West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Good afternoon, WVa Blue readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos.
As always, this is a crosspost from CongressMatters. This is the important news of the day. Okay, maybe only some of it. So if you disagree, go watch CSPAN. Or watch your government in neutral on CSPAN2.
Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Lieberman spoke back to back on the floor of the Senate just now.
I posted a version of this diary at DailyKos on Saturday morning. Thank you to everyone who engaged in a constructive dialogue on the topic there and on Facebook over the weekend.
If you're not really sure what "Clean Coal" is, that's easily forgiven. Clean Coal has meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Many decades ago, one enterprising company sold "clean coal" that burned with less smoke in your home heating furnace. Today, the term usually refers to carbon capture and storage (CCS) or coal-to-liquid fuel (CTL).
The Obama administration and leading figures in Congress are still pushing for tens of billions of dollars of investments in "cleaner coal." With a pause in consideration on the energy and climate change legislation, it's a good time to ask... just what we would we get in return for that investment?
:::
For those who like to cut to the chase, here's the short answer. Carbon capture and storage is risky and expensive. Coal to liquid only makes sense if you ignore carbon emissions or if expect we'll lose access to foreign sources of oil. But, read on. There's another major challenge you probably aren't aware of.
Sadly, although it might make little economic or scientific sense, the political logic behind clean coal is overwhelming. Coal is mined in some politically potent states-Illinois, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming-and the coal industry spends millions on lobbying. The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress's corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency-while actually worsening the problem it seeks to solve.
The Meigs piece is good at laying out the basics of carbon capture and storage, but an even more detailed look at the economics is provided by Richard Heinberg, writing for the Solutions Journal. (All emphasis in quotes is mine.)
The "clean coal" argument runs like this: America is brimming with cheap coal, which provides almost half our electricity and is the most carbon-intensive of the conventional fossil fuels. The nation will need an enormous amount of energy over the next few decades, but renewable sources just aren't ready to provide all-or even the bulk-of that energy. Meanwhile, preventing catastrophic climate change requires that we stop venting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is possible to capture and store the CO2 that would otherwise be emitted from burning coal, and elements of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology are already in use on a small scale. Put all of these factors together and the case for government funding of research and development of "clean coal" seems strong.
However, several recent studies of US coal supplies suggest that much that we think we know about coal is wrong. If these studies are correct, the argument for investing in "clean coal" becomes tenuous on economic grounds alone. These studies call into question the one "fact" that both pro-coal and anti-coal lobbies have taken for granted: that the US has a virtually limitless supply of cheap coal.
Back in April, Democrat Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03), spoke to this unpleasant truth. He noted "the state's most productive coal seams likely will be exhausted in 20 years." The backlash from in-state coal interests was strong. Rahall has not spoken about coal supplies since, and for that brief moment of truth his consequence is a coal-industry funded primary challenger.
What would it take for Rep. Rahall to say something like this? Back to the Heinberg piece for the answer...
Doubts were first raised in a book-length 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences titled "Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy" (1), which noted that "Present estimates of coal reserves are based upon methods that have not been reviewed or revised since - 1974," and concluded that a newer and better assessment "may substantially reduce the number of years' supply."
Also in 2007, an energy analytics organization founded by a member of the German Parliament, Energy Watch Group (2), released a study of US and world coal supplies concluding that global coal production will reach a peak and begin to decline sometime around 2025, and that US coal production will peak only slightly later-perhaps by 2030 or 2035.
Last December the USGS issued a report (3) on the nation's largest and most productive coalfield, in Wyoming, finding that, at current prices, only about six percent of the coal can be profitably mined; if coal prices soared, then more of the coal would be recoverable-but then coal wouldn't be economically competitive with other energy sources.
But I keep hearing we have hundreds of years of coal left in the United States. That has to be correct doesn't it?
