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.
Today a mixed bag of WV state senators sponsored legislation to create a governor's commission to "Seize the Future of Energy for America." What could have been a step forward for america's energy independence and West Virginia's economy looks to be just another give-away to the extraction industry.
You know, I'm not surprised when I see misleading information in constituent emails from Rep. Shelley Moore Capito. Take this section from last week's letter (the first sentence alone gets two things wrong: one minor, one major):
WVU Report on Cap-and-Trade
Also on the topic of energy - this week, professors at West Virginia University released a report on the full-impact of cap-and-trade. In highlighting the prospect of severe job loss and population decline, their view is a bit different than the President's.
Of particular note, Dr. Randall A. Childs and the university's Bureau of Business and Economic Research suggest that the state could lose more than 20,000 jobs over the next few decades and see a $1.8 billion decline in state domestic product. These are troubling numbers and we must remember them as the conversation continues.
So, I went, looked, and found where a report authored by Dr. Childs was released (it is available for download; warning, large PDF). This report is such a hit, at Gov. Manchin's request the West Virginia legislature has even written some of its findings into law:
Whereas, The Act calls for the establishment of a national cap and trade program that, if effected, would reduce West Virginia's gross domestic product by an estimated $750 million by 2020 and by an estimated $1.75 billion by 2030; and
Whereas, West Virginia would lose up to 10,000 jobs by 2020 and up to 22,000 jobs by 2030 if the proposed cap and trade program is enacted;
Amazingly, Rep. Capito's newsletter is more accurate than the legislature's resolution! (There's a sentence I never thought I'd write.) Rep. Capito at least says "could" whereas the resolution says "would".
I share Rep. Capito's view that these numbers are troubling--but not for the same reasons.
Talking about Change
Now, before I go into details about the report itself, I want to remind you about a diary I posted a few days ago on talking about change. Here's a key chart:
What about that WVU BBER study?
Okay, fine... what's that got to do with the WVU Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) study? Well, as it turns out, Childs' study focuses exclusively on just half of the decision making picture.
It says West Virginia has some good stuff right now--mainly, coal mining jobs and revenue along with electricity rates below the national average. Then it calculates how much less of the "usual" good stuff we would have if the House bill become law without any further changes and if we assume we were going to have all the same good stuff in 2030 as we have now.
In other words, it only looks at the stuff in the Resistance to Change column. No wonder the folks who like the status quo--the most resistance to change--have fully embraced this study.
What the report doesn't include
The WVU BBER report does not note that global climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed. (In fact, in the first footnote of the study, it gives credence to debunked claims of climate change denialists).
The WVU BBER report does not say what the costs of doing nothing are (it ignores the bad stuff now and in the future)--the significant costs to West Virginia of climate change. (To be fair, neither do the national government studies it relies on for much of it data.)
The WVU BBER report assumes that West Virginia's current relative electricity costs advantages will remain constant in the absence of climate change legislation. This is a difficult assumption to justify.
We're already seeing West Virginia utilities ask for large rate increases due to the drop in state industrial demand and a drop in out-of-state demand for coal-generated electricity. Multiple forecasts show a drop in Appalachian coal production in the next 20 years. Nearby states are making aggressive investments in alternative energy. Projecting the "usual" good stuff forever is an unrealistically optimistic comparison case.
Also, the WVU BBER report does not include any of the different good stuff that will result from addressing climate change. Quoting from the study itself:
The provisions excluded from EIA's analysis include: Clean Energy Deployment Program; Strategic Allowance Reserve; regulations covering HFC emissions; GHG standards for activities not covered by cap and trade; allowances to coal merchant plants; efficiency standards for transportation equipment; and, investment in energy research and development. The omitted programs and regulations, while albeit important, are not likely to significantly change the underlying results of this study.
Investments in conservation, efficiency, and alternative energy all provide benefits to the West Virginia economy. These benefits are not included in the study.
Finally, the WVU BBER report makes no attempt to include less bad stuff. A more thorough study would include the positive impacts of reduced coal usage (something that the MACED and Dr. Hendryx studies both provide a reasonable starting point to estimate).
