Reger-Nash, Ed.D Professor of Community Medicine West Virginia University School of Medicine Morgantown WV 26506-9190 Phone: 304/293-0763 Fax: 304/293-6685 Dept. web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed BRN's web page: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/wreger/ >>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 03/23/07 6:08 PM >>> Appeal of Longview Air Quality Permit Today, March 23, 2007, a Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Clarksburg laying out the fact that the Air Quality Permit R14-0024 actually expired on September 2, 2004 and that the actions of Longview attempting to renew this permit since that time have not been valid or legal. This Appeal No. 1:07 cv 41 is shown below and is attached as a Microsoft Word document. This Appeal will be the subject of a Hearing before Judge Irene Keeley in Clarksburg within a few weeks. The attached Appeal was submitted by Jarrett F. Jamison III, the Fort Martin Community Association, and the Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association. These same Plaintiffs filed an Appeal with regard to this same Air Quality Permit in 2004, viz. Appeal No. 04-02-AQB, before the WV Air Quality Board. That Appeal contested the procedures used to prepare the Permit as issued on March 2, 2004, especially with regard to the lost transcript of a Public Hearing held in Morgantown. That Appeal was subsequently turned down by the Air Quality Board, by the Kanawha County Circuit Court, and by the WV Supreme Court of Appeals. Mr. Jarrett F. Jamison III is a resident of the Fort Martin Community and a professional electrician with experience in power plant construction. The Fort Martin Community Association includes families of the area within which the proposed Longview power plant is to be constructed, where already the noise and adverse safety conditions from truck traffic is severe, and where the levels of pollutants from the existing Ft. Martin power plant are the greatest. The Forks of Cheat Forest became an Intervenor in these proceedings because (a) an obligation exists to preserve and protect the Nature Preserve that surrounds the properties, and (b) the Forks of Cheat Forest is directly downwind of the Ft. Martin power plant as well as the proposed Longview power plant, given the direction of the prevailing winds, and subject to the air pollutant effects on the health of our residents including children and senior citizens. The aesthetic effects of steam plumes from the evaporation of approximately 4,000 gallons per minute of water in up to 20 cooling towers of the Longview plant has also been of concern, given its location on the ridge overlooking the Monongahela River valley. It has also been pointed out to the WV Division of Air Quality that the 14,000 tons per day of carbon dioxide that will issue from the Longview plant will contribute greatly to the greenhouse gas inventory of our atmosphere. Note-- A similar Complaint was filed earlier this year and was the subject of a Hearing before Judge Keeley on February 23rd. This earlier Complaint was subsequently modified, at the suggestion of the Judge, and then it was withdrawn so that it could be rewritten in order to frame the legal argument more accurately. The legal work is being done by the lawyer Phillip D. Gaujot, with advice and consultation provided by a legal entity that specializes in the U. S. Clean Air Act. These legal services are being provided pro bono (at no charge), in the public interest. A filing fee of $350 is being shared among the Plaintiffs. If any questions arise, please send an email to _duane330(a)aol.com_ (mailto:duane330@aol.com) . 00 to 695 MW and increase the water usage to 5,600 gallons per minute via a "waiver" from the WV Public Service Commission, without presenting full information as to the increased environmental impacts to the PSC or the public. This "waiver" has been appealed to the WV Supreme Court of Appeals by Barbara Born, et.al., a group that includes a number of residents of Monongalia County plus three non-profit organizations (the Cheat Lake Environment And Recreation Association [CLEAR], the Citizens for Alternatives to Longview [CALP], and the Citizens for Responsible Development). The initial Hearing on this waiver appeal is set for April 18th in Charleston. Note -- The NPDES ("storm water and waste water") permit for the Longview plant was granted by the WV Department of Environmental Quality on October 16, 2006. This Permit WV0116238 was appealed by the Fort Martin Community Association on November 14, 2006, as Appeal No. 06-31-EQB before the WV Environmental Quality Board (EQB). Two days of Hearings have been held in Charleston. Initial Briefs are due from the parties to this Appeal on or near April 30th, and then Rebuttal Briefs will be filed on or near May 15th. The EQB will then render a decision. It is claimed that Longview did not provide accurate and complete information in the permit application and that the WV-DEP did not follow systematic or proper procedures in granting the permit; and, that the permit violates the public interest and needs to be voided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA (CLARKSBURG) Jarrett F. Jamison III, ) Fort Martin Community Association and ) Forks of Cheat Forest Property ) Owners Association, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:07 cv 41 vs. ) ) ) ) Longview Power, LLC, ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffs, Jarrett F. Jamison III, Fort Martin Community Association and Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association, allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs, Jarrett