Res 37 Toxic Air Bill by Sen J.Inhofe

I am writing you today in vehement opposition to the toxic air bill offered by Senator James Inhofe, S.J. Res 37.

The Online Petition I signed via the Environment Defense Action Fund is listed to follow and emailed to Sen R.Blunt and Sen C.McCaskill.

• My notes to Dirty Oil Roy Blunt are at the bottom of the Post.

This bill would use the obscure Congressional Review Act to block EPA's new emission standards for hazardous mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. If enacted, this bill would also forever prohibit the EPA from adopting substantially similar clean air standards in the future.

These standards, which the 1990 Clean Air Act specifically authorizes, have been in the works for more than two decades. They will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths every year and protect our kids from dangerous exposure to toxic mercury pollution, which can cause brain damage in infants and young children.

They will also save the American economy tens of billions of dollars in avoided health costs while likely leading to the creation of 117,000 jobs installing pollution control technologies between now and 2015.

Last year, more than 800,000 Americans submitted public comments in support of this rule. But now, a few of America's largest corporate utilities have launched an aggressive campaign to block these standards. And Sen. Inhofe's toxic air bill would do just that.

Please stand up for the health and safety of our kids and communities and reject the Inhofe bill.

Please take action today. Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA's life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

My Notes:

Mr Blunt in an email I received yesterday from you.  You wrote:

"Job creators in Missouri tell me that overreaching new regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency are one of the biggest obstacles to getting our economy back on track.  Regulations like these threaten to make the cost of electric power skyrocket for most Americans and will sack families and workers with new costs, reducing their disposal income and ultimately threatening their standard of living."  

I'd like to point out the simple fact that-

"All the jobs in the world won't help when Pollution kills the world."  

As you know here in St Louis- Ameren UE (Union Electric) uses Coal for producing our Electricity.  This pollution from Coal Fired Power Plants is a leading cause of Asthma and Cancer.  WebMD just reported last week that St Louis is Number 7 on the list  of leading cities with Asthma Problems.

"The study also points out that recent statistics indicate asthma causes more than 3,300 deaths annually in the U.S. and is a factor in another 7,000."  

It  would seem to me the more healthy people there are working equals more people paying taxes- ie: Income for the US Government.

If you are serious about creating jobs consider this: Energy Efficiency and Renewable "Non Polluting" Energy.

Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:

"If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."

 (This was a St Louis Post Dispatch Article that talked about making homes energy efficient through weatherization.)

On another note about Energy Efficiency and Nuclear Energy- I'd like to share this info:

"For 1/2 the cost of replacing one nuclear power plant, we can retrofit 1,600,000 homes for "Energy Efficiency" and create 220,000 new jobs- which is 90 times more jobs than you'd get from a power plant replacement."  

ie: how much taxes that are needed for the USA would come from the 220,000 employees?

So basically I'm asking you to do the right thing and leave the EPA alone as the USA is making strides to curb its energy use which reduces the Pollutants in the Air, Land, and Water.

Through the various reporting agencies on Political Contributions. (1 & 2) I know you receive the bulk of your money from Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business.  In the future who will be left to buy their products if the population is killed off from Fossil Fuel Pollution.  I'm not even going to mention the fact that we can reduce our reliance on Foreign Oil (which is the root cause of the ongoing wars in the Middle East.  ie: if they don't have any money they cant fight us).

Thank you, looking forward to your Reply.

Sincerely,
Scotty

Please take action today. 

Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA's life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

Thank you for stopping by St Louis Renewable Energy. Feel free to comment in the section below or contact Scotty for any Home Improvement Projects or Energy Reducing Needs and Scotty, Scotts Contracting will respond ASAP. Company Web Address: http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Missouri Nuclear and Fair Energy Rates

Learn the Issues, Get the Facts

HB 1316: The $115 Million Ameren Bailout

Ameren is asking Missouri businesses and residents to bail them out for costs they have already incurred and plan to incur in the future which do nothing to produce energy or provide any service to consumers now or in the future.