In other words, when Rep. Capito says this is a "a report on the full-impact of cap-and-trade," that's just not true. It's a report on some of the impacts of cap-and-trade with an almost exclusive focus on the most negative impacts.
Resistance to Change
If you set out to create the most pessimistic view possible of addressing West Virginia climate change you might well end up with a study quite similar to this one. I have no reason to believe Dr. Childs' started his report with that idea in mind, but the end result is the same.
It's no wonder that Rep. Capito and Gov. Manchin are trumpeting these figures to justify their resistance to change. This is a disservice to all West Virginians.
Head in the sand on climate change. The WVU BBER report assumes the West Virginia economy will feel no effects from global climate change if it goes unaddressed. This is a reckless view to perpetuate.
All pain, no gain. The WVU BBER report assumes that West Virginia will get no benefits from the House climate bill. No new clean energy jobs. No new coal carbon-capture and storage R&D jobs (with associated increased coal demand). No retraining, tax credits, or other directed benefits to aid Appalachia in moving beyond coal.
"Good" stuff forever. The WVU BBER report assumes the status quo of coal today will be here forever. That's at odds with what the coal industry itself is saying. A real public service would be to create a more realistic baseline scenario based on all known information about coal supply.
Bad stuff never. The WVU BBER report completely ignores the documented negative externalities of the coal economy. Reductions in coal mining, processing, and burning will also have positive effects on West Virginia GDP and population numbers (along with numerous quality of life indicators).
In summary, the WVU BBER paints an unrealistic set of scary figures.
A silver lining?
As incomplete as this study is, there may be one small silver lining. While I think the WVU BBER study is misleading and inaccurate, it does demonstrate the necessity for West Virginians to constructively engage in the legislative process regarding energy and environmental policy.
It is important that climate change legislation aids West Virginians and other Appalachians who face disproportionate impacts in moving to a post-carbon economy. West Virginia political leadership--our Congresspeople and those in the state house--ought to quit demagoguing these issues and start offering real solutions.
Mining and burning the small amount of coal remaining in West Virginia even faster is not a solution to climate change in West Virginia and it doesn't address the long-term challenges our state faces to replace our dwindling coal-based wealth.
Several folks have posted about the exchange between Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito and Pres. Obama and the GOP retreat last week (h/t JB). If you haven't watched the video, here it is.
Here's how I look at this exchange. The basic assumption in Capito's question is in this part:
I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas.
Towards the end of his response President Obama reminds her that's not the full picture.
So what I want to do is with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there's going to have to be some transition. ... what does that industry look like in the next hundred years?
How would you answer the question for West Virginia--what does coal mining look like in the next 100 years?
The first thing I think about is, 100 years from now--probably just 50 years from now--there's not going to any coal mining to speak of going on in West Virginia--all the coal will be gone. Just looking out 30 years from now, there's a whole lot less coal mining than today. So, what about 20... or 10 years from today?
This is the twilight of coal wealth for West Virginia... its heyday is in the past... we're in the final lap. The President is responding to Capito--West Virginia doesn't have 100 years worth of coal--and reminds us all we need to do even more to prepare for what comes next.
Stripped to its essence, it's the most pressing question I take away from the Q&A between Capito and Obama.
To prepare for the next 100 years: what economic development do we as a state want to promote that is not coal-related?
New Report Warns of Decline of Central Appalachian Coal Argues for New Focus on Economic Diversification and Renewable Energy for the Region
MORGANTOWN, WV - As the legislative season begins across Central Appalachia, a new report by Downstream Strategies details future challenges to coal production in the region and argues that policy-makers should strongly support renewable energy and the development of new economic opportunities for coal-producing areas.
"Coal has contributed significantly to local and state economies in Central Appalachia, but production has fallen substantially over the last 12 years as other coal basins and sources of fuel have become more competitive," said lead author Rory McIlmoil. "This trend is expected to continue as mining costs increase due to the depletion of the lowest cost coal reserves, and as new environmental regulations are implemented. As this happens, local and state economies will need new sources of jobs and revenue to replace coal mining jobs and taxes."
