Archive for May, 2009
This just in from the Charleston Gazette (story by Ken Ward Jr.):
 |
| Sludge Safety Project volunteers gathered at the West Virginia State Capitol during the 2009 WV Legislative Session. |
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — State regulators on Thursday issued a moratorium on new permits for the injection of coal slurry into underground mine voids, a practice that residents of several West Virginia coal counties have complained is polluting their drinking water.
Randy Huffman, secretary of the state Department of Environmental Protection, announced the moratorium at the same time he released a long-awaited DEP study of the issue mandated by lawmakers.
In a news release, Huffman emphasized that DEP’s study did not find damage to surface or groundwater quality caused by coal slurry alone. But the agency’s report made it clear that DEP lacked enough information to really provide much of an answer.
“Based on a review of the baseline data from the [underground injection control] and mining permits, there are insufficient surface and groundwater monitoring sample sites to determine effects from slurry injection on surface groundwater,” the report said. “Most of the assessment sites lacked detailed information on mine pool conditions and adequate monitoring of the quantity and quality of the mine pool associated with the injection activities.”
DEP officials did not indicate how long the moratorium would last, but the report and the agency’s release spelled out some improvements for any future permit reviews.
Along with the moratorium, the DEP study recommended site-specific groundwater monitoring during the injection process, requiring a full baseline water survey for organic materials and heavy metals for any new permits, and monitoring wells within a half-mile of the mine pools receiving slurry injection.
Read the rest of the article…
And here is the official statement from the Sludge Safety Project, the coalition that relentlessly lobbied the WV State Legislature asking for the study in the first place. They made it happen:
We’re very pleased the DEP has admitted that slurry is dangerous while only testing 4 slurry injection sites and 2 prep plants. Although the DEP is making some progress by implementing a 2 yr moratorium on new slurry injection sites, the DEP’s recommendations are inadequate because people are going to be left with the same health issues for as long as companies are allowed to inject slurry under existing permits. The solution the DEP has come up with is inadequate because it does not stop the injection of slurry going on right now. There is one solution to fixing the problem of coal slurry contamination in West Virginia : a ban on all slurry. This solution would cost companies a mere 50 cents to one dollar per ton– pennies for the sake of saving human lives. We will continue to work with the West Virginia legislature to protect West Virginians from water poisoned by coal slurry.
– Maria Lambert, Prenter, Boone County
Representative of the Sludge Safety Project
No comments yet » Leave your own...
Recently South Carolina legislators introduced the Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act. This legislation would prohibit the import of coal extracted using the super aggressive mining method, known as mountaintop removal.
The bill, H. 3955, was introduced by Rep. Carl Gullick, R-Lake Wylie, and has drawn a small but committed group of bi-partisan co-sponsors.
Mountain removal is a method of mining designed from the beginning to take the miner out of the equation. Coal companies use thousands of tons of explosives and enormous machinery to blast the tops off of mountains in order to harvest thins seams of coal. Opting to invest in machinery and explosives leads to a decrease in underground mining jobs.
South Carolina is among the nation’s top ten consumers of mountaintop removal coal, burning millions of tons of it annually.
Carl Shoupe and Rodney Adams both of Harlan County, Kentucky were present in Columbia for a press conference. They both live in direct proximity to active mountain top removal mines and can attest to the harmful effects this mining has on Appalachian communities.
Carl Shoupe a retired underground coal miner and Vietnam veteran spoke passionately about the inherent beauty of his home, and the destruction that mountaintop removal is causing not only to the mountains but also to coalfield communities.
Rodney Adams, also a veteran and retired underground miner, attested to the loss of mining jobs due the highly mechanized nature of strip mining.
“We’re trying to put some pressure on,” he said. “So we can put the coal mining back underground where it’s supposed to be.”
South Carolina is the 4th state to introduce legislation that would ban the import of mountaintop removal coal to be used by their electric utilities. North Carolina, Georgia and Maryland have all introduced similar legislation.
For more information contact Austin Hall, Austin@appvoices.org
No comments yet » Leave your own...
This just in from Jeff Bigger’s blog on Huffington post:
As American citizens in Mingo County and other areas of the flood-stricken Kentucky and West Virginia coalfields continue to dig themselves out of the muck, indefatigable Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward is reporting on his Coal Tattoo blog that the EPA has “signed off on almost all (87.5 percent, to be exact) of the mountaintop removal permits that has so far been reviewed under the initiative announced in March.”
Ward has just posted a letter dated yesterday from the EPA to US Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), announcing that:
“EPA has raised environmental concerns with six pending permit applications in the Corps’ Huntington District out of a total of approximately forty-eight we have reviewed. We have advised the Corps that EPA does not intend to provide additional comments on the remaining forty-two permits. The Corps may proceed with appropriate permit decisions on those remaining projects.”
