MVCAC December 2005

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

6 participants
12 discussions

Update-- "news and views".......
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Dec '05

23 Dec '05

Greetings from the MVCAC.......... 1. Jarrett, Duane and Mary Anne Maul (lawyer) visited the WV Cultural Center yesterday to gather information on the Longview plan to preserve the historical features on or near the Longview site. Recent submissions have been made by Marshall Miller Associates on behalf of Longview, and I suspect that Longview considers their "application" to be complete. 2. We visited the Governor's Office and asked for information on the recently reactivated Public Energy Authority, but found out that it isn't very public at this time. Their stated objective is to promote a FutureGen plant in WV, using integrated gasification with combined cycles and CO2 capture. Another objective is to capture federal dollars for economic development. This would be a fine alternative to Longview, if located well to the west of the current site. 3. We visited the WV Department of Environmental Protection. At the Water and Waste Water Division, we gathered information on the application of Longview for a "storm water" permit. This application is not yet complete; and, when it is complete, it will be advertised in the local newspaper. At the Air Monitoring Division, we picked up a copy of the Annual Monitoring Report for last year and inspected duplicates of the monitoring instruments located at the Morgantown Airport, for (a) sulfur dioxide, (b) particulate matter (PM 2.5), and (c) ozone [in season, not winter] 4. We visited the Public Service Commission and picked up an Annual Report for 2004. Jim Ehlers of the Engineering Division was unavailable to discuss the current activities of the "noise task force". I HOPE TO PREPARE A MORE DETAILED REPORT ON THE CURRENT MVCAC PROJECTS THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY. NOTE: Today in the Dominion Post is the corrected announcement for the Longview transmission line certificate application. This announcement will appear again on December 30th, at which time the 30 day clock for additional public comments will start. This same information was sent recently to the MVCAC email list. However, in the newspaper you will see the corrected map of the area in question. MVCAC will likely call a special meeting [working session] to focus specifically on the Longview plant status early in January. The next regular (general) meeting of the MVCAC will be on Monday, January 23rd, at the home of Larry and Martha Schwab, 3333 Collins Ferry Road (Suncrest), Morgantown. The meeting starts at 7 pm. If you can, come over at 6:30 to socialize and enjoy some treats.