F. Jamison III, Fort Martin Community Association and Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association, bring this citizen suit against Defendant Longview Power, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; for declaratory and injunctive relief and the imposition of civil penalties under the Federal Clean Air Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671(q). This action seeks an order enjoining Defendant from constructing or proposing to construct a merchant power plant (“the Power Plant”) near Maidsville, in Cass District, Monongalia County, West Virginia without a valid Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This citizen suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7604(a)(3). As such, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7604(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1355. 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7904(c)(1) because the Power Plant is located in this District. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Jarrett F. Jamison III, is a resident of Cass District, Monongalia County, West Virginia. Fort Martin Community Association (hereinafter FMCA) and Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association (hereinafter FOCF) are non-profit organizations consisting of residents of Monongalia County, West Virginia who live in close proximity to the proposed Power Plant. The associati natural environment. Plaintiff Jamison and the members of Plaintiff associations, own real estate, work, recreate, grow crops and study in and near areas affected by the proposed Power Plant. The air quality of these areas affects the recreational, aesthetic, and economic interests of Plaintiffs. The interests of Plaintiffs will be adversely affected by pollution from the Power Plant because the level of pollutants to be discharged from the proposed Power Plant will degrade air quality, injuring and/or damaging wildlife, vegetation, and real estate in areas used by Plaintiffs, and harm the aesthetic enjoyment of these areas by Plaintiffs. Construction of the proposed Power Plant without a valid PSD permit will also adversely affect the health of Plaintiffs. An order of this Court directing Defendant to procure a valid PSD permit prior to constructing the Power Plant will redress the injuries to Plaintiffs because of the recent significant advances in pollution control technologies that will be required under a new permit. 5. Defendant Longview Power, LLC is a Delaware for-profit limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 1040 Great Plains Avenue, Needham, Massachusetts. Longview was incorporated and became qualified to perform business in West Virginia on May 24, 2001. CLAIM FOR RELIEF DEFENDANT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMIT UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT 6. Plaintiffs, re-allege paragraphs 1 through 5 above as if fully alleged herein. 7. The Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”) is designed to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). One of the programs that the CAA established to achieve that goal is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) Program. See 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et al. 8. In general, the PSD program imposes limitations on the ambient air quality impact of new major stationary sources and requires such facilities to install the “best available control technology” (“BACT”) for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act that is emitted from, or that results from, such facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4). 9. Under the PSD program, “no major emitting facility on which construction is commenced after August 7, 1977, may be constructed in any area to which [the PSD program] applies unless a permit has been issued for such proposed facility in accordance with this part setting forth emission limitations for such facility which conform to the requirements of this part [.]” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a). 10. The U.S. EPA has delegated authority to the State of West Virginia to carry out the PSD program in that state. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency responsible for administering the PSD program in West Virginia. DEP’s PSD regulations, which have been approved by the EPA and which are in effect as federal law in West Virginia’s State Implementation Plan under 42 U.S.C. § 7410, are contained in 47 CSR Part 14. 11. Under 47 CSR 14-7.1., no person may construct a major stationary source without a permit issued by DEP under that section. Under 47 CSR 14-8.2., the permitted source must install BACT to control regulated pollutants from the source. 12. The Power Plant is a major stationary source as defined in 47 CSR 14-2.43. 13. The Director of DAQ issued a PSD construction permit to an extension of the Permit to allow time for the issuance of the remaining pre-construction permits needed for the Project.” 19. By letter dated February 1, 2006, to Mr. Place, the Director of DAQ summarily granted a “…twelve-month extension of the deadline to commence construction authorized in the permit…” The letter did not give a specific time frame for thet such an extension. 20. West Virginia’s PSD regulations in 47 CSR Part 14, do not authorize DEP to extend the 18-month commencement period. 21. Defendant Longview Power, LLC, has entered into agreements with other companies for equipment and/or construction services for the proposed Power Plant, the details of which are unknown to the Plaintiffs. 