• Ameren has already spent at least $25 million towards pursuing an early site permit.  Ameren willingly spent its own money and as with any other business, Ameren ought to be spending its own money on this speculative venture, rather than seeking a bailout through HB 1316.
• HB 1316 does not guarantee customers will be paid back their money in the case that a new electric plant is never built.
• HB 1316 will cost Missouri businesses and residents $45 million plus interest and Ameren earnings for 20 years totaling an increase of $115 million.
• HB 1316 will produce ZERO watts of electricity. This legislation will not result in a new electric power plant.
• HB 1316 will create ZERO jobs. This legislation has nothing to do with building a new electric power plant that would actually create jobs.

A Plan with Consumer Protections: Senate Bill 406

• Ameren says it needs this legislation to maintain the option of seeking an Early Site Permit toward building a second nuclear power plant. At the same time the bill protects Missouri employers, businesses and residential ratepayers if Ameren proceeds as it has indicated it would.
• The bill also protects business and residential ratepayers if Ameren is wrong and holds Ameren accountable.
• The bill represents a compromise that gives Ameren everything it says is needed to obtain an Early Site Permit and that protects businesses and residential consumers who are being asked to pay for the Early Site Permit.
• This bill allows Ameren to recover from ratepayers financing costs on $40 Million of expenditures to obtain an Early Site Permit.
• Consumer protections include the same three requests that were made by consumer groups this past November:
  • A hard cap on expenses to ensure Ameren doesn’t charge consumers for cost overruns.
    • This is important to avoid the mistakes and huge overruns that have historically plagued the building of nuclear plants.
    • Consumers must be protected from cost overruns at all stages of the process.
  • A rebate to ensure consumers are refunded their money if energy is never produced or the Early Site Permit is never obtained.
    • Ameren has already spent $25 million dollars towards obtaining an Early Site Permit. A rebate is necessary to keep Ameren from shifting the gamble and all of the risk on getting the permit to consumers.
  • Assessment funding for the Office of Public Counsel
    • This takes the Governor’s proposal and makes sure legislative intent for funding the OPC is established and better secures the funding beyond FY 2012, which is the only year the Governor’s proposal ensures.
    • Consumers need an adequately funded independent OPC to ensure consumers are protected through the entire process of building the nuclear plant.

“Ameren Demands $263 Million Rate Hike”

With an unemployment rate of nearly 10%, Missouri families and employers are struggling. Rather than tightening their belts like Missouri’s working families, Ameren is asking the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC), the regulatory body responsible for policing the monopoly, to allow another Ameren rate hike which will:

• Raise electricity rates on Missouri’s working families and employers by $263 million.
• Drive up the cost of doing business in Missouri Ameren’s rate hike plan comes at a time of crisis for Missouri’s economy. Missourians are losing their jobs. Missouri businesses are being forced to downsize in order to stay afloat.  Missouri’s employers and small businesses are already struggling to prevent layoffs of even more workers.
• Drive up the cost of living for already struggling Missouri families Ameren’s $263 million rate hike demand before the PSC comes at a time when Missouri’s employers and small businesses are hurting and at a time when Missouri families are hurting even more. In this fragile economy, thousands of families live on the brink of financial disaster.

Ameren has been awarded over $577 million in rate increases, a 26% hike, at the expense of Missouri ratepayers in less than two years.  It’s time to ask Ameren to do the same, just like Missouri’s working families.

“The Nuclear Option”

It seems like common sense: the market should make decisions on whether a second power plant is financially viable, not the whims of politicians.  In the midst of a recession and with unemployment at record levels, now is not the time to ask taxpayers and ratepayers to pay more money for energy investment. But that hasn’t stopped the big utilities from trying to push their financial gamble on us.  Senate Bill 50 was crafted by the utility companies to create an exception in long-standing state law.  It would allow large Missouri utilities to charge YOU for the costs associated with Early Site Permit (ESP), the first step in construction of a nuclear power plant.

The Situation

• The fact that Ameren is seeking money from ratepayers and cannot get private backing means that there is substantial financial risk in building a second nuclear power plant.

• Missouri’s other nuclear power plant was built without a rate-hike in advance of the plant.

• Ameren made over $600 million last year and is still seeking to raise rates on consumers.

• Ameren has already raised energy rates several times in the past few years, and is now looking to raise them again.

• Other states have allowed energy companies to pass on development costs to ratepayers, and consumers in those states have seen their electric bills skyrocket.