1 0

P.S.C. Order RE:Longview
by Duane330＠aol.com 20 Dec '05

20 Dec '05

NOTE: LONGVIEW HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE P.S.C. TO RESUBMIT ITS TRNASMISSION LINE CERTIFICATE APPLICATION, TO INCLUDE A CORRECTED MAP, ETC. LONGVIEW IS TO REPUBLISH AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE NEWSPAPER PROVIDING FOR A 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD. PREVIOUS PROTEST LETTERS NEED NOT BE RESUBMITTED. NEW PROTEST LETTERS WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE P.S.C. THE FULL ORDER IS PRINTED BELOW. PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTE TO ANYONE INTERESTED NOT ON THE MVCAC MAILING LIST. THANK YOU. DUANE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 051467com121605.wpd PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON At a session of the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA in the City of Charleston on the 16th day of December, 2005. CASE NO. 03-1860-E-CS-CN LONGVIEW POWER, LLC Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of a Wholesale Electric Generating Facility. CASE NO. 05-1467-E-CN LONGVIEW POWER, LLC Application of Longview Power, LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction and Installation of a 500 kV electric transmission line and to Satisfy Conditional Siting Certificate for Exempt Wholesale Generating Facility in Monongalia County, West Virginia. COMMISSION ORDER On September 30, 2005, Longview Power, LLC, (Longview or the Applicant) filed an application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity pursuant to West Virginia Code § 24-2-11a to construct and operate a high voltage transmission line in Monongalia County. This filing was docketed as Case No. 05-1467-E-CN. The Applicant previously published a Notice of Filing of this application. By a letter dated and filed December 2, 2005 the Applicant noted that the previously published notice contained an error in the map of the area where the transmission line will be located. The Applicant provided a corrected Notice of Filing for use in this matter. By a Commission Order entered August 27, 2004 in Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN the Commission conditionally granted Longivew's application for a Siting Certificate, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 24-2-11c, to authorize the construction and operation of an electric wholesale generating facility. Conclusion of Law No. 4 of that Order read as follows: In a future filing, Longview will be required to submit its transmission line application and provide further information which addresses the conditions hereinafter set forth, all of which will be subject to further public hearings and Commission decision. At those future hearings, in addition to presenting an adequate case concerning the proposed transmission line and related issues, the burden is on Longview to demonstrate that it has fully addressed and met the concerns embodied in these conditions. DISCUSSION Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN will be reopened for the limited purpose of addressing the contingent aspects of the Siting Certificate and will be consolidated with the transmission line application for the purpose of hearing and decision. Additionally, the Commission shall require Longview to publish the revised Notice attached hereto. Protestants who submitted letters in protest to the previous, incorrect publication will not be required to resubmit their respective letters of protest. All previously submitted letters of protest will be considered applicable to the corrected publication. Likewise, all previous intervenors in Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN shall retain their party status and shall be considered as intervenors in Case No. 05-1467-E-CN as well. Finally, the Commission shall issue a subsequent order to address outstanding petitions to intervene as well as to set a procedural schedule for use in these cases. ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Longview Power, LLC provide notice by publishing a copy of the attached Notice as a Class II legal advertisement in newspapers duly qualified by the Secretary of State, published and of general circulation in Monongalia County, and in Kanawha County, making due return to this Commission of proper certification of publication immediately after publication. ____________________________________ Text Box 2 ____________________________________ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that anyone desiring to protest or intervene should file a written protest or notice of intervention within 30 days following the second publication date unless otherwise modified by Commission order. Failure to timely protest or intervene can affect your right to protest aspects of these certificate cases or to participate in future proceedings. All protests or requests to intervene should briefly state the reason for the protest or intervention. ____________________________________ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case No. 03-1860-CS-CN is hereby reopened for the limited purpose of addressing the contingent aspects of the Siting Certificate. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case Nos. 03-1860-CS-CN and 05-1467-E-CN are hereby consolidated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Executive Secretary serve a copy of this order upon all parties of record by United States First Class Mail and upon Commission Staff by hand delivery. JJW/klm 051467c.wpd ____________________________________ PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON CASE NO. 03-1860-E-CS-CN LONGVIEW POWER, LLC Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of a Wholesale Electric Generating Facility. CASE NO. 05-1467-E-CN LONGVIEW POWER, LLC Application of Longview Power, LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction and Installation of a 500 kV electric transmission line and to Satisfy Conditional Siting Certificate for Exempt Wholesale Generating Facility in Monongalia County, West Virginia. [LONGVIEW TO INSERT APPROPRIATE MAP HERE PRIOR TO PUBLICATION] ADDITIONAL NOTICE OF FILING On September 30, 2005, Longview Power, LLC, whose address is 1040 Great Plain Avenue, Needham, Massachusetts 02492-2517 (the Applicant) filed an application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity pursuant to West Virginia Code § 24-2-11a to construct and operate a high voltage transmission line in Monongalia County. This filing was docketed as Case No. 05-1467-E-CN. The application and exhibits are available for public inspection at the Commission's offices at 201 Brooks Street, Charleston. Upon its completion, the transmission line will be used by the Applicant to transport electricity to the grid for the competitive wholesale market in West Virginia and other locations. Longview previously published a Notice of Filing of this application. This Additional Notice of Filing is made to correct an error in the map which was included in the previously published Notice of Filing and to provide additional information regarding the above-listed cases. ____________________________________ The Applicant proposes to construct a 500 kV electric transmission line to interconnect its electric generating facility to the Allegheny Power (Allegheny) 500 kV Kammer Fort Martin transmission line near Morgantown, Monongalia County. Longview will construct a new 500 kV Substation in Greene County, Pennsylvania. The Applicant estimates that construction of the transmission line will cost less than fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). Neither the Facility nor the transmission line is a public utility providing service to the public and there will be no impact to West Virginia ratepayers. Rates charged for electricity sold by the Facility will be subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act. The Applicant intends to file a market-based rate schedule with FERC that will allow sales from the Facility to be at negotiated rates. The Applicant will be the entity responsible for the construction and operation of the transmission lines. The Applicant will enter into an interconnection and operating agreement with PJM which will govern the Facility's interconnection at the new Substation. The Applicant, or the purchasers of the electricity generated by the Facility, will enter into transmission service agreements with Allegheny to govern the transmission of the electricity across Allegheny's facilities. Such transmission of electricity will be subject to the terms of PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff on file with the FERC. The transmission line will not compete with other utilities and will be for the sole purpose of transmitting the electricity generated at the Facility onto the grid for the wholesale market. The black line on the above map indicates the location of the corridor in which the transmission line will be located. The Applicant asserts it is not a public utility within the meaning of West Virginia Code § 24-2-11 and requests a waiver of the Public Service Commission's filing requirements to provide certain information including proposed rates, project construction costs, project financing and estimates of operating revenues and expenses, and the information required by Tariff Rule 42. Other waivers of information filings are also sought. ____________________________________ Text Box 2 ____________________________________ By a Commission Order entered August 27, 2004 in Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN the Commission conditionally granted the Applicant's application for a Siting Certificate, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 24-2-11c, to authorize the construction and operation of an electric wholesale generating facility. Conclusion of Law No. 4 from that Order read as follows: “In a future filing, Longview will be required to submit its transmission line application and provide further information which addresses the conditions hereinafter set forth, all of which will be subject to further public hearings and Commission decision. At those future hearings, in addition to presenting an adequate case concerning the proposed transmission line and related issues, the burden is on Longview to demonstrate that it has fully addressed and met the concerns embodied in these conditions.” Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN will be reopened for the limited purpose of addressing the contingent aspects of the Siting Certificate. A copy of the Commission's Order in Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN is available from the Public Service Commission. Intervenors granted party status in Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN shall retain their party status in the reopened proceeding. Anyone desiring to protest or intervene in these cases must file a written protest or notice of intervention within 30 days following the date of this publication unless otherwise modified by Commission order. Failure to timely protest or intervene can affect your right to protest aspects of these certificate cases or to participate in future proceedings. All protests or requests to intervene should briefly state the reason for the protest or intervention. Protestants and potential intervenors who submitted letters in response to the previous, incorrect publication need not resubmit protests or requests to intervene. All previously submitted letters of protest and petitions to intervene will be considered applicable to the corrected publication. Requests to intervene in these cases must comply with the Commission's rules on intervention set forth in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All protests and requests to intervene should be addressed to Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary, P. 0. Box 812, Charleston, West Virginia 25323. If no protests are received within said thirty (30) day period, the Commission may waive formal hearing and grant the application based on the evidence submitted with said application and its review thereof. ____________________________________