22. The Director of DAQ refuses to suspend or revoke the permit granted to Longview Power, LLC granted on March 2, 2004. 23. Defendant Longview Power currently does not have a valid PSD construction permit for the Power Plant under the Clean Air Act, the West Vi rginia State Implementation Plan, and 47 CSR Part 14. 24. Any actions by Defendant to construct the Power Plant without a valid PSD construction permit violate the Clean Air Act and are subject to an injunction and the imposition of civil penalties under 42 U.S.C. §§ 7604(a) and 7413(b). 25. The violations herein are subject to enforcement by citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a),(f). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: A. A temporary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to stop actual construction activities of the Power Plant until Defendant has a valid PSD permit; B. A declaration that Defendant’s construction activities regarding the Power Plant after September 2, 2005 are illegal; C. An order requiring Defendant to pay a fine for each day that Defendant constructs or propose to construct the Power Plant without a valid PSD permit. See 42 U.S.C. §7604(a) and § 7413(b); D. An order requiring Defendant to pay the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees; and E. All other relief the Court deems just and proper. Jarrett F. Jamison III Fort Martin Community Association Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association / s / Phillip D. Gaujot __________________________________________ Phillip D. Gaujot (SB#1355) Counsel for Plaintiffs 445 Lakeview Drive Morgantown, WV 26508 (304) 594-3904 . ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Appeal of Longview Air Quality Permit
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Mar '07

23 Mar '07

Appeal of Longview Air Quality Permit Today, March 23, 2007, a Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Clarksburg laying out the fact that the Air Quality Permit R14-0024 actually expired on September 2, 2004 and that the actions of Longview attempting to renew this permit since that time have not been valid or legal. This Appeal No. 1:07 cv 41 is shown below and is attached as a Microsoft Word document. This Appeal will be the subject of a Hearing before Judge Irene Keeley in Clarksburg within a few weeks. The attached Appeal was submitted by Jarrett F. Jamison III, the Fort Martin Community Association, and the Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association. These same Plaintiffs filed an Appeal with regard to this same Air Quality Permit in 2004, viz. Appeal No. 04-02-AQB, before the WV Air Quality Board. That Appeal contested the procedures used to prepare the Permit as issued on March 2, 2004, especially with regard to the lost transcript of a Public Hearing held in Morgantown. That Appeal was subsequently turned down by the Air Quality Board, by the Kanawha County Circuit Court, and by the WV Supreme Court of Appeals. Mr. Jarrett F. Jamison III is a resident of the Fort Martin Community and a professional electrician with experience in power plant construction. The Fort Martin Community Association includes families of the area within which the proposed Longview power plant is to be constructed, where already the noise and adverse safety conditions from truck traffic is severe, and where the levels of pollutants from the existing Ft. Martin power plant are the greatest. The Forks of Cheat Forest became an Intervenor in these proceedings because (a) an obligation exists to preserve and protect the Nature Preserve that surrounds the properties, and (b) the Forks of Cheat Forest is directly downwind of the Ft. Martin power plant as well as the proposed Longview power plant, given the direction of the prevailing winds, and subject to the air pollutant effects on the health of our residents including children and senior citizens. The aesthetic effects of steam plumes from the evaporation of approximately 4,000 gallons per minute of water in up to 20 cooling towers of the Longview plant has also been of concern, given its location on the ridge overlooking the Monongahela River valley. It has also been pointed out to the WV Division of Air Quality that the 14,000 tons per day of carbon dioxide that will issue from the Longview plant will contribute greatly to the greenhouse gas inventory of our atmosphere. Note-- A similar Complaint was filed earlier this year and was the subject of a Hearing before Judge Keeley on February 23rd. This earlier Complaint was subsequently modified, at the suggestion of the Judge, and then it was withdrawn so that it could be rewritten in order to frame the legal argument more accurately. The legal work is being done by the lawyer Phillip D. Gaujot, with advice and consultation provided by a legal entity that specializes in the U. S. Clean Air Act. These legal services are being provided pro bono (at no charge), in the public interest. A filing fee of $350 is being shared among the Plaintiffs. If any questions arise, please send an email to _duane330(a)aol.com_ (mailto:duane330@aol.com) . Note -- Longview has proposed to increase the power plant capacity from 600 to 695 MW and increase the water usage to 5,600 gallons per minute via a "waiver" from the WV Public Service Commission, without presenting full information as to the increased environmental impacts to the PSC or the public. This "waiver" has been appealed to the WV Supreme Court of Appeals by Barbara Born, et.al., a group that includes a number of residents of Monongalia County plus three non-profit organizations (the Cheat Lake Environment And Recreation Association [CLEAR], the Citizens for