America's coal resources are indeed vast-none of the studies claims otherwise. However, during the past century, coal reserves (the portion of total coal resources that can be mined profitably with existing technologies) shrank much faster than could be accounted for by the depletion of those resources through mining. That is because geologists are doing a better job now of taking into account "restrictions" that make most coal impractical to mine-factors having to do with location, depth, seam thickness, and coal quality. In recent years, some nations have reduced their booked coal reserves by 90 percent or more on the basis of new, more realistic surveys. The National Academy of Sciences report mentioned above is essentially a plea for an updated US national survey, and it offers abundant reasons for thinking that such a survey would almost certainly reveal a much smaller reserve base than the one on which current supply forecasts are founded.
Moreover, when it comes to forecasting future coal supplies the official agencies seem to have been asking the wrong question, namely, "When will the nation run out of coal?" The customary answer is, "Not for a couple of hundred years or more"-which is a sufficiently long period for current energy planning. But more relevant questions are, "When will it no longer be possible to increase the rate at which coal is being extracted?", and "When will coal cease to be an economically competitive energy source?" These are addressed in the Energy Watch Group study, which reasons that, long before the nation runs out of coal, production will peak and start to decline due to the depletion of easily accessible, high-quality deposits. Already some of America's most important coal regions are long past their glory days, and recent field surveys by the USGS (including the one cited above) suggest that the capacities of even the most abundant coalfields in the nation have been over-estimated.
So what? As long as we've got coal to mine, shouldn't we try to burn it as cleanly as possible?
A 2007 MIT study, "The Future of Coal" (4), found that if just 60 percent of the CO2 from US coal-fired power plants were to be captured and compressed to a liquid, its daily volume would equal the amount of oil Americans consume each day (about 20 million barrels). The study also concluded that a huge increase in investment in industrial-scale demonstration plants would be required now even to know in 10 or 15 years if the technology can work at a meaningful scale. All of this underscores the basic fact that carbon capture and storage is going to be very expensive-if it is even possible to accomplish on the scale that is being proposed.
Yet there is a subtler but possibly even more decisive price tag for "clean coal": the energy cost. According to the most recent estimate (from Harvard University's Belfer Center (5), at least 30 percent of the energy produced by burning coal will be needed to run the system for capturing, compressing, pumping, and burying CO2. Therefore any efficiency benefit from gasifying coal at IGCC power plants would be canceled out.
But already the average quality of coal being mined is declining-that is, we get less energy for each ton of coal burned today than we did ten years ago. This is a natural consequence of the "low-hanging-fruit" principle of resource extraction, in which we tend to consume the highest-quality, most easily accessed resources first.
So as time goes on, the US will need to burn more coal, while the coal itself will be more scarce and costly. And the technology used will be far more expensive and complex, both to build and to operate, than the system of power plants we have today. Taken together, these factors read like a recipe for cost overruns and spiraling electricity rates.
That doesn't sound good. Wait... did he just say "spiraling electricity rates?" You mean, you and me and me and you are the ones who are going to be paying higher rates if this coal carbon-capture-storage stuff doesn't work out quite right?
Imagine a scenario in which the US goes ahead with the attempt to develop "clean coal" technologies. During the coming decade tens of billions of dollars (mostly from government) would likely need to be invested in research and the construction of demonstration projects. By 2020, the price of coal will already have begun to rise, as supply problems multiply, yet "clean coal" technology won't be ready to deploy widely (the most ambitious proposals don't see that happening until after 2025). Even if renewable energy doesn't get cheaper due to technological advances (and most analysts assume it will), at some point along this timeline the "clean coal" bandwagon will almost certainly grind to a stop because it is simply too expensive to keep going.
That's a rather ugly and all too plausible scenario. West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller insists "that efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions give our economy and our industries the time that's needed to develop and implement these new technologies."
If Rockefeller is right that CCS needs decades and these studies are right that we're fast running out of coal, then we're talking about one massively expensive boondoogle in "clean coal" that will do nothing to clean up our atmosphere, do nothing to secure our economic future, and do nothing to prepare us for a post-carbon future.