• The development of a new power plant is financially risky, which is why Ameren wants to raise energy rates to cover the costs, instead of using their own money.

• Ameren is seeking to transfer the financial cost of energy development to their consumers in order to appease their shareholders.

The Solution

Any proposal that were to meet General Assembly approval must have strong consumer protections. FERAF encourages you to express your support for consumers by insisting on pro-consumer provisions including:

• Robust Office of Public Counsel (OPC). Over the years funding for consumer protection has been greatly reduced impairing the ability of OPC and PSC to conduct adequate reviews of rate case filings. Legislation must include funding OPC that allows them to conduct thorough audits of rate cases filed with the Public Service Commission.

• Responsible Cap. Should the Legislature consider the utility’s proposed legislation allowing them to recover costs of construction while in progress, they must include a reasonable and fair cap on rate increases to keep energy costs from spiraling out of control. To ensure consumers money is well spent, each step of the construction process should be monitored and controlled.
• Rebate. If ratepayers pay tens of millions of dollars in rate increases and a plant is never built or the permit is sold at a profit, Missouri ratepayers deserve to be refunded in full. We believe these consumer protections to be essential for the health of Missouri’s energy future, and therefore, Missouri economy.

TAKE ACTION TODAY.

The “Bad Debt Surcharge” is Unfair to Consumers

Big gas companies have pushed the Missouri legislature to create a surcharge so they could raise our bills without going before the Public Service Commission, which currently sets utility rates in Missouri. This new surcharge would have allowed them to charge you immediately when other people don’t pay their utility bills. If this new practice had become law, what motivation would the gas companies have to track down customers skipping out on their bills when they could just stick you with their debt?

• Two bills before the legislature in 2010 (SB 705 and HB 1610) would have allowed increases on natural gas bills to pay the utility for the bad debts of its non-paying natural gas customers, overriding the current consumer protection against such single-issue ratemaking.
• This legislation would have allowed energy rates to increase, even at times when Laclede Gas Company or Missouri Gas Energy’s overall cost of doing business was not going up!
• Bad debts are already included in rates. When a utility needs to adjust rates, including for bad debt, it may initiate a rate case. The Bad Debt Surcharge would allow accelerated increases without the protections of a full rate case audit.
• This Bad Debt Surcharge would have increased the volatility of natural gas bills, due to the correlation between wholesale gas rates and uncollectible accounts.
• The Bad Debt Surcharge would have been a hidden surcharge.  By cleverly attempting to redefine certain bad debts as “gas costs”, it would have been disguised in the Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA), instead of being identified separately on gas bills.
• The legal purpose of the PGA is solely for recovering the wholesale cost of natural gas—not to compensate the utility for bad debt.  In 2009, the Missouri PSC ruled unanimously that bad debt is not a “gas cost” [Case No. GT-2009-0026].
• This legislation would have decreased the utility’s incentive to effectively manage its bad debt accounts and increased the incentive to write off accounts early and pass those costs through the PGA.  However, writing off accounts as “uncollectible” does not stop the utility from continuing to attempt collection from the customer who owes the debt.
• The Bad Debt Surcharge also reduces the utilities’ risk, and therefore increases their profits. These companies are already compensated for this risk through the return on equity (ROE) component of rates.  Laclede and MGE are already permitted double-digit ROEs.  In other states, it has been estimated that such surcharges would enhance earnings by 0.75% to 0.95%.

Single Issue Ratemaking

Single issue ratemaking is an unfair utility proposal whereby Missouri’s public utilities are allowed to increase electric rates on Missouri consumers through rate increase surcharges outside of the normal ratemaking process. As fuel charges have increased on Ameren as on all other consumers, for instance, Ameren has raised electrical rates via fuel surcharge increases. Often, Ameren has imposed these fuel surcharges even when their revenues are increase from other means such as off system sales. The result is that, while all Missourians struggle at times with increased fuel charges, only Ameren is able to pass those increased costs on to hard working families. FERAF opposes single-issue ratemaking for exactly these reasons.

Ameren Demands 18% Rate Increase

Missouri’s families and employers are struggling with a state unemployment rate of nearly 10%. In the face of this struggle, rather than tighten their belts like Missouri’s working families, Ameren  demanded that the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC), the regulatory body responsible for policing the Ameren monopoly, allow another Ameren rate hike.  Thanks to the efforts of concerned Missourians and FERAF the rate hike was cut nearly in half.