Alternatives to Longview [CALP], and the Citizens for Responsible Development). The initial Hearing on this waiver appeal is set for April 18th in Charleston. Note -- The NPDES ("storm water and waste water") permit for the Longview plant was granted by the WV Department of Environmental Quality on October 16, 2006. This Permit WV0116238 was appealed by the Fort Martin Community Association on November 14, 2006, as Appeal No. 06-31-EQB before the WV Environmental Quality Board (EQB). Two days of Hearings have been held in Charleston. Initial Briefs are due from the parties to this Appeal on or near April 30th, and then Rebuttal Briefs will be filed on or near May 15th. The EQB will then render a decision. It is claimed that Longview did not provide accurate and complete information in the permit application and that the WV-DEP did not follow systematic or proper procedures in granting the permit; and, that the permit violates the public interest and needs to be voided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA (CLARKSBURG) Jarrett F. Jamison III, ) Fort Martin Community Association and ) Forks of Cheat Forest Property ) Owners Association, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:07 cv 41 vs. ) ) ) ) Longview Power, LLC, ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffs, Jarrett F. Jamison III, Fort Martin Community Association and Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association, allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs, Jarrett F. Jamison III, Fort Martin Community Association and Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association, bring this citizen suit against Defendant Longview Power, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; for declaratory and injunctive relief and the imposition of civil penalties under the Federal Clean Air Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671(q). This action seeks an order enjoining Defendant from constructing or proposing to construct a merchant power plant (“the Power Plant”) near Maidsville, in Cass District, Monongalia County, West Virginia without a valid Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This citizen suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7604(a)(3). As such, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7604(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1355. 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7904(c)(1) because the Power Plant is located in this District. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Jarrett F. Jamison III, is a resident of Cass District, Monongalia County, West Virginia. Fort Martin Community Association (hereinafter FMCA) and Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association (hereinafter FOCF) are non-profit organizations consisting of residents of Monongalia County, West Virginia who live in close proximity to the proposed Power Plant. The associations were formed, in part, to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural environment. Plaintiff Jamison and the members of Plaintiff associations, own real estate, work, recreate, grow crops and study in and near areas affected by the proposed Power Plant. The air quality of these areas affects the recreational, aesthetic, and economic interests of Plaintiffs. The interests of Plaintiffs will be adversely affected by pollution from the Power Plant because the level of pollutants to be discharged from the proposed Power Plant will degrade air quality, injuring and/or damaging wildlife, vegetation, and real estate in areas used by Plaintiffs, and harm the aesthetic enjoyment of these areas by Plaintiffs. Construction of the proposed Power Plant without a valid PSD permit will also adversely affect the health of Plaintiffs. An order of this Court directing Defendant to procure a valid PSD permit prior to constructing the Power Plant will redress the injuries to Plaintiffs because of the recent significant advances in pollution control technologies that will be required under a new permit. 5. Defendant Longview Power, LLC is a Delaware for-profit limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 1040 Great Plains Avenue, Needham, Massachusetts. Longview was incorporated and became qualified to perform business in West Virginia on May 24, 2001. CLAIM FOR RELIEF DEFENDANT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMIT UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT 6. Plaintiffs, re-allege paragraphs 1 through 5 above as if fully alleged herein. 7. The Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”) is designed to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). One of the programs that the CAA established to achieve that goal is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) Program. See 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et al. 8. In general, the PSD program imposes limitations on the ambient air quality impact of new major stationary sources and requires such facilities to install the “best available control technology” (“BACT”) for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act that is emitted from, or that results from, such facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4). 9. Under the PSD program, “no major emitting facility on which construction is commenced after August 7, 1977, may be constructed in any area to which [the PSD program] applies unless a permit has been issued for such proposed facility in accordance with this part setting forth emission limitations for such facility which conform to the requirements of this part [.]” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a). 