According to the report, Central Appalachian coal production is projected to fall by nearly 50% within the next ten years. Central Appalachia includes the coal-producing counties in southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, and eastern Tennessee
The report points to renewable energy and energy efficiency as two sectors where new jobs and tax revenues can be created, as the region has a wealth of clean energy resources. The report concludes that losses related to the decline of the coal industry can be recaptured by gains from wind, solar, low-impact hydro, and sustainable biomass production, and from a strong focus on energy efficiency improvements.
To support the diversification of the regional energy economy, the report outlines a series of policy instruments, including requiring each state to provide 25% of their energy from renewable sources; the provision of grants, tax credits, clean energy bonds, or low-interest loans to support renewable energy development and manufacturing; the implementation and strengthening of net metering laws; and the development of workforce programs aimed at providing the skills and knowledge required for renewable energy industries. The study also argues for strong incentives for local ownership of energy development, to help maximize the local economic benefits of renewable energy projects.
"Given that coal production is projected to decline significantly in the coming decades, diversification of Central Appalachian economies is now more critical than ever," said co-author Evan Hansen, President of Downstream Strategies. "State leaders should use this legislative session to increase support for new economic development across the region, especially in the rural areas set to be the most impacted by a sharp decline in the region's coal economy."
In December 2009, West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd stated, "West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it. The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose."
According to McIlmoil, "The same is true for all of Central Appalachia, and we hope this report helps policy-makers understand the changes that are coming so that they can support new industries. The renewable energy sector offers one of the greatest opportunities for economic development."
Downstream Strategies is an environmental consulting company in Morgantown, West Virginia, with program areas in environmental policy, environmental science, and geographic information systems. The company provides science, research, and tools to organizations, businesses, and agencies. It offers clients an alternative to mainstream environmental consulting by combining sound interdisciplinary skills with a core belief in the importance of protecting the environment and linking economic development with natural resource stewardship.
Groups Put Massey on Notice for Over 12,000 Clean Water Violations Company Has Pattern of Illegal Pollution
January 11, 2010
Charleston, WV: A coalition of groups, including the Sierra Club, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy took action today to hold coal giant Massey Energy accountable for over 12,000 violations of the Clean Water Act and surface mining laws associated with their mining operations in West Virginia. Massey continues to illegally dump pollution into Appalachian waterways despite a massive $20 million fine already placed on the company for thousands of previous violations.
"Massey has operated outside the law for far too long. There is a history here, not only of Massey ignoring the law, but of state officials ignoring Massey's violations," said Judy Bonds of Coal River Mountain Watch. "Massey needs to be held accountable for these very real crimes against the people of Appalachia."
Massey has a long history of environmental and social irresponsibility-including one of the largest slurry spills ever to take place in the United States and a $1.5 million fine from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. In 2008 the company was fined $20 million for Clean Water Act violations, similar to those cited by the coalition, after the federal government documented over 4,600 cases of pollution being illegally dumped into local waters by Massey and its subsidiaries. Incredibly, Massey's violations have increased in frequency since its settlement with the federal government.
"Massey seems to think that poisoning water by consistently ignoring laws is an acceptable business practice. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection seems to agree, as they continue to allow these violations. We are forced to do the agencies job, to hold Massey accountable," said Diane Bady of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
"Massey has both a legal and moral obligation to protect streams and drinking water supplies in the communities where it operates," said Jim Sconyers of the Sierra Club's West Virginia Chapter. "Their permits are not just pieces of paper - they are solemn commitments to protect the waters and people of West Virginia. Unfortunately the company has shown time and again that it is unwilling to take its obligations seriously."
Massey and its subsidiaries operate dozens of mountaintop removal and other large-scale surface mines in Appalachia, using some of the most environmentally devastating types of mining, flattening the landscape and burying miles of streams. Close to 2,000 miles of streams have already been lost and new proposed mountaintop removal permits could destroy more than 60,000 acres of the remaining forest.