• Raise electricity rates on Missouri’s working families and employers by 18%.
• Resulted in an immediate rate hike on Missouri’s electricity users. If Ameren has their way, Missouri’s families and employers would have had their electricity rates raised immediately, during one of the most difficult economic downturns we’ve seen in decades.
• Ameren’s original request would have allowed them to raise rates more frequently.Despite the fact that they enjoy a monopoly, Ameren isn’t content with its profits. Buried in the fine print of of its 18% rate hike request was a plan to allow it to raise rates on struggling Missouri families more often through rate increase surcharges on customers’ electric bills. If Ameren had their way, Missourians would need to be prepared for more frequent rate increases!
• Cause Missouri job losses. Missourians are losing their jobs. Missouri businesses are being forced to downsize in order to stay afloat. Hiking rates on Missouri’s employers and small businesses when they’re already struggling will force many to lay off even more workers.
• Push already struggling Missouri families into poverty. Rate increases will hurt Missouri’s employers and small businesses but it will hurt Missouri families even more. In this fragile economy, thousands of families live on the brink of financial disaster. Electric rate increases will cause the number of Missouri families living in poverty to increase.

go Here to TAKE ACTION TODAY

Thank you for stopping by St Louis Renewable Energy. Feel free to comment in the section below or contact Scotty for any Home Improvement Projects or Energy Reducing Needs and Scotty, Scotts Contracting will respond ASAP. Company Web Address: http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Bad combination: Floodplains, nuclear materials and understated risk

Share173

By Bob Criss, special to the Beacon
Posted 7:00 am Fri., 6.17.11
It's only June but one thing is certain: 2011 is another extraordinary flood year. The record high water levels just experienced on the Mississippi from Cairo to Baton Rouge will soon be joined by new record levels on the Missouri River at numerous sites above Kansas City. The vagaries of rainfall delivery will dictate how bad things will become and how far downstream serious problems will propagate, but indications are that many dozens of levees will fail, either by overtopping, under-seepage or simply because they will be water saturated for long periods of time. How is it that this extraordinary flood year came so soon after the extraordinary flood year of 2008, which came so soon after the extraordinary flood years of 2001, 1995 and 1993? The explanation is that damaging episodes of high water are no longer statistically extraordinary, but rather represent the new norm. Describing these events as "50-year," "100-year" or "500-year" floods grossly mischaracterizes what's happening. Understated flood risk is not an academic matter. Faulty risk calculations are used by FEMA to set flood insurance rates that are too low and to define flood zones that are too narrow. Understated risk promotes development projects that place property and lives in hazardous areas. Ironically these same developments encroach on rivers and floodplains in a way that amplifies flood frequency and increases floodwater levels. At the same time, valuable farmland is destroyed, habitat is eliminated and surface water and ground water resources are degraded. In cases where floodplain development projects are encouraged by TIFs and other inappropriate financial inducements, tax revenues can actually go down, even as municipal responsibilities to provide services such as police and fire protection go up. Photo by Bob Criss The West Lake landfill Counterproductive enough? Not for some. Now combine the high and progressively increasing likelihood of flooding with the placement of nuclear materials in floodplains. Let's examine two examples. Incredibly, large volumes of the oldest radioactive waste materials of the Atomic Age were dumped at West Lake landfill in Bridgeton in 1973. From every conceivable viewpoint, the situation is deplorable. Radwaste does not belong in the most populous county in Missouri, near the Missouri River, upstream of several water intakes and within 1.5 miles of Interstates 70 and 270. This site has high risk factors for flooding and is underlain by soils that have high potential to undergo liquefaction during seismic shaking. USGS maps indicate that the potential for strong shaking is significant in this area, so the possibility for slumping of the landfill or the protective levee is significant, particularly during flood years when shallow sediments become saturated. Moreover, the landfill does not have a clay liner or any other protective barrier, nor does it have the leachate collection and drainage systems that are standard in modern landfills. The landfill is not capped, so wind erosion and rainwater penetration can disseminate radwaste. Historical slumping of the landfill has already spread radwaste over adjacent fields. The waste has not been adequately characterized, but enough is known to establish that its level of radioactivity will increase approximately tenfold over time.  This can occur because the systematic decay of the radionuclides produces several additional short-lived "daughter" radioisotopes that will cause the radioactivity of this waste to grow for thousands of years. Few things are as absurd as burying such waste in a substandard landfill in a floodplain in a populous area. As another example, two nuclear power plants in Nebraska have been constructed in the Missouri River floodplain where new records for flood levels are expected to be set this June. The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant has been recently sandbagged, only a year after the plant was cited for having inadequate flood protection. Floodwaters are already adjacent to several of the buildings, and water levels are projected to increase by at least five feet. Fortunately, the reactor was recently shut down for refueling, but about 300 tons of spent fuel rods have accumulated onsite over the years. Make no mistake; some of the most serious, recent problems and explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant involved spent fuel, not just the active reactors. Of course, the NRC and power industry promoters routinely assure us that the risk of nuclear accidents is incredibly low, something akin to the probability of being attacked by a shark while riding a ski lift. The historical record provides a more realistic and vastly higher assessment of nuclear risk. More than 2 percent of the world's 440 nuclear power reactors have been irreparably harmed by nuclear accidents during their operating lifetimes - prominent cases are Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. The bottom line is that understated risk is rampant and the consequences can be economically and environmentally disastrous. Understated risk fosters inappropriate land use in high-risk geologic areas, causing harm that can spread far beyond the boundaries of the offending properties. In contrast, realistic risk calculations and improved economic assessment of construction projects will promote wise land use and resource conservation, while reducing the economic burden caused by flooding or other disasters. Thoughtful stewardship will increase opportunities for research, innovation, enterprise and job creation, and ensure a brighter and more equitable future for all. Bob Criss is a professor in the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University. He is the coauthor of the 2003 book, "At the Confluence: Rivers, Floods, and Water Quality in the St. Louis Region." To reach Voices authors, contact Beacon features and commentary editor Donna Korando.