1 0

FutureGen and CO2
by Duane330＠aol.com 19 Dec '05

19 Dec '05

_http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/12/16/muck/index.html?source=daily_ (http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/12/16/muck/index.html?source=daily) Grist Magazine: Coal Reversal Climate campaigners warm to "advanced coal" and sequestration, despite Bush backing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By Amanda Griscom Little, 16 Dec 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush administration officials tried their darnedest to derail the international climate-change negotiations that wrapped up in Montreal last week. But in the midst of their bombastic no-no-no-ing, they did offer up one constructive idea -- a $950 million partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy and industry leaders to build FutureGen, a "prototype of the fossil-fueled power plant of the future" -- perhaps hoping it would help redeem their negative image. It didn't work. "It was an inappropriate attempt at distraction," said Greenpeace energy-policy specialist John Coequyt, who attended the Montreal talks, "while [Bush reps] squirmed under pressure from other industrialized countries to provide evidence of some kind of a meaningful or concrete strategy related to climate." Oh, and it wasn't a new idea either. The FutureGen project was first proposed in 2003. The new development being touted this month is simply that the Bushies have brought aboard partners from the energy sector, including American Electric Power, Southern Company, and Foundation Coal, that will collectively contribute $250 million to the project. The bulk of the $620 million that the DOE plans to pony up on its own was allotted in the energy bill that passed this past August. The feds hope to get the rest of the needed money from other energy R&D funds and an unnamed group of "international partners." FutureGen aims to build a soup-to-nuts demonstration facility that would generate virtually zero-emission (yes, zero emission!) electricity from coal -- billed by industry as "clean coal" -- within the next decade. It would use "integrated gasification combined-cycle" (IGCC) power-plant technology that first pressurizes coal to produce a vapor, then filters carbon dioxide and smog-causing pollutants from the gas before burning it. The captured greenhouse gases would then be stored underground where they couldn't contribute to atmospheric warming -- a technique known as "sequestration." "FutureGen would be the first demonstration plant in the world to combine the coal gasification process with carbon capture and sequestration," DOE spokesperson Drew Malcomb told Muckraker. The Winnning Coal It's a far cry from a commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Still, on the face of it, FutureGen sounds pretty good. In recent years, the IGCC concept has garnered support from an increasing number of environmental advocates, who prefer to call it "advanced" or "cleaner coal." These folks say coal can't realistically be phased out within the next couple of decades, so we should be using it more efficiently and cleanly while we transition to renewable energy sources. And they say carbon sequestration could play a key role in making coal more palatable. Like it or not, a future without coal is politically implausible in the near term, says David Hawkins, director of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council:"While as a technical matter we could run the world's economy without coal, as a political matter it is not going to happen fast enough. The fuel's abundance and low cost make it something that most political leaders are unwilling to give up." About 50 percent of the electricity in the U.S. is coal-powered, and coal is the top power source in many fast-developing countries. "We must do everything we can to accelerate our use of renewables, but the renewable-energy future is far too slow in coming to put all our eggs in that basket," Hawkins argues. "We have to start reducing greenhouse gases before we phase out fossil fuels." Coequyt of Greenpeace is far more critical. He's concerned that unresolved questions about sequestration -- including possible leakage from storage reservoirs and acidification of underground water supplies -- are getting lost in all the boosterism. There's also the reality that coal -- whether burned in dirty old plants or gasified in high-tech new ones -- is generally extracted using environmentally harmful methods. "Let's not forget that when you're talking about coal you're talking about mountaintop mining," says Coequyt. He cautions that enviros who support advanced coal "need to clarify their message, because otherwise they are implicitly supporting things they don't really condone." Vision Sequester These concerns are shared by many. Nonetheless, carbon sequestration is getting a lot of attention these days from folks who take the climate challenge seriously. The concept was talked up heavily in Montreal, according to Coequyt. "The emphasis on coal and carbon storage was far more pronounced than the emphasis on solar, wind, and other renewables," he says. "It was all over the place." Some of that interest was driven by a report on carbon dioxide capture and storage released two weeks prior to the Montreal conference by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (This is the same esteemed group that released a widely cited 2001 report stating the consensus of some 2,000 climate scientists that much of global warming is attributable to human activities.) The new report is a whirlwind tour of potential methods for siphoning carbon from fossil-fuel energy sources and stowing it underground or in the oceans. "IPCC has brought a credibility to the steadily growing awareness that advanced coal and carbon sequestration need to be taken seriously," said Jeff Fiedler, a policy specialist with the Climate Center at NRDC, the green group that has been more outspoken than any other in its support for advanced coal. The report was not necessarily a green light, though, Fiedler cautions: "It does raise unresolved technical, economic, and policy-related questions about the technology's viability, but still confirms its potential to be a key component of climate strategy." Among the members of the IPCC review panel for the report was NRDC's Hawkins. He was particularly impressed by data regarding the total capacity of underground reservoirs worldwide that could be used for carbon sequestration -- porous rock into which CO2 could be injected. "The findings show that you could take a very large chunk of the world's CO2 output for the next 100, possibly even 200, years and stow it in these reservoirs," explains Hawkins. "It allows the [sequestration] tool to be a significant player in the effort to cut global warming. Perhaps it could handle as much as a third of the reduction task, but meanwhile we need to work just as hard or harder on the other tools: efficiency and renewables." The day of the FutureGen announcement, the BBC reported that the U.K.'s top science adviser, Sir David King -- a veritable Paul Revere of climate science -- expressed unqualified support for carbon capture and sequestration, saying it's the only way to offset the inevitable surge in coal-burning in China and India. These two major emerging economies have copious coal supplies and are currently building on average at least one major coal-fired power plant every two weeks, according to Hawkins. Back to the FutureGen While experts in a growing number of green groups like NRDC, the World Resources Institute, and the Sierra Club are opening up to the idea of advanced coal and carbon sequestration, that still doesn't translate into an endorsement of the Bush administration's FutureGen plan. Many U.S. activists see it as a costly and slow-moving PR gambit rather than a straightforward bid to advance cleaner energy production. "FutureGen is to advanced coal what the FreedomCAR is to hydrogen," says NRDC's Fiedler, "a fancy demonstration project that amounts to a lot of long-term envisioning and little near-term action." Instead of lavishing nearly a billion dollars on a full-scale prototype with a projected completion date of 2012, Fiedler argues that the funds would be better spent on research into sequestration technology, which is still in early-stage development. "Coal gasification is not the technical challenge right now. There are vendors who will sell you that technology tomorrow. What we don't know is how to make the carbon capture and storage part work," he says. According to DOE's Malcolm, the department has devoted $178 million to carbon-sequestration R&D since 2001, and President Bush has requested an additional $67 million for 2006. Still, critics say, little of this has been spent on the kind of demonstration projects that are necessary to prove the technology. "Rather than do one full-scale facility [with the FutureGen funds]," argues Fiedler, "the DOE should be doing five demonstrations of carbon capture and storage using existing streams of CO2." Indeed, the clock is ticking on advanced-coal and carbon-capture technology -- more so than on other potential climate solutions given the alarming rate at which coal plants are being built in the developing world. But there's still time to preempt the potential damage: according to Fiedler, of the thousands of coal plants that are projected to come online worldwide between now and 2030, two-thirds have yet to be built. By the time 2012 rolls around and the FutureGen project is completed, however, much of this damage will be done. Says Fiedler, "If the Bush administration is serious about proving this technology, they either need to do it now or not bother." - - - - - - - - - - Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Dan Derber and Don Strimbeck for this update..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 0