10. The U.S. EPA has delegated authority to the State of West Virginia to carry out the PSD program in that state. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency responsible for administering the PSD program in West Virginia. DEP’s PSD regulations, which have been approved by the EPA and which are in effect as federal law in West Virginia’s State Implementation Plan under 42 U.S.C. § 7410, are contained in 47 CSR Part 14. 11. Under 47 CSR 14-7.1., no person may construct a major stationary source without a permit issued by DEP under that section. Under 47 CSR 14-8.2., the permitted source must install BACT to control regulated pollutants from the source. 12. The Power Plant is a major stationary source as defined in 47 CSR 14-2.43. 13. The Director of DAQ issued a PSD construction permit to Defendant Longview Power, LLC to Construct an Electric Power Generation Facility on March 2, 2004. 14. On August 4, 2004, Defendant Longview Power, LLC entered into a settlement agreement with certain parties who had appealed the granting of the permit to the West Virginia Air Quality Board. On the same day the settlement agreement was incorporated into a Consent Order of the Air Quality Board signed by the Chairman of the Board. The Consent Order added restrictions to the original permit. The Consent Order did not change the effective date of the permit entered on March 2, 2004. 15. Subsequently, the terms of the settlement agreement between Longview Power, LLC and the certain parties who had appealed the original granting of the permit, where incorporated into a revised permit, however, the “ effective date” was never changed from March 2, 2004. 16. By letter dated September 2, 2005, to counsel for the Defendant Longview Power, LLC, the Director of DAQ opined that the effective date of the “revised permit is August 4, 2004” but took no action to amend the permit. 17. Under 47 CSR 14-8.4., DEP’s BACT determination for a PSD permit must occur no later than eighteen months prior to construction of the project. Thus, 18 months after the permit is issued, the BACT determination expires, and the permit is no longer valid. In addition, 45 CSR 14-19.2., provides as follows: The Secretary shall suspend or revoke a permit if, after eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance the holder of the permit cannot provide the Secretary, at the Secretary’s request, with written proof of a good faith effort that such construction, modification, or relocation has commenced and remains ongoing. Such proof shall be provided not later than thirty (30) days after the Secretary’s request. 18. By letter dated January 5, 2006, Mr. Robert Place of Longview Power, LLC requested “…an extension of the Permit to allow time for the issuance of the remaining pre-construction permits needed for the Project.” 19. By letter dated February 1, 2006, to Mr. Place, the Director of DAQ summarily granted a “…twelve-month extension of the deadline to commence construction authorized in the permit…” The letter did not give a specific time frame for the extension and did not cite any authority to support such an extension. 20. West Virginia’s PSD regulations in 47 CSR Part 14, do not authorize DEP to extend the 18-month commencement period. 21. Defendant Longview Power, LLC, has entered into agreements with other companies for equipment and/or construction services for the proposed Power Plant, the details of which are unknown to the Plaintiffs. 22. The Director of DAQ refuses to suspend or revoke the permit granted to Longview Power, LLC granted on March 2, 2004. 23. Defendant Longview Power currently does not have a valid PSD construction permit for the Power Plant under the Clean Air Act, the West Vi rginia State Implementation Plan, and 47 CSR Part 14. 24. Any actions by Defendant to construct the Power Plant without a valid PSD construction permit violate the Clean Air Act and are subject to an injunction and the imposition of civil penalties under 42 U.S.C. §§ 7604(a) and 7413(b). 25. The violations herein are subject to enforcement by citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a),(f). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: A. A temporary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to stop actual construction activities of the Power Plant until Defendant has a valid PSD permit; B. A declaration that Defendant’s construction activities regarding the Power Plant after September 2, 2005 are illegal; C. An order requiring Defendant to pay a fine for each day that Defendant constructs or propose to construct the Power Plant without a valid PSD permit. See 42 U.S.C. §7604(a) and § 7413(b); D. An order requiring Defendant to pay the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees; and E. All other relief the Court deems just and proper. Jarrett F. Jamison III Fort Martin Community Association Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association / s / Phillip D. Gaujot __________________________________________ Phillip D. Gaujot (SB#1355) Counsel for Plaintiffs 445 Lakeview Drive Morgantown, WV 26508 (304) 594-3904 . ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Allegheny & AEP | more
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Mar '07

18 Mar '07