I'm only making one New Year's Resolution this year: I resolve to reduce my carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.
This is going to be one of the trickier resolutions to pull off--it will require a year's worth of effort, buy-in from the rest of my household, and some real changes in behavior.
Because any New Year's Resolution is easier to stick to if you have friends joining with you, I'm also going to ask each of you reading this to join with me. Will you also resolve to reduce your carbon emissions by 10% in 2010?
Here are ten ideas to help get us all started.
#1> Learn Read up about carbon emissions and the environmental impact of the choices you make--big and small--in living, eating, and transportation. Use a carbon footprint calculator. Here's are some websites you can check out if want to learn more: ACT on CO2, 10:10 UK, and Earth Hour.
#2> Save energy. Saving energy is all about conserving (using less) and being more efficient (using what you use better). You can conserve energy by turning off the lights when you're not in the room. You can be more efficient by buying compact-fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) that create the same amount of light with less energy. The same principle applies to the big stuff, too. The Energystar website provides lots of good information for household energy efficiency. (Visit here for West Virginia specific info.)
#3> Reuse and Recycle When you buy things, purchase items with less packaging or packaging that can be recycled. If you are lucky enough to have curbside recycling, use it--otherwise, learn where the nearest recycling center is and make a habit of taking your recyclables there--to make it even easier, talk to your neighbors about combining trips (Recycling in W.Va.)
#5> Enlist Help Reach out to family, friends, and co-workers. Reducing our carbon footprint is a community effort. Talk with other members of your household about how to reduce your emissions. Talk with your friends about ways to share resources. If you are a member of an organization--a church or civic organization--discuss ways it can save money on energy bills and other non-renewable resources it uses.
#7> Grow your own fruits and vegetables. When you grown your own food you'll enjoy fresh, high quality food. You can also grow varieties you won't find in a supermarket and you'll know exactly what the food has or has not been exposed to.
There are many guides on how to grown your own fruits and vegetables. You can start small, team up with your neighbors, or--for city dwellers--even start with a view potted herbs. Growing food in your own neighborhood cuts carbon emissions considerably compared to food shipped hundreds or thousands of miles to your door.
#8> Buy local food. Join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) and shop at farmer's markets. Local Harvest has a wonderful directory of US local food sources.
#9> Fly Less. Yes, this is a hard one, but consider:
Planes get a respectable 43 passenger miles per gallon (pMPG), but they cause 1.9 times as much climate change per gallon of fuel burned, by virtue of their being up in the sky. So when we consider climate change, the plane's efficiency is more like 22.6 pMPG. That's worse than most cars. And if there are two people traveling in the car instead of flying, then the pMPG of the car is doubled, while the plane is stuck at 22.6 pMPG, because we're already figured the plane's pMPG on a per-seat basis. The only time that flying is better than driving for a given trip is if there's only one person in the car, and/or we're assuming a very low-mileage car.
If may be unavoidable to fly sometimes, but if you're considering you next vacation option, you might think twice and decide for the spot that is driving distance away.
I've got a long list of "things I've been meaning to write about." Here's a link drop for a quiet Sunday afternoon.
* This is quite simply, unacceptable. In a just world, this would the major topic of discussion in the January legislative session... Andrew Clevenger notes 1 in 6 West Virginians living in poverty:
More than 300,000 West Virginians lived in poverty in 2008, according to new data from the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates released by the U.S. Census Bureau yesterday.
::::
The data can also be broken down by county and school district. Staggeringly, an estimated 46.3 percent of people under the age of 18 in McDowell County lived in poverty. This is almost two times higher than Kanawha County (23.5), three times higher than Monongalia County (15.2) and four times Jefferson County (11.1, the lowest percentage of all 55 counties).
If this deal is approved by the West Virginia Public Service Commission, West Virginians can expect Frontier to cut, not add jobs. On Nov. 4, in an interview with Bloomberg News, Wilderotter finally admitted that Frontier "plans to cut jobs" -- as part of its effort to achieve cost savings of $500 million a year. Up until that interview, Frontier management maintained the fiction that the deal would mean more, not fewer, jobs. Cutting jobs isn't in the public's best interest.