Re: [MVCAC] Heads up on Longview Resubmittal
by Barbara Howe 13 Dec '05

13 Dec '05

That sounds like a pretty serious error - wonder where else their maps are wrong "because of an error in the CAD overlay"? Doesn't think sort of sound like the problems Massey Coal was having about the exact location of a facility near a school in southern WV? Just a little error in the scale of the maps, they said, I think??? Barb >>> paula - pj - hunt <pjhunt(a)xemaps.com> 12/13/05 9:05 AM >>> Hi All, Thanks to all of you who wrote the PSC over the last couple of months. Your letters worked! Due some of the comments in those letters and the tireless work of Jarrett, the PSC was alerted to the fact that the transmission line location made no sense. Longview said the location on the map was caused by an error in their CAD overlay, and the PSC has told them they must readvertise the transmission line application and put the new map in the legal ad. *** According to the PSC, if no protests are registered within 15 days after the legal advertisement, Longview could be granted the permit. *** It starts all over from scratch, and our earlier letters will not count toward this newest filing. --- The timing over the holidays will work in their favor, so we really need your help. --- I am sorry to ask you to do this again, but as soon as that legal ad comes out, we need to write protest letters (again). Some of you may still have your old letter on a computer, and you can just change the date and send it again when the time comes. For those of you who wrote them by hand, I am sorry to ask you to write another one, but it is very important. I would have another pizza/letter-writing party, but the holidays make that difficult. I will send out an e mail to this list when the legal ad runs (those of you who read the paper the day it comes out can let me know - I am always behind). I'll include a sample letter in that e mail as well. Thanks so much for your help. If it weren't for all of you, Longview would already have started construction on this power plant. -Paula -------------------- Paula Hunt <pjhunt(a)xemaps.com> --------------------

1 0

Heads up on Longview Resubmittal
by paula - pj - hunt 13 Dec '05

13 Dec '05

Hi All, Thanks to all of you who wrote the PSC over the last couple of months. Your letters worked! Due some of the comments in those letters and the tireless work of Jarrett, the PSC was alerted to the fact that the transmission line location made no sense. Longview said the location on the map was caused by an error in their CAD overlay, and the PSC has told them they must readvertise the transmission line application and put the new map in the legal ad. *** According to the PSC, if no protests are registered within 15 days after the legal advertisement, Longview could be granted the permit. *** It starts all over from scratch, and our earlier letters will not count toward this newest filing. --- The timing over the holidays will work in their favor, so we really need your help. --- I am sorry to ask you to do this again, but as soon as that legal ad comes out, we need to write protest letters (again). Some of you may still have your old letter on a computer, and you can just change the date and send it again when the time comes. For those of you who wrote them by hand, I am sorry to ask you to write another one, but it is very important. I would have another pizza/letter-writing party, but the holidays make that difficult. I will send out an e mail to this list when the legal ad runs (those of you who read the paper the day it comes out can let me know - I am always behind). I'll include a sample letter in that e mail as well. Thanks so much for your help. If it weren't for all of you, Longview would already have started construction on this power plant. -Paula -------------------- Paula Hunt <pjhunt(a)xemaps.com> --------------------