I don't agree with the premise that it is okay to waste billions of dollars just to provide political cover to win a vote for energy and climate change legislation. Those Senators and Representatives who say that "cleaner coal" technology is essential to win their vote need to prove how it could ever be an economically viable option.
Good afternoon, Progressive WVABlue readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos.
This is the most important news of the day... okay, maybe only some of it. So if you disagree, go watch CSPAN.
As always, this is a crosspost from Congress Matters.
The taller of our two senators was seen hanging around with a girl from Maine.
If you don't like this come to Drinking Liberally Friday, 11 DEC, 8:00PM, Peking Restaurant, Martinsburg, WV, and tell me to my face!
Casual Wednesday will return at its regular scheduled time. I promise.
To paraphrase a catch phrase from a famous wrestler, "Can you smelllllllalalala what the Jay Rock is cooking?"
Senator Rockefeller goes upside the head of Senator Conrad with some serious smack:
"I'm really very tired of hearing about that from him," an exasperated Rockefeller told reporters. "And it's always about North Dakota, and it's never about any other part of the country. And I thought, you know, that's what we're trying to do--we're trying to do the best thing for the country as a whole."
From Ken Ward's post on Friday, we find out that Governor Manchin will be hosting a closed-to-the-public meeting on the coal industry this week with members of West Virginia's congressional delegation.
Some of those invited: Don Blankenship, Ben Hatfield of International Coal Group, Brett Harvey of CONSOL, lobbyists from the West Virginia Coal Association, Randy Huffman and some southern county commissioners (which I assume includes Logan County's Boss Kirkendoll).
If they're not careful, this thing could end up looking like one of those old "Batman" episodes, where all the villains get together and make plans in an underground lair.
Ward reports that the environmental side is, to no one's surprise, completely shut out:
Nobody on the list like Michael Hendryx, the WVU professor whose research shows that coal costs Appalachia more than it provides in economic benefits, or from the Sierra Club, which published a report showing that limits on mountaintop removal aren't the end of the world for the state's economy.
Despite Manchin's claim last month that his door is always open, don't hold your breath waiting on him to give grassroots activists even a fraction of the time he's granting to the monied interests.
---
Meanwhile, Senator Rockefeller, like most who employ slogans like "standing up for coal," can't bring himself to utter the term "mountaintop removal" in his lengthy op-ed, which was published in a number of W.Va. papers this weekend.
But he's still shocked people have a problem with the practice:
At the federal level, coal emissions are facing direct mandatory EPA regulation, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, and there are a disturbing number of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who oppose surface mining altogether.
While I was contemplating how it was possible for Truman Chafin to believe that West Virginia coal interests could possibly be seen as having any remote resemblance to those who brought Obama to the dance (and listening to a high-pitched whining sound from the west which I am convinced is Harry Truman spinning in his grave), Ken Ward reported on the latest evidence of Chafin's moral bankruptcy and apparent belief that Mingo County is the center of the universe.
Chafin supported Clinton's candidacy even when it was more than failing. During her May visit:
Clinton...implied that the party could lose in November if he is the nominee. Stopping for breakfast at Tudor's Biscuit World in Charleston, she said, "I keep telling people, no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia."
May 12, 2008 Associated Press
Perhaps he remembers this and not that the current President actually did win without West Virginia.
Chafin's wife Trish, but not the man himself, was on the hastily put together West Virginia "Obama for America Advisory Committee," formed barely a month before the election.
But, he spoke out in support the week before the election
Even now, he acknowledged, in places like Mingo, "there's probably not a lot of enthusiasm for [Obama]. It comes down to what's best for me and my family."
Washington Post, Monday, October 27, 2008
Oh, wait - that's not exactly strong support, is it?
Of course Mingo County was just an exception - the southern Appalachian mountaintop mining counties went overwhelmingly for Obama - oh, sorry - out of the whole region, the UMWA, not the Dems, managed to pull out only Boone Co. and McDowell Co. for Obama. And how about Martin Co., Kentucky - 76% McCain.
So who brung Obama? Not Chafin, not the southern Appalachian coal fields, not the majority of West Virginians.