The deal also will make our telephone utility in West Virginia weaker financially.
* I don't know if Sens. Byrd or Rockefeller will have a chance to ask Bernacke questions during his (re)confirmation hearing, but I'd sure like to see Bernacke get some follow-up grilling on this. Bernacke gets Feds mandate wrong (emphasis mine):
Yesterday, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke referred to the "our dual mandate, which is growth and inflation." In fact, the dual mandate is full employment (defined as 4.0 percent unemployment) and price stability. Presumably Bernanke had unemployment in mind when he said "growth," but it striking that he would not use the right term. The two are of course not synonymous.
Because of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration, Americans can go just about anywhere in this country and see FDR's hand on the landscape. These programs weren't flawless, but they were smart, effective, pragmatic. To hear some Party of No politicians and rightist pundits tell it, however, this particular use of the public sector was just short of a Bolshevik coup. So, obviously, anything with a whiff of New Deal scent about it is going to set off another round of patented GOP sulking and barking amplified by our ever-helpful national media.
Let them bark. The White House should press for a direct job creation program anyway.
The CCC put millions of young men to work planting trees, curbing erosion, and generally nurturing the National Park System. Nine years the program lasted. Much of the work done still lives today. A Clean Energy Conversion Corps would not only create jobs but also provide a massive public investment with an impact reaching decades into the future.
* CNN Money has a fascinating article about the new found resistance energy companies are finding to exploration efforts as they move closer to more populated areas: The Domestic Drilling Backlash (thank you to the reader who emailed me this story!)
Most Americans still support increased oil and gas drilling. But opposition is growing, especially when that drilling nears more populated urban areas. Currently there are natural gas booms happening around New York City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Western Colorado, the Midwest, and elsewhere. Opponents fear this new drilling will ruin the drinking water for millions of people, among other concerns.
And energy companies, accustomed to dealing with rural populations familiar with drilling and eager for jobs and lease royalties, are increasingly finding themselves at odds with a more educated and wealthy populace wary of energy development.
::::
In Western Colorado, public awareness of drilling and the potential dangers has increased as wealthy people from nearby resort towns have become interested in the cause, said Theo Colborn, president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a group studying the effects of drilling chemicals on humans.
Colborn recounted the story of a nearby town where the local officials were considering allowing more drilling. Soon after, residents had their cars leafleted with pamphlets describing the associated dangers. Turns out, a local resident had hired a public relations agency to come in and run the campaign.
"A lot of wealthy people have been affected, and they can afford the lawyers or PR firms to come in and do stuff like this," she said.
::::
...the days of this industry operating in relative obscurity and with little federal oversight are likely numbered.
What are you reading today?
Eastern Box Turtle in Morgan County, West Virginia
I love hearing stories where people make positive change. It's easy to just complain and stick your head in the sand but I'm always inspired when I see how many folks are out there quietly doing the groundwork for the big changes we need.
SEED volunteers help with construction of a community center building in Rock Creek, WV
And change is undeniably upon the coal industry again. The increased use of mountaintop removal mining means that fewer miners are needed to meet company production goals. Meanwhile the Central Appalachian coal seams that remain to be mined are becoming thinner and more costly to mine. Mountaintop removal mining, a declining national demand for energy, rising mining costs and erratic spot market prices all add up to fewer jobs in the coal fields.
These are real problems. They affect real people. And West Virginia's elected officials are rightly concerned about jobs and the economic impact on local communities. I share those concerns. But the time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal's future in West Virginia.
::::
The greatest threats to the future of coal do not come from possible constraints on mountaintop removal mining or other environmental regulations, but rather from rigid mindsets, depleting coal reserves, and the declining demand for coal as more power plants begin shifting to biomass and natural gas as a way to reduce emissions.
::::
Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it. One thing is clear. The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.