1 0

EPA Action Alert-particulates
by Dfvet＠aol.com 11 Dec '05

11 Dec '05

FYI... Please join us and tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set much tougher limits on how much pollution can be in outdoor air. Within the next few weeks EPA will decide how much soot, or particle pollution, is safe to have in the air we breathe. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set these air pollution health limits, also called standards, at levels that protect public health. The health science clearly shows that the current federal limits on particle pollution are set too high, allowing air pollution that leads to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans each year. EPA needs to set limits that are much tougher to protect against this dangerous outdoor air pollutant. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson must announce the agency's recommendations for new limits before the end of this year, but he is facing intense political pressure to set the limits at levels that are still too weak to protect all Americans. Send your letter today in support for cleaner air! You can take action on this alert via the web at: http://lungaction.org/campaign/epa_cleanair/xngu774z5bj6mt? Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. http://lungaction.org/campaign/epa_cleanair/forward/xngu774z5bj6mt? We encourage you to take action by January 1, 2006 Tell EPA We Need Less Air Pollution INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA THE WEB: If you have access to a web browser, you can take action on this alert by going to the following URL: http://lungaction.org/campaign/epa_cleanair/xngu774z5bj6mt? Your letter will be addressed and sent to: Administrator Stephen Johnson ----THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT IN YOUR NAME---- Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here], I am writing to express my concern about one of the most important decisions you will make in your role as the head of EPA: your decision to set the national standards for pollution in the air we breathe. I'm writing to urge you to set the tightest, most protective national standards on particle pollution. Thousands of lives are at stake in your decision. Thousands of scientific studies have found that particle pollution in the air causes serious health problems, including tens of thousands of premature deaths, increased use of asthma medications, missed school days, emergency room visits, strokes, and heart problems. Millions of Americans are at risk from breathing particle pollution, including people with asthma or chronic lung diseases, children, seniors, and those with cardiovascular disease or diabetes. EPA staff scientists and the independent scientific reviewers have recommended much lower limits in the national standards for the smallest, or fine, particles. Given the dangerous health effects, there is no reason to choose anything but the lowest levels recommended by EPA scientists for the fine particles. You should also provide even more protection than your staff has recommended for the limits on the larger, or coarse, particles to protect us from these larger, but still dangerous, particles. Please follow the Clean Air Act and set the national standard at a level that will protect public health. That must be the only consideration. And the science is overwhelmingly clear that the current limits do not provide that protection. For the health of my family and all Americans, I urge you to set standards that will make the air safe to breathe in all of our communities. ----END OF LETTER TO BE SENT---- Sincerely, Edward Petsonk -------------------------------------------------- If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for American Lung Association Action Network at: http://lungaction.org/lungusa/join.html?r=l7qVdxY1NmvSE -------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to elp2(a)cdc.gov. To modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile, visit your subscription management page at: http://lungaction.org/lungusa/smp.tcl?nkey=xngu774z5bj6mt& To stop ALL email from American Lung Association Action Network, reply via email with "remove" in the subject line, or use the following link: http://lungaction.org/lungusa/remove-domain-direct.tcl?ctx=center&nkey=x ngu774z5bj6mt& *********************************** Powered by GetActive Software, Inc. Relationship Management for Member Organizations (tm) http://www.getactive.com ***********************************