ALLEGHENY to install scrubbers at Fort Martin Charleston Gazette, page 2-C, March 16, 2007. Maidsville --- Allegheny Energy Inc. has hired a contractor to install scrubbers to reduce pollution at its Fort Martin power station, the company announced this past Thursday. The Greensburg, Pa-based company signed the agreement with Washington Group International, which will install flue gas desulfurization systems, also called scrubbers, to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at its Maidsville power plant. The project is expected to create 350 construction jobs, the company said in a new release. Other full-time jobs to operate and maintain the equipment will be created once construction is complete. "This project will bring cleaner air and more jobs to West Virginia, and allow us to use more locally sourced coal," Paul J. Evanson, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Allegheny Energy, said in the prepared statement. The state Public Service Commission has approved the company's plan to pay for the $550 million pollution control project. The company will sell $450 million worth of bonds and increase customer rates to repay them, Allegheny has said. The typical residential customer's bill of about $70 a month is expected to go up by about $3.50 a month. The installation of the scrubbers is scheduled to be completed in 2009. [NOTE: Allegheny Energy is planning to assemble scrubbers for the Hatsfield Ferry plant also at the Ft. Martin plant, then transport them via river barges downstream to the Hatsfield Ferry plant, opposite Masontown, Pa, which is just a few miles north of Pt. Marion. Work space at Hatsfield Ferry is limited. ] <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alstom and American Electric Power sign agreement to bring C02 capture technology to commercial scale by 2011 Press Release for Alstom: 15 March 2007 Alstom, a full-service power industry services company based in France, and American Electric Power (AEP) today signed a Memorandum of Understanding to bring Alstom’s chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture to full commercial scale of up to 200 MW by 2011. This is a major step in demonstrating post-combustion carbon capture. The technology has the great advantage versus other technologies of being fully applicable not only for new power plants, but also for the retrofit of existing coal-fired power plants. The project will be implemented in two phases. In phase one, Alstom and AEP will jointly develop a 30 MWth product validation plant that will capture CO2 from flue gas emitted from AEP’s 1300 MW Mountaineer Plant located in New Haven, West Virginia. It is targeted to capture up to 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. The captured CO2 will be designated for geological storage in deep saline aquifers at the site. This pilot is scheduled for start-up at the end of 2008 and will operate for approximately 12-18 months. In phase two, Alstom will design, construct and commission a commercial scale of up to 200 MW CO2 capture system on one of the 450 MW coal-fired units at its Northeastern Station in Oologah, Oklahoma. The system is scheduled for start-up in late 2011. It is expected to capture about 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year, commercially validating this promising technology. The CO2 captured at Northeastern Station will be used for enhanced oil recovery. Alstom’s post-combustion process uses chilled ammonia to capture CO2. This process dramatically reduces the energy required to capture carbon dioxide and isolates it in a highly concentrated, high-pressure form. In laboratory testing sponsored by EPRI and others, Alstom’s process has demonstrated the potential to capture over 90% of CO2 at a cost that is far less expensive than other carbon capture technologies. The isolated CO2, once captured, can be used commercially or stored in suitable underground geological sites. Philippe Joubert, President of Alstom Power Systems, said: ”We are extremely proud that AEP has chosen Alstom’s clean coal technology for this major project. Our partnership with AEP will result in the world’s first clean coal power plant and will be applicable not only for new plants but also for existing power plants”. About Alstom Alstom sets the benchmark for innovative, environmentally friendly technologies in the world of power and rail transport infrastructure. Alstom built the fastest train and the highest capacity automated metro in the world, and provides turnkey integrated power plant solutions and associated services for a wide variety of energy sources, including hydro, gas and coal. The Group employs 60,000 people in 70 countries, and had sales of € 13.4 billion in 2005/06. Please contact ALSTOM at : 3 avenue André Malraux 92309 Levallois-Perret Cedex, France. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are indebted to Herman Rieke for the above Press Release, as his son-in-law is Vice President for the Alstom Power Division. Thank you very much, Herman. ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

AEP carbon dioxide control
by Duane330＠aol.com 17 Mar '07

17 Mar '07

AEP Endorses 'Path to Sustainability' Statement of the Global Roundtable on Climate Change COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb. 