Re: Want Another Nuke in MO?

Bill Was Defeated thanks to all who was involved

Letter Opposing MO Sen Robin Wright-Jones Nuclear Agenda

Missouri Senator Robin Wright-Jones I strongly urge you to stop the Support of Ameren UEs Nuclear Agenda.  The past does repeat itself and Missouri can do better than Nuclear Energy for Clean Energy Production.

Here are my top 10 reasons-with examples on why I I do not support Ameren UE's Nuclear Agenda.

1) Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency   

•  US Department of Energy Statistics on Energy Efficiency-Saves 10% Energy Costs, 20-30% Heating/AC Costs. 
  

2) the proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. (A law that the Voting Citizens of Missouri Enacted)

• legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.         

• To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray's guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.

3)Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.      

• Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion.  The citizens will be on the hook for an additional $4 Billion Dollars      

• Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers. 
  
• But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium.  

4)Ameren can easily meet Missouri's energy needs through energy efficiency instead of raising your electric rates to pay for a $6 billion nuclear reactor. 

• In the St. Louis Post Dispatch on February 25, Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:
  
• "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."  

                                                                                                                                                                    

5)Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."             

• The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
• Missouri has Adequate Clean Energy Resources from via: Photovoltaic Electricity and GEO Thermal.  Both of which has no harmful side effects- Such as Nuclear Waste.
  

6)According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson...  turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like jumping from the frying pan to the fire". "Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," he added.

• Darren Johnson... said nuclear reactors had an operational life of between 30 and 40 years but created waste that lasted "thousands" of years. "It is barking mad to consider nuclear power as part of a sustainable energy policy," he opined.
  

7) Per Nuclear Reactor in Florida 6 Billion in Projected Costs ends up with total costs of 22 Billion over Budget                                                                                                                                                

8) The Proposed Nuclear Site is not too far away from the New Madrid Fault Line that Scientist say has a high chance of having an earth quake.  Only the Northwestern Pacific Rim has a higher chance of Rupturing.

9) If there is a Nuclear Disaster our Great Missouri Land will be destroyed.  Just Like the disaster Japan is currently going thru and what the Soviets went thru with Chernobyl.  I for one don't want to see the Great Missouri Farmland Polluted from Nuclear Waste.