Now Chafin is suggesting Rockefeller threaten to hold up health care reform unless the EPA is restricted from doing its regulatory job. 14,000 mountaintop removal workers (in a small area spread over four states, not just West Virginia) are far more important than the health care of the whole country, including those communities and the rest of West Virginia. Their kids, their truck payments, their house payments are more important than anyone else's, and more important than the health of the country, including those downstream and downwind of the mines and the power plants.
From Summit Point to Point Pleasant the perception of the coal industry is the same, WV can't survive without the mining of the Black Rock. WVABLUE readers know otherwise, Coal Tattoo afficianados realize the truth but how do we get the word out to the majority of voters that this taken-for-granted, oft-repeated propaganda is just that...a lie? There must be a way to educate the public as to the fiscal realities of coal.
We need politicians who will speak the truth, with equal passion, that the state as a whole is not dependent solely on coal, and that the state can no longer be driven by the needs of just the southern coal counties. Studies, facts, editorials, and commentary will not convince people, especially when most of our elected officials keep repeating coal's panicky spin. Nick Rahall has come closest. Our Senators are both in positions to speak out regardless of immediate consequences.
Perhaps Rockefeller will be so repulsed by Chafin's base suggestion that he extort favors for the coal industry in exchange for healthcare reform that he will speak to the truth that coal is not West Virginia's only hope. Perhaps he will use his position to speak the truth that even the welfare of the miners and the southern coalfield communities has to be balanced against the welfare of all of West Virginia, the country, and the world.
Meanwhile, we all need to tell our state senators that West Virginia does not need a majority leader who openly espouses using power to extort favors for a few.
As announced by the last Democratic Senator on the floor tonight, Sen. Specter (D-PA), tomorrow the Senate will take up its Executive Calendar. That covers nominations. The one to be considered tomorrow is no. 470.
Irene Cornelia Berger, of West Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, vice David A. Faber, retired.
I count 44 total nominations pending since March 2009.
Still open is the District Judge of the Northern District. This had been vacant since Judge Broadwater died in December 2006. Sen. Byrd and Sen. Rockefeller have recommended Nick Casey, former Sate Democratic Chair. Deference is usually given to the home state senators. Since state delegates have veto power over nominations in the United States Senate, little boy Del. Jonathan Miller and Shepherd College embarrassment Del. Craig Blair voiced their opposition.
Sen. Reid announced the inclusion of a public option in the merged health care reform bill with the ability of states to opt out. Sen. Rockefeller had previously released his thirteen pages of concerns with the bill that emerged form the Senate Finance Committee. Due to the rules of the Senate, this is not over.
Our Senator, Jay Rockefeller has stepped up to the bar again regarding the Senate and Health Care Reform. In an article on TPM today, Senator Rockefeller made it clear how he feels about Harry Reid, the Public Option, and the so called Opt Out Provision being discussed by many. The article can be read by clicking here.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) suggested today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ought to act his conscience on the public option, and include it in the health care bill that comes to the floor.
His feelings regarding the Opt Out Provision were extremely clear...
I asked Rockefeller whether letting states opt out of the public option is a compromise he agrees with--and though he left the door open to ultimately supporting such a provision, he responded with some pretty harsh words for it.
"I don't start out favoring that," he said. "You know, opt out is sort of like trigger. It sounds good, it makes people feel good, but the question is, Is it good? And I don't think it really is. If it's the only way you can get the votes, then that's a decision that will have to be made over my head."
Way to go Senator... you are a Democrat that wants to make something work for your fellow West Virginians.
A republican friend of mine who is a citizen of our fair state expressed his dismay about the health care bill... typical "ObamaCare" remarks by folks that have no clue as to what is really going on as his only source of news is the FAUX Network. I asked him what he is currently paying for his "family" insurance through his company. Get ready for this, $900 plus per month with a $2500 deductible and maximum out of pocket of $19,200. He said he could hardly wait until he is eligible for medicare. He is not much different than a lot of others as he must not realize that Medicare is socialized medicine, and that you can buy a supplemental policy at a reasonable price that covers most everything that Medicare doesn't pay. What a country... we have a way to take care of our Seniors, but not everyone else. It is time for everybody to dig in, and insist like Senator Rockefeller that we have a strong public option.