Some grassroots activists in West Virginia have been already been thinking "long and hard" about which course they want to choose. They want a way forward for their community that includes clean, safe, homegrown jobs.
I think there are other options beyond coal because coal's not gonna be here forever - our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, what are they gonna do when coal's not here? There needs to be some kind of other jobs besides coal. I think there's a lot of smaller businesses that would like to be in this area, but they're scared off because of the mining. If you can get a few things started, you can get a few people to work - you can even employ these high school graduates. There's not a lot of young people; what ones are here, they leave or they go in the mines because that's the only thing to do, and by the time they're 30, they're half-dead.
Unfortunately, since too many politicians remain focused on bringing large-scale coal-based development to Appalachia we still need a hand-up for communities ravaged by coal-mining, not yet another hand-out for coal mining companies.
These grassroots activists need our help
Like any volunteer effort, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development project cannot be sustained by sweat equity alone. It needs your help. There is an immediate need for anemometers to measure wind feasibility, then there are additional costs associated with the purchase and installation of wind turbines in the Coal River Valley.
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development is a community organizing project connecting residents of the Coal River Valley to one another and to the outside resources they need to make their small business and renewable energy ventures a reality. We began by meeting with twelve families in the valley over the summer and fall, and identified three inspiring projects to pursue. Two families are in the beginning stages of a community owned wind development project. One group of woodworkers are building a wood kiln to dry and increase the value of sustainably forested lumber. The SEED Community Team formed as a group of locals generating new ideas for community revival and economic diversification in monthly meetings. In their latest meeting, they resolved to build a community owned greenhouse and plan to break ground on the project in the winter. The entrepreneurial spirit is spreading!
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development is structured to ensure accountability to community members. It begins with listening to community members, and the Community Team ensures that project organizers do not veer off course in the collaborative process of small business development.
Organizers are working on two wind development projects in the the valley. They need to start raising funds today to be able to purchase and install a 100 kilowatt wind turbines as soon as possible and stake the community's claim on the toe of Coal River Mountain. This single-turbine installation lays the groundwork for larger wind development in the future.
I, too, am frustrated with Washington these days. The solution, however, is not to tune out but to work locally, "where you can celebrate victory," in the words of Cindy Sheehan.
Despite those who have dismissed Obama's visit to China as useless, and despaired of any useful outcome from Copenhagen, Scientific American reports that his programs to advance clean energy in China and India, plus negotiations with Canada and Mexico and his commitment to cutting US emissions, addresses over half of all global warming emissions.
In particular, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab will partner with India's Solar Energy Centre and Centre for Wind Energy Technology to map potential, develop technology and, ultimately, aid in its deployment-potentially allowing rural Indians to "leapfrog" directly to distributed solar energy, without the need for costly transmission lines.
It's a pity West Virginia can't leapfrog, too. But New Jersey, just as cold and dim, has been providing incentives and already has more solar connected to the grid than any other state but California. Their newest incentive reimburses more for equipment made in New Jersey.
If China and India are committed to wind and solar, prospects for increasing exports of West Virginia coal there are pretty slim. If the East Coast shifts to efficiency and local wind and solar, where is the market for coal-by-wire? Some West Virginia coal and power companies have acknowledged (along with business and industry nationwide) that a sustainable economy is the future. It's time everyone else, especially the governor, did.
We are not just a coal state; we have been an energy, chemicals, plastics, metals, glass, timber, and beautiful outdoors state for generations. Industry will shift to sustainable production if we restructure our regulations, taxes, and economic development incentives to favor them.
We are in a good position to shift to a sustainable economy, if we seize the opportunity.
The study, Clean Energy and Climate Policy for U.S. Growth and Job Creation (pdf), assumes that the bills will be kept at least as strong on emissions targets (17% nationwide reductions by 2020, 83% by 2050) and renewable energy standards (mandate that utilities get at least 20% of electricity from renewable suppliers) and that there is strong continued funding for renewable energy research and development (Obama put 60$ billion into the stimulus bill, but more will be needed).