2 1

Tell EPA .......... a.s.a.p.
by Duane330＠aol.com 07 Dec '05

07 Dec '05

Tell EPA We Need Less Air Pollution To: MVCAC............ From: American Lung Association Action Network. CC: Larry Schwab, Deb Fulton, et. al. Please join us and tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set much tougher limits on how much pollution can be in outdoor air. Within the next few weeks EPA will decide how much soot, or particle pollution, is safe to have in the air we breathe. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set these air pollution health limits, also called standards, at levels that protect public health. The health science clearly shows that the current federal limits on particle pollution are set too high, allowing air pollution that leads to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans each year. EPA needs to set limits that are much tougher to protect against this dangerous outdoor air pollutant. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson must announce the agency's recommendations for new limits before the end of this year, but he is facing intense political pressure to set the limits at levels that are still too weak to protect all Americans. Send your letter today in support for cleaner air! (http://lungaction.org/campaign/epa_cleanair/3g3ne52r5bj6mt?) Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Administrator Stephen Johnson Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Below is the sample letter: Subject: Please Set Tough Air Standards Dear Stephen Johnson: I am writing to express my concern about one of the most important decisions you will make in your role as the head of EPA: your decision to set the national standards for pollution in the air we breathe. I'm writing to urge you to set the tightest, most protective national standards on particle pollution. Thousands of lives are at stake in your decision. Thousands of scientific studies have found that particle pollution in the air causes serious health problems, including tens of thousands of premature deaths, increased use of asthma medications, missed school days, emergency room visits, strokes, and heart problems. Millions of Americans are at risk from breathing particle pollution, including people with asthma or chronic lung diseases, children, seniors, and those with cardiovascular disease or diabetes. EPA staff scientists and the independent scientific reviewers have recommended much lower limits in the national standards for the smallest, or fine, particles. Given the dangerous health effects, there is no reason to choose anything but the lowest levels recommended by EPA scientists for the fine particles. You should also provide even more protection than your staff has recommended for the limits on the larger, or coarse, particles to protect us from these larger, but still dangerous, particles. Please follow the Clean Air Act and set the national standard at a level that will protect public health. That must be the only consideration. And the science is overwhelmingly clear that the current limits do not provide that protection. For the health of my family and all Americans, I urge you to set standards that will make the air safe to breathe in all of our communities. Sincerely, your name here ................address, phone number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: See the following web site......... _http://lungaction.org/campaign/epa_cleanair_ (http://lungaction.org/campaign/epa_cleanair) [Best approach is to send your own letter (snail mail).]

1 0

Fwd: Next MVCAC meeting
by Duane330＠aol.com 07 Dec '05

07 Dec '05

Please let me know if you have conflicts or preferences with either of these dates...... MVCAC January meeting on..........Jan. 16th or Jan. 23rd. Thanks, Duane,

1 0

FutureGen coal gasification
by Duane330＠aol.com 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Energy Department Teams With Consortium .............. to Build Model 'Clean-Coal' Plant By JOHN J. FIALKA, Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, December 6, 2005; Page A2 WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy has signed an agreement with an international consortium to build a $950 million prototype for a new generation of coal-fired power plants that remove pollutants including carbon dioxide and produce hydrogen as well as electricity. The plant, called FutureGen, is scheduled to be built by 2012. If it works, it will further one of the Bush administration's main policy goals: to reduce reliance on imported oil and natural gas by using technology to clean up and increase the use of coal, a fuel the U.S. has in abundance. The agency is set today to announce that a group of eight companies, including major coal and electricity producers, will contribute $250 million toward the project. The plant will produce 250 megawatts of electricity -- the output of a medium-sized power plant -- as well as hydrogen, which could be sold to power future cars and trucks or sent to oil refineries to upgrade petroleum products. And some of the pollutants removed from the coal, which would be gasified, may also be sold as byproducts, according to the agency. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain and urban smog, can be turned into fertilizers and "soil enhancers," the department stated. The plant will separate carbon dioxide, a gas thought to be one of the major causes of global warming, and inject it into deep underground rock formations. The project will test it to determine if it will remain there indefinitely.< "No other power plant in the world has been built with this capability," says a draft version of the department's announcement, expected today. The companies backing the project, called the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, will pick a site to construct the facility by 2007. The department's goal is to capture 90% of the plant's carbon dioxide once it begins operation and later raise that to 100% using "advanced technologies." DOE projections estimate the plant's cost of cleaning up coal and burying the carbon dioxide will add only about 10% to today's electricity prices. Members of the alliance are American Electric Power, of Columbus, Ohio; Southern Co., of Atlanta; Consol Energy Inc., of Pittsburgh; Foundation Coal, of Linthicum Heights, Md.; Kennecott Energy, of Gillette, Wyo.; Peabody Energy Corp., of St. Louis; China Huaneng Group, of Beijing; and BHP Billiton Ltd., of Melbourne, Australia. China Huaneng is China's largest producer of coal-fired power. BHP Billiton is a major Australian coal producer. Both countries, like the U.S., have huge reserves of coal and depend on them to produce most of their electricity. The technique of gasifying coal has been known and used for decades. The Carter administration launched a $1 billion program in the late 1970s to build a plant near Beulah, N.D., that was designed to produce synthetic methane, a form of natural gas, out of cheap lignite coal. The plant, described as a "coal refinery," was sold by the Reagan administration to a local electric-power company in 1988, when it failed to produce a product that could compete economically with natural gas. The FutureGen plant, according to DOE officials, will "leapfrog" that plant's technology by using less-expensive processes that produce hydrogen to make electricity or to sell as fuel. It will also feature newer and cheaper ways to separate carbon dioxide from other byproducts.