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER STATEMENT ON VOTE FOR SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE HEALTH CARE BILL PLEDGES TO KEEP UP THE FIGHT FOR POLICIES THAT WORK FOR ALL WEST VIRGINIA FAMILIES ON SENATE FLOOR AND IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Washington, D.C.-Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, today voted in support of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill.
After the vote, Senator Rockefeller released the following statement:
"Health care reform is about making people's lives better and it is about providing all families tangible solutions that make a difference in their day-to-day, through good times and bad. Health care reform is about the people of West Virginia and people all across America, who are expecting us to fight for them," said Rockefeller.
"And health care reform is about eliminating, once and for all, that horrifying feeling so many people live with when they go to bed and wake up each day - that feeling of walking a tightrope, fearing that one accident, one illness could send them over the edge without any support.
"The status quo every American knows to be our broken system is not the best we can do. Not even close. It is regrettable to say so, but I believe the bill fell short of what people need and expect from us. I have made no secret of the fact that I think we could have dug deeper, gotten more creative and worked together much better.
"So the question on the table was whether to vote for the bill. But as I approached that question, I asked two others:
"One - could anything more have been done here in this Committee to improve the bill or was it time to move on to a new venue where I hope significantly more progress can be made?
"And two - is defending the status quo and joining the Party of no useful to passing comprehensive health care reform over the long run?
"What it boils down to for me is that I am passionate about health care reform and I am pragmatic about when it's time to move forward. I have never been and am not today one to simply say no for the sake of saying no, to stand on the sidelines and criticize without working to fix what is broken. I voted my hope for the next steps of this process, and so I voted yes.
"But let me be crystal clear - this yes vote is not an endorsement of this bill as it stands today. My vote is a pledge to continue on the Senate Floor and in Conference the fight for policies that work and represent the real needs of West Virginia families."
SEE FULL TEXT OF ROCKEFELLER'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD ON SUPPORT OF SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE'S HEALTH CARE BILL HERE.
In his official statement, Senator Rockefeller highlighted successes in the legislation, including protecting workers in high risk professions, including coal miners and first responders, maintaining CHIP coverage for children, fighting for seniors, improving accountability, oversight and health care quality, and making health care more affordable for American families.
Senator Rockefeller also highlighted areas of concerns in the bill and what he plans to fight for on the Senate Floor and in Conference. These included a viable public health insurance option, regulation for the insurance industry, protecting and improving Medicaid, stronger affordability protections, improving health care information technology, addressing end-of-life care, improving employer responsibility, and removing special interests from the Medicare Commission.
For a summary of Senator Rockefeller's successes in the bill and the issues he plans to fight for on the Senate Floor and in Conference, click HERE.
Let him know we have his back in his push for a real public option.
202-224-6472
Update
From an email:
Sen. Rockefeller Recognized as
Champion for REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM
WV Groups also join in National "It's a Crime to Deny Care" Protest
Charleston, WV - At noon today (Tuesday) WV groups working for Health Care Reform gathered downtown in the lobby of the old Daniel Boone Hotel to recognize West Virginia's Senator Rockefeller as a champion for Real Health Reform. Rockefeller has repeatedly taken the side of the public over Big Insurance and is fighting for a new Public Insurance Option for those who have been shut out of the private market.
"Our Senator has had a longstanding commitment to fighting for citizens access to health care and in this present reform movement is now recognized as a national champion going up against Big Insurance and promoting a much-needed new Public Insurance Option," commented Gary Zuckett Executive Director of WV Citizen Action Group.
"Now that Senator Kennedy is no longer with us, the Health Reform mantle has been passed to Senator Rockefeller. It is now up to him to lead the nation for real reform," commented Perry Bryant, Executive Director of WV for Affordable Health Care.