The study looks at the impact of the economies of each and every state--and finds that in each case, the effect is positive.
There are three main findings, all of them noteworthy:
1. All 50 states can gain economically from strong federal energy and climate policy, despite the diversity of their economies and energy mixes . . . they all have substantial opportunities to grow their economies by promoting energy saving and domestic renewable energy alternatives.
2. Contrary to what is commonly assumed, comprehensive national climate policy does not benefit the coasts at the expense of the heartland states. In fact, heartland states will gain more by reducing imported fossil fuel dependence because they are generally spending a higher proportion of their income on this low employment, high price risk supply chain.
3. The country as a whole can gain 918,000 to 1.9 million jobs, and household income can grow by $488 to $1,176, by 2020 under comprehensive energy and climate policy . . . Indeed, a central finding of this research is that the stronger the federal climate policy, the greater the economic reward.
And that's really the takeaway here--as noted by the study, by "aggressively promoting efficiency on the demand side of energy markets, alternative fuel and renewable technology development on the supply side can be combined with carbon pollution reduction to yield economic growth and net job creation."
West Virginia could benefit from new energy policies designed to address climate change. What can go wrong? There's two major risks.
#1 - The study is based on the assumption that "the bills will be kept at least as strong on emissions targets... renewable energy standards... strong continued funding for renewable energy research and development."
One major risk is that Sens. like our own Rockefeller and Byrd will continue working to undermine the aspects of the bill that will deliver the most economic benefit for a new energy economy. A "strong" bill is needed not only to address escalating climate change but also to stimulate creation of a new energy economy.
#2 - Another major risk is that West Virginia won't take advantage of the opportunities for renewal energy development. Both Reps. Mollohan and Rahall have spoken out against specific wind farm developments before. The green energy sector in West Virginia lags behind other states and is growing at too slow of a rate to catch up. Unless we change course, West Virginia will be left in the dust.
The energy economy of the future will look very different than that of the past. West Virginia needs leadership that will look at all the options ahead, not just cling to our heritage and traditions of mining and burning coal.
In Greenbrier County WV, the Beech Ridge Wind Farm is a $300 million, 119-wind turbine wind farm presently under construction. The 400 feet (120 m) tall wind turbines, each of which will generate 1.5 megawatts of electricity, will be scattered for 15 miles (24 km) along Shellcamp, Smokehouse, Beech, Rockcamp and Big ridges and Cold Knob, Old Field, Blue Knob and Nunly mountains. Total output for the project will be 186 megawatts.
Take a look at the map below to compare Greenbrier's existing power transmission lines to those where the Coal River Mountain project in Raleigh County has been proposed.
It's pretty obvious that while Raleigh County has some hefty lines crisscrossing right through it (intersecting at Beckley), most of Greenbrier County is pretty power-line free. Apparently that's why there's a new power line a new 13.8 miles (22.2 km), 138 kilovolt power transmission line, to be located in Greenbrier and Nicholas counties. The construction of those lines are already injecting revenue into the local economy.
Note that there's a really hefty power transmission line crisscrossing Grant and Tucker because Grant County's Mount Storm Wind Energy Center has a 66 megawatt plant with 44 1.5 megawatt turbines that generate enough electricity to power 22,000 homes. It's 132 wind turbines stretch along 12 miles of the Allegheny Front, and can generate up to 264 megawatts. That's enough electricity to serve about 66,000 homes and businesses. And Tucker County's wind farm consists of 44 NEG Micon 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines that produce 66 MW of electricity. Tucker county's Mountaineer Wind Energy Center generates enough electricity to power approximately 20,000 homes.
The reason I delineated Kanawha county in red is because the transmission lines coming from its polluting coal-fired John Amos power plant are far fewer and less impressive than those running through Tucker and Grant county, which lead me to suspect that someone from our "extraction" state may well have over specified the power line right-of-way requirements from non-coal producing power generating systems. BTW I found the above power line grid map on the U.S. Dept. of Energy website, so it should be fairly accurate.