READ THE FULL POST
No comments yet » Leave your own...
According to an article published this week on the Institute for Southern Studies’ webzine Facing South, “the TVA has begun shipping toxic coal ash from the massive spill that occurred last December at its Kingston, Tennessee power plant to landfills in the neighboring states of Georgia and Alabama. The counties where the ash is going have large black populations and high poverty rates, raising questions about environmental justice.
“Landfill officials in Georgia and Alabama told the paper that their facilities are lined with both clay and synthetic barriers, which makes them more protective than the unlined surface impoundment where TVA stored the ash prior to the spill.”
But according to the article, “researchers have found that solid waste landfills tend to be located disproportionately in communities of color and low-wealth communities. The communities that will be getting the coal ash from Tennessee apparently did not get a chance for meaningful involvement in that decision since neither the TVA — a federally-owned corporation — nor regulatory authorities provided an opportunity for public comment.”
“The urgency of doing something with the spilled ash is growing. Last week’s heavy rains in the Tennessee Valley washed large amounts of coal ash from the spill site and sent it flowing down the Emory River. There are also concerns that hot, dry summer weather will make it difficult to control airborne coal ash dust, a serious respiratory hazard.”
Read the full article on southernstudies.org
1 Comment » Leave your own...
The only thing worse than no climate and energy bill in 2009 is a bad climate and energy bill. No matter how well intentioned, the efforts in the U.S. House of Representatives to frame such a bill have gone from weak to worse – the now all-too-familiar Washington path for tough decision making.
It’s maddening to realize that the more things change in Congress, the more they remain the same. Democrats screamed bloody murder when Vice President Dick Cheney met secretly with representatives of the fossil fuel industry to craft US energy policy. Not to be outdone, Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) committed the same offense by embracing the utility/coal industry blueprint for climate policy, which is now nestled in Waxman’s so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act.
Is it really better for Americans if Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, exerts undue influence behind the scenes in calling the shots on energy policy instead of Exxon and Halliburton?
To be sure, there are pro-consumer provisions in the Waxman-Markey legislation. These include two mandates on utility companies. One is the mandate to force electric utilities to provide 25 percent of their power with renewable resources by 2025. The other is a similar mandate for energy efficiency investments amounting to 15 percent of their energy mix by 2020.
These are pro-consumer because energy efficiency and renewable energy investments, particularly when combined in one initiative, are cheaper than business as usual (BAU), meaning coal, nuclear and natural gas investments. Indeed, the savings of the modest mandates in Waxman-Markey could easily amount to well over $500 billion per year by 2030 compared to BAU.
Other than those two provisions, Congressmen Waxman and Markey should just change the name of this bill to the Utility & Coal Industry Profit Enhancement Act. The “cap and trade” provisions for dealing with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will only serve to enrich the utility industry and Wall Street hedge managers, while doing little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions. After the debacles in hedge funds and securitized mortgages, why would we create another financial system that is ripe for gaming and abuse?
Another self-serving utility provision promoted by Duke’s CEO in the Waxman-Markey draft legislation is the tax on ratepayers to pay for research and development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). If anyone watched Rogers’ interview with 60 Minutes a few weeks ago, they saw how he admitted that he has not spent a dime on carbon capture and sequestration research & development. Why? He’s waiting for Waxman, Markey and their colleagues to force ratepayers to pay for it.
Adding insult to injury, the legislation has a so-called “moratorium” on coal-fired power plants that just so happens to exempt 45 plants in various stages of permitting or construction, including Duke Energy’s proposed plants in North Carolina and Indiana of course. Funny how that worked out in Mr. Rogers’ neighborhoods!
The bottom line is this: If you liked what happened with subprime mortgages, you will love carbon cap and trade. The Waxman/Markey legislation is another Wall Street boondoggle waiting to happen. Not only do utility companies get to make billions offcarbon allowances, but ratepayers will see their electric rates become even more volatile as hedge managers speculate on those allowances. And guess who gets to pony up for bail-outs when this whole Rube Goldberg contraption blows up?
There is only one solution to this mess: It’s time to dump the House climate and energy bill and start over. Focus on strong renewable and efficiency standards. Scrap the cap and trade and CCS boondoggle provisions in the legislation. These days, nothing in Washington happens until the “medicine” is comprised and watered down so much that it ends up being almost as bad as the illness that it purports to cure. Half measures on energy and climate won’t do. It’s time to start over and get it right.
1 Comment » Leave your own...
While several dozen people were outside Duke Energy headquarters protesting CEO Jim Rogers’ decision to construct new coal-fired power plants in North Carolina and Indiana, Scott Gollwitzer, Appalachian Voices’ In-house Counsel, was inside asking questions at the annual shareholders’ meeting.