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- American Electric Power (NYSE: _AEP_ (http://studio.financialcontent.com/Engine?Account=prnewswire&PageName=QUOTE…) ) is one of more than 85 international companies and organizations who signed a statement released today that proposes a post-Kyoto framework for addressing global climate change. "The Path to Climate Change Sustainability: A Joint Statement by the Global Roundtable on Climate Change" puts forth principles for creating an effective global approach to climate policy. "AEP has been actively engaged in efforts aimed at successfully addressing global climate change since the early 1990s," said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman, president and chief executive officer. "As we support the effort to develop a well-thought-out approach to carbon controls in the United States, we must remember that global warming is a global issue that will require a global solution. The joint statement of the Global Roundtable on Climate Change outlines the core aspects of a realistic global policy on climate change that will be critical for effectively stabilizing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide while meeting the global need for energy, economic growth and sustainable development." Key principles in "The Path to Climate Change Sustainability" include: involving all significant sectors of the economy, including all major emitters of greenhouse gases, developing market-based emission reduction mechanisms with incentives for early action, and supporting energy efficiency and deployment of clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies. Signing the joint statement also includes a commitment from AEP to continue its efforts to reduce and offset its greenhouse gas emissions, advance technology and work to increase public and industry understanding of both the risks of climate change and potential solutions. AEP has led the U.S. electric utility industry in taking action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. AEP was the first and largest U.S. utility to join the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the world's first and North America's only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and trading program. As a member of CCX, AEP committed to gradually reduce, avoid or sequester its GHG emissions to 6 percent below the average of its 1998 to 2001 emission levels by 2010. Through this commitment, AEP will reduce or offset approximately 46 million metric tons of GHG emissions by the end of the decade. AEP is achieving its GHG reductions through a broad portfolio of actions, including power plant efficiency improvements, renewable generation such as wind and biomass co-firing, off-system GHG reduction projects, reforestation projects and the potential purchase of emission credits through CCX. AEP has already made efficiency improvements to its current generating fleet, retired inefficient generation, enhanced the performance of its nuclear generation and expanded its use of renewable generation. The company is one of the larger generators and distributors of wind energy in the United States, operating 310 megawatts (MW) of wind generation in Texas and purchasing an additional 373 MW of wind generation from wind facilities in Oklahoma and Texas. AEP also has invested more than $25 million in terrestrial sequestration projects designed to conserve and reforest sensitive areas and offset more than 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) over the next 40 years. Going forward, AEP is focused on developing and deploying new technology that will reduce the GHG emissions of future coal-fueled power plants. In August 2004, AEP was the first electric utility to announce plans to scale up Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology to build baseload, coal-fueled power plants with less environmental impact. AEP has initiated the regulatory approval process in Ohio and West Virginia to build one large, commercial-scale (629-MW) IGCC plant in each state. Both plants would be designed to accommodate retrofit of technology to capture CO2 emissions. A strong supporter of research to address GHG emissions from coal-fueled power generation, AEP is a member of the FutureGen Alliance, which, in conjunction with the Department of Energy, will build the world's first nearly emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing and permanently storing CO2 in geologic formations. Additionally, AEP's Mountaineer Plant in New Haven, W.Va., is the site of a $4.2 million carbon sequestration research project through which scientists from Battelle Memorial Institute are seeking to better understand the capability of deep saline aquifers for permanent and ecologically safe storage of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. AEP is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states. AEP ranks among the nation's largest generators of electricity, owning nearly 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S. AEP also owns the nation's largest electricity transmission system, a nearly 39,000-mile network that includes more 765 kilovolt extra-high voltage transmission lines than all other U.S. transmission systems combined. AEP's utility units operate as AEP Ohio, AEP Texas, Appalachian Power (in Virginia and West Virginia), AEP Appalachian Power (in Tennessee), Indiana Michigan Power, Kentucky Power, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company (in Arkansas, Louisiana and east Texas). The company is based in Columbus, Ohio. MEDIA CONTACT: Melissa McHenry Manager, Corporate Media Relations 614/716-1120 SOURCE American Electric Power >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charleston Gazette. March 16, 2007 AEP to capture carbon at two plants, by Ken Ward Jr., Staff writer American Electric Power will begin to capture carbon dioxide emissions at two of its coal-fired power plants, including one in West Virginia, the company announced Thursday. AEP said it would perform an advanced test of new “carbon capture” technology next year at its Mountaineer Plant in New Haven, Mason County. When those tests are completed, AEP plans to deploy the equipment on a commercial scale at its Northeastern Station in Oologah, Okla. That project is scheduled for 2011. The projects mark the first large-scale use of technology that uses chilled ammonia to scrub carbon dioxide from power plant emissions. “With Congress expected to take action on greenhouse gas issues in climate legislation, it’s time to advance this technology for commercial use,” said Michael G. Morris, AEP’s chairman, president and chief executive. Carbon dioxide it the primary “greenhouse gas” that is building up in the atmosphere, trapping heat near the Earth, and warming the planet. Global warming could cause rising seal levels, unprecedented heat waves, floods, soil erosion, water shortages and other climate changes. In the U.S., power plants produce 5.