Senator Rockefeller, deep in Finance Committee deliberations on Health Reform, was unable to attend the event but offered this comment, "People across West Virginia believe deeply in the need for health care reform. Those representing Health Care for America Now in our state are among those who stand up and fight for it - and I thank them for everything they do to realize a health care system that truly works for West Virginia families."
It's a Crime to Deny Care protest marches to CAMC
After the press conference, many of the assembled marched up Washington St. to the corner of CAMC hospital & the Clay Center and set up a mock "Crime Scene" armed with crime scene tape and chalk to graphically demonstrate Big Insurance Bureaucrats blocking access to medically need care in hospitals and doctors offices. "It's a crime when faceless insurance bureaucrats deny doctor's recommended treatments. In many cases it's a matter of life & death, said Zuckett "If the insurance companies win, we lose," he added.
Groups represented at the press conference: WV for Affordable Health Care; SEIU-1199; WV Nurses Assoc; NASW-WV; Organizing for America & WV Citizen Action.
"The climate legislation proposed today by Senators Boxer and Kerry is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and I am against it.
"Requiring 20 percent emission reductions by 2020 is unrealistic and harmful - it is simply not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy efficiency technologies we need. Period.
"Our nation cannot survive without energy from coal and any viable climate policy must solidify our future by focusing on technology to make coal cleaner faster.
"I will continue studying the bill and all of its implications for our state and the coal industry. This is by no means the defining word on climate legislation in the Senate.
"I remain adamant in my conviction not to support any bill that might threaten the economy, workers or families across West Virginia.
"We should take the time to approach these issues with absolute care and diligence - they require nothing less."
I take Sen. Rockefeller at his word--as he studies the bill in more detail, he'll find there's parts there that can help the economy, workers, and families across West Virginia.
I agree with Sen. Rockefeller that 2020 is not enough time to fully deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS). I disagree with Sen. Rockefeller that we should set our greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets based on the risky and uncertain technology of CCS.
We should base our GHG reduction targets based on what is needed to maintain a livable planet, not based on the goal of burning as much coal as possible.
"I am glad to see that Senators Kerry and Boxer included some of the provisions I and other Senators recommended related to carbon capture and storage. I am pleased that Senators Boxer and Kerry are placing a greater focus on clean coal technology. While this is an encouraging sign, we have a long way to go on this legislation. Many issues have yet to be addressed. There is still a tough road ahead."
"I will continue to work with my colleagues to strike a balance that treats West Virginia's interests fairly as the legislative process moves forward. However, I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia."
West Virginia has more than just a resource-based economy. I hope Sen. Byrd will also actively consider how much damage the rest of our economy will suffer if no action is taken to address climate change.
A Good Sign
There's at least one major provision that will help out West Virginians. (For links to an overview of the bill and the actual bill visit Sen. Kerry's website.)
Part 2 of the bill provides Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance:
Sections 311- 313. Establishes a program pursuant to which any worker displaced as a result of Title VII of the Clean Air Act would be entitled to 156 weeks of income supplement, 80% of their monthly health care premium, up to $1,500 for job search assistance, up to $1,500 for moving assistance, and additional employment services for skills assessment, job counseling, training, and other services. Payments under the program cannot exceed the proceeds from the auction of allowances set aside for this purpose.
I've often said we need a hand-up for coal mining communities, not a hand-out for coal companies. This is a step in the right direction. (This is no mere footnote. Pages 229 - 282 of the bill text cover this program.)
Here's another program that might help (I can't tell for sure--it probably needs more funding behind it and probably needs to be directed more closely to Appalachian communities):
Section 156. Economic Development Climate Change Fund. Authorizes the Economic Development Administration to provide up to $50 million per year in technical assistance and grants for projects that promote green economic development in distressed communities.
Now that a bill is on the table, this is a good time for Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller to start being equally forceful in their advocacy for all the West Virginians impacted by climate change as they have been for the coal miners who might be impacted by addressing climate change.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