When it was his turn, Gollwitzer briefly described the devastating social and environmental impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining for Rogers and the shareholders. He then outlined Duke’s justification for burning it in North Carolina:
(1) Duke’s power plants are designed to burn a percentage of Central Appalachian coal;
(2) approximately fifty percent of Duke’s coal is extracted by mountaintop removal;
(3) Duke uses mountaintop removal coal to maximize profits because it is “allegedly” less expensive than other Central Appalachian coal; and
(4) mountaintop removal coal is regulated by state and federal agencies.
Then Gollwitzer mused, “I think everyone in this room would agree that just because something is legal, say slavery, doesn’t make it moral. I ask you then—and this is a yes or no question—just because mountaintop removal is legal, is it moral to burn it to maximize profits when alternative sources of Central Appalachian coal are available at comparable prices?”
Rogers answered that “Duke will be looking to move away from mountaintop removal coal mining as its existing coal purchasing contracts expire.” He also expects “increased regulation of mountaintop removal from Washington, D.C.”
“So it’s neither moral or immoral?” pressed Gollwitzer. “It was a yes or no question.”
“For us it’s a little bit of a balancing act, but I think you’re on the right side of this issue,” replied Rogers. “It’s not sustainable.”
“Jim Rogers has all but admitted that burning mountaintop removal coal is immoral. This is a huge step in ending the destruction of the people, communities and ecosystems of central Appalachia,” said Gollwitzer. “Honestly, I was flummoxed by his candor because Duke has been working to scuttle state legislation that would prohibit the purchase of mountaintop removal coal.”
The Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act introduced by NC state representative Pricey Harrison, would prohibit North Carolina’s investor-owned utilities from burning mountaintop removal coal. While the bill prohibits these utilities from entering into new contracts to purchase coal from mountaintop removal operations, it does not interfere with existing contracts.
No comments yet » Leave your own...
Great news for the struggling economy of Appalachia and the South…
Washington, DC: The experts behind a group of new reports summarized their findings today showing that new coal plants present serious financial risks to southern utilities and ratepayers, especially in light on looming federal regulations on carbon dioxide emissions.
“Our analyses have shown that uncertainty about future coal plant construction costs and the costs of complying with impending federal regulation of plant carbon dioxide emissions represent significant risks for utilities and their customers,” said David Schlissel, a Senior Consultant for Synapse Energy Economics. “In particular, the federal government is likely to mandate significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. The costs of complying with this expected federal action are likely to increase the cost of generating power at new coal-fired plants by tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each year, making coal an even more expensive option than energy efficiency and renewable resources.”
Citing a growing body of evidence, which includes financial reports from Virginia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Louisiana, the experts highlighted the clear economic benefits of renewable energies and energy efficiency in the South, and across the Nation.
Michael Fisher, Vice President and Principal Associate of Abt Associates, which authored the Virginia report found that, “Investments in energy efficiency are considerably less expensive and more beneficial to the Virginia economy than building a new coal-fired power plant to meet Virginia’s energy needs.”…
“The relative economic gains to Virginia from energy efficiency investments are substantial, with Gross State Product increasing by upwards of a billion dollars annually and employment increasing by over 5,000 new jobs,” continued Fisher.
In all of the reports, the findings clearly indicated that new coal-fired power plants were not needed.
“In our analysis of East Kentucky Power Cooperative we found the proposed Smith coal plant was not originally approved on the basis of the demand for electricity, but rather for business needs. Since then energy demand has slowed considerably and the need for the plant is even less. Now, with changes in federal policies, the plant serves no purpose at all. In baseball, three strikes means you’re out. The Smith coal plant would be a highly polluting, expensive, and unnecessary burden on Kentucky ratepayers,” said Tom Sanzillo, a Senior Associate with TR Rose Associates.
“These reports make it clear that the South is not an exception,” said Mark Kresowik, Corporate Accountability Representative for the Sierra Club. “Coal plants are simply a poor investment, no matter where in the country you are building them. We need to be investing wisely, especially in these economic times, and that means looking at energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that can create jobs and help fight global warming, without the drawbacks of coal.”
###
Reports:
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative’s Hampton Roads Power Plant, Virginia
http://wiseenergyforvirginia.org/resources/
Santee Cooper’s Pee Dee Power Plant, South Carolina
http://coastalconservationleague.org/Page.aspx?pid=842
East Kentucky Power Cooperative’s Smith Power Plant, Kentucky
http://kentucky.sierraclub.org/Resources/Environmental_Research/RightDecision/FullReport.pdf
Dominion Resources’ Wise County Power Plant, Virginia
http://www.wiseenergyforvirginia.org/downloads/WisePowerReport0309.pdf
Entergy’s Little Gypsy Power Plant, Louisiana http://www.all4energy.org/sites/default/files/The_Mysterious_Little_Gypsy.pdf
No comments yet » Leave your own...