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, and account for 39 percent of nationwide carbon emissions. Just two months ago, AEP announced that it would delay for at least six months construction of two new coal gasification power plants in West Virginia and Ohio. The Columbus, Ohio-based utility cited increased cost estimates. Those two plants would use a process called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, which turns coal into a gas before it is burned. IGCC plants do not necessarily collect carbon emissions to keep them out of the atmosphere, and the AEP plants were not designed to do so. But their design makes it easier to retrofit them for such a process later. Still, the two projects announced Thursday would collect carbon dioxide emissions after coal is burned, while the IGCC plants would strip out the carbon gases before the coal is burned. Melissa McHenry, an AEP spokeswoman, said the company does not believe that IGCC plants can replace all existing coal-fired power plants anytime soon. So, she said, utilities need to examine ways to retrofit existing plants to capture carbon dioxide post-combustion. “We are focused on both technologies,” McHenry said. In the projects announced Thursday, chilled ammonia is used to scrub carbon dioxide from power plant flue gases. The carbon dioxide is compressed, and can be pumped underground for storage or to enhance oil recovery. The first project will test the method on a small emissions stream — representing about 30 megawatts of the plant’s total production of 1,300 megawatts — at the Mountaineer Plant, AEP said. This process should capture about 110,000 tons of carbon dioxide. In 2005, the Mountaineer Plant emitted a total of 9.3 million tons of carbon dioxide, officials said. Carbon dioxide captured from Mountaineer will be pumped underground nearby, as part of a continuing experiment on carbon sequestration being funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy. The second project will install the carbon capture system on the entire 450-megawatt Northeastern Station in Oklahoma. There, carbon that is captured will be sold to oil companies, which will pump it underground to force out more oil and gas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

National Children's Study gets funds
by Duane330＠aol.com 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S STUDY? The National Children's Study will examine the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United States with the goal to improve their health and well-being. The study has designated 105 locations in the United States where it will recruit and enroll eligible participants, and track them from before birth until their 21st birthday. The pace of the study preparations benefited from a recent Congressional appropriation of funds for fiscal year 2007. For more information, go to _http://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/about/mission/index.cfm_ (http://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/about/mission/index.cfm) ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Global Warming Bus to D.C. <3/20/07>
by Duane330＠aol.com 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

To: Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition From: Duane Nichols, Convenor RE: Global Warming Bus to D.C. I hope you can join us in D.C. We will have a bus leave from Morgantown at 6 AM on March 20th from WVU. The bus will leave and return from the Agricultural Sciences Building. The Bus will leave D.C. and head back to Morgantown at 4 PM Our goal is to have 50 people join us from West Virginia. I will be visiting Morgantown on March 14th and 15th to help recruit for the event. Thanks so much for your help! Samuel Goldman Climate Crisis Action Day Organizer samuelrgoldman(a)gmail.com 202-744-3809 Climate Crisis Action Day is March 20, 2007 _www.climatecrisisaction.org_ (http://www.climatecrisisaction.org) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE: Click on the web site just above to find out more on details and to sign up for the trip.............. Temperatures are rising across the globe, and the impacts are devastating. But a new Congress is in session, and we have an opportunity unlike any we've seen in years. That's where you come in. Join thousands of dedicated activists for an action day at the US Capitol building in Washington, DC on March 20, 2007, along with politicians, celebrities, and community leaders. We'll even take you into the halls of Congress to meet your elected officials. What are we asking for? Sensible solutions to global warming, a path to a clean energy future, and permanent protections for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – a land perpetually threatened by a warming planet. YES! I want to come to Washington, DC at 11am on March 20th. Sign up at: _www.climatecrisisaction.org_ (http://www.climatecrisisaction.org) ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

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