Anyway, since Tucker County has had its wind farm on line since 2003, it may be useful to know what its done for the county. Resident Robert Burns worked for the Tucker County Development Authority during the planning and construction of the wind farm, and recently spoke with a southern WV coalfield delegation about some bottom line incentives for wind in West Virginia.
"Our local government was looking for two things when deciding about the economic development of Mountaineer Wind Energy - taxes and jobs."
The project created local jobs, and the county tax revenues increased significantly from the onset of the project. And although school districts across our southern coalfield are failing due to lack of funds, 60-70% of tax payments to Tucker county from Mountaineer Wind Energy are reinvested into schools. source
One last item regarding the ability of "extraction states" to fund wind farm projects
Chinese banks put up $1.5 billion for a 36,000-acre wind farm in Texas with the power to light up 180,000 homes. CBSnews, Oct. 29, 2009
"The project is a joint venture with U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a private equity firm, Austin, Texas-based Cielo Wind Power LP and Shenyang Power Group of China
"The joint venture also plans to tap into U.S. stimulus funding for alternative energy, said Cappy McGarr, managing partner of U.S. Renewable Energy.
"Armed with nearly $1 billion in federal grants, wind farm developers installed 1,649 megawatts of capacity from July through September - enough to serve the equivalent of 480,000 average households and about 18 percent more than the year-ago quarter, the American Wind Energy Association said last week.
"That suggests the industry is doing better than might be expected, easing fears that a lack of lending would stall new wind capacity". source
Check this out
"Now is a great time to be investing [in renewable energy] because of all of the advantages of the stimulus package money," said McGarr, managing partner of U.S. Renewable Energy Group."And this is an opportunity to create something that will last a long, long time."
"The $1.5 billion project is an opportunity for China, which has been aggressively expanding its wind power, to get a toehold in the U.S. renewable energy market. The deal was announced on the same day U.S. trade negotiators said China agreed to drop a restriction that has insulated Chinese wind turbines from import competition."
"Hornaday said the Chinese investment helped to make up for the impact of low energy prices. Wind farms have looked less attractive to investors as the price of natural gas, which heavily influences the price for power in Texas, remains low.
"...To qualify for the stimulus grant, the project must begin construction by 2010.source
Anyone wondering how much of the stimulus money Governor Manchin hasn't spent developing "renewable" alternative energy sources in WV can follow the money at this link
There's a shovel-ready wind project in Raleigh County for which the residents have been petitioning the state to save for quite some time now. But due monumental acts of bad faith by agents of the WV Department of Environmental Protection and the WV Department of Energy, it may never come to pass.
The problem is that their state agents have decided to contravene the The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and issue permits to Massey subsidiary Marple Coal without properly reviewing the woefully inadequate post-mining land use master plan which calls for the mountains to be restored to support "forest, wildlife, and fish". So the blasting away of a natural, non-polluting solid and reliable source of income for Raleigh County has begun, and along with it the hopes and dreams of that community.
Please call President Obama today at 202-456-1414 and implore him to use his agencies and influence with West Virginia politicians to stop the destruction of Coal River Mountain immediately.
Featuring workshops and speakers, including Jeff Biggers, Ken Hechler, Larry Gibson, Matthew Petty and Terri Blanton.
Thousands of young people will rally across the United States this Fall for the Power Shift '09 Regional Summits: 11 massive gatherings to exercise the political power of young voters and ask President Obama and Congress to pass a clean energy jobs plan by December to rebuild our economy, end our dependence on dirty energy, and bring America lasting security.
"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.
Okay, not really. It's tough to get noticed here at the Great Orange Satan these days. And I don't have a pootie pic nor a BREAKING headline to share.
What I do have:
An invitation to you to pour your favorite beverage and benefit from Netroots Nations Video Archive.
I attended this session in person in Pittsburgh, and it was one of the two most powerful sessions I witnessed. (the other is Afghanistan, separate diary).
So sit back, adjust your volume, and enjoy the show.
Copyright 2009 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, the tireless efforts of volunteer contributors and continued participation from this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong soley to their respective authors.