1 0

Minutes of Dec. 5th Meeting
by Duane330＠aol.com 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Minutes Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition (MVCAC) December 5, 2005 The MVCAC met on Monday, December 5 at the Prete Building on University Avenue with 11 members and two guests in attendance. Duane began the meeting by handing out a brochure that was created for the Cheat Lake Environment and Recreation Association (CLEAR) by John Gever and Cliff Harvey. Both John and Cliff attended the meeting. Duane suggested that John and Cliff develop a brochure for MVCAC. John suggested that we decide on a focus for the brochure (e.g., education). Duane recommended that we put some information together and then give it to John and Cliff to develop a "draft" brochure. The group agreed that this was a good idea. We have sent a letter to the Public Service Commission (PSC) requesting to be interveners in the application for a transmission line certificate by Longview Power. Although the PSC has not yet responded, Phil does not anticipate that this request will be denied. Duane suggested that we needed some experts to provide testimony, and Phil stated that would be good if they are recognized experts. Phil will compile a list of questions and send it to the lawyer for Allegheny Power (Allegheny will also be an intervener). Jarrett mentioned that Longview will require a switchyard, and it was not clear who would pay for this. Duane reported that Jarrett's appeal of Longview's air quality permit is being taken to the WV Supreme Court by Mary Ann Maul. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is allowing Longview to build its proposed stack, despite the fact that its height exceeds FAA guidelines. We could appeal this decision, but Mary Ann Maul has suggested that we do not have the time or resources. Jarrett will work with Patrick McGinley at the Law School to use FOIA to obtain documents from the FAA related to this decision. So far, the FAA has not responded to either Jarrett's or Duane's attempts to obtain these documents under FOIA. Jarrett is continuing to monitor Longview's attempts to obtain a storm water permit. The permit must be awarded to the plant owner, however, it is unlikely that Longview will actually own the plant at any time. The PSC has scheduled a hearing on the proposed scrubbers for the Ft. Martin plant on February 22, 2006. Billy Jack Gregg, the consumer advocate, hired a consultant to study the issue. The consultant recommended that some administrative and other costs of the scrubber project come from Allegheny, so that not all of the cost is passed on to the public. The consultant made other important recommendations regarding the procedures to be required of Allegheny Energy. It was decided that MVCAC would support the scrubber project under the strict conditions recommended by the consultant. We are still trying to arrange for air quality monitoring in Mon County. It does not appear that Boggs Environmental will be able to help us any time soon. Deb spoke with someone at DEP who said he would be happy to give us a tour of the monitor at the airport. Deb also stated that the Sundogs program is being launched at Cheat Lake Middle School in the next few weeks. Cindy is working on trying to get us a spot at the annual Health Fair to be held early next year, perhaps by mid February. She suggested that it would be nice to have the brochures completed by that time. John Gever brought up the issue of non-point sources of pollution, such as cars. He suggested that MVCAC become more involved with the Morgantown Transportation Organization. Bobby Mitchell asked whether we might want to become more involved in the effort to re-route truck traffic around town. The group agreed that these were both good suggestions. Duane will work on bringing Bobby together with Bob Bastress, since Bob has taken an interest in the legal aspects of this issue. Others were invited to work on this issue, particularly with City Council. The PSC continues to work on the rules for noise control of electrical power generators through the Noise Task Force that it developed. Duane, Bill and Jarrett went to the first meeting of the task force in Charleston. At that time, the chair of the task force asked that a noise expert be retained to study the issue. The PSC is currently looking for such an expert. Deb reported that we currently have $3,500. Duane suggested that this be the last general meeting of 2005 and that the next meeting be held in mid January. Respectfully submitted: Linda Shuster, December 6, 2005. NOTE from Jim Kotcon.......... Buried in a story on Health cost for PEIA in today’s Gazette: Other legislative priorities, Manchin said, will include continuing to pursue a more businesslike approach to running state government, including restructuring agencies and developing multiyear projections for state revenues and spending. Governor Manchin said he also is determined to bring a coal gasification plant to the state. “We can do it in a cleaner, healthier environment,” he said. “We know we can * the technology is there, and it’s only getting better.”

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC December 2005