10) There is no safe way to dispose of the Nuclear Waste.  The Citizens of Nevada have already put a stop to the proposed nuclear waste burial in their back yard- Yucca Mountain.

All the Information Provided on this Article is from the Green Blog: St Louis Renewable Energy I give the sources for all the information provided.  Please research the True Costs of Nuclear.  It is clearly not what Missouri Needs- when there are more feasible alternatives- that not only cost less but have no harmful effects to the Environment.

I urge Everyone who opposes this Nuclear Movement to contact your legislation Department at: Missouri Legislature Contact Link 

Listen to Her Interview about the Ameren UE Nuclear Agenda-
"The Way I Roll" http://www.missourinet.com/2011/04/14/nuclear-plant-site-bill-delayed-audio/
--

Article Posted on: St louis Renewable Energy, Facebook, Scotts Contracting and Twitter 

Care2.com (tags: destruction, radio-active, Nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage, nuclear waste nightmare, nuclear waste management, radioactive waste, radioactivity, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe, Japan Nuclear Effects of Japan ) 

Scott's Contracting

Green Me UP-Scotty

scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan
https://www.facebook.com/GreenMeUPScotty

Join Us at These St. Louis-Area Events

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Missouri Coalition for the Environment <moenviron@moenviron.org> wrote:

Donate Now Follow us on:   UPCOMING EVENTS Volunteer Opportunities  Earth Day Saturday, April 17 11:00am - 6:00pm Forest Park The Festival is the oldest and largest environmental event in the Midwest featuring over 250 vendors and attracting 25,000 people from the St. Louis and Midwest region gather in Forest Park on the Muny grounds to engage in learning and celebration.     Earth Day Expo and Farmers Market - Kirkwood Saturday, April 23rd 10:00am - 3:00pm This family-friend festival will have something for everyone such as demonstations on how to make your home more earth-friendly, music and entertainment.   Protest Ameren Shareholders Meeting Thursday, April 21 · 7:30am - 9:30am Powell Symphony Hall, 718 N Grand Blvd, Saint Louis, MO Ameren Missouri is holding their annual Meeting of Shareholders to vote on several issues pertaining to their governing laws.The anti-CWIP law states that investor-owned utilities, like Ameren, are not allowed to collect money from ratepayers for costs associated with new power plants until they are producing electricity. This law saved Ameren ratepayers $400 million after the completion of the 1st nuclear reactor in Callaway County. Ameren wants to repeal part of this law. Know the talking points and make a difference. Join us for Upcoming Events Keifer Creek MLK Hike Saturday, April 9 10:00am - 12:30pm Castlewood State Park, 1401 Kiefer Creek Road Link to the map. The weather this weekend should be lovely. We are going to talk about ecosystem restoration and look at ways the Kiefer Creek watershed would benefit from an infusion of native plants in Castlewood and along the riparian corridor.  Missouri Food Bill Forum - 5-stop Missouri Tour April 28 - May 4 We are hosting 5 forums across Missouri. We are partnering with the esteemed conservation leader, the Izaak Walton League, and local organizations to host a number of forums across Missouri on America's Food Future.  At these events, you can join the conversation about the next Food Bill. It is a 5-stop Missouri tour and I invite you to  attend a forum near you. For more information click here. 'Truck Farm' Screening at the Tivoli May 12 7:00pm Tivoli Theater, 6350 Delmar Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63130 From the Peabody-winning co-creators of "King Corn" comes " Truck Farm", a new documentary telling the story of an old truck, a new kind of farming, and the future of food in the American city. Tickets are $10 ($5 for Missouri Coalition for the Environment members). Tickets are available online, but MCE members should RSVP by calling 314-727-0600. Tree Identification Tour and BYO Lunch at Tower Grove Park Thursday, May 15th 11:30am - 1:30pm Tower Grove Park - Meet Up Location TBA Tower Grove Park's Executive Director John Karel will lead a spring tour through south St. Lous' most beautiful gem. Participants will learn about the park's amazing and diverse trees, then enjoy their lunch while discussing the pleasures of picnics and urban green space.Tickets are $25 per person. If you would like to attend, please email me dfarrand@moenviron.org

Missouri Coalition for the Environment | 6267 Delmar Blvd., Ste. 2E | St. Louis | MO | 63130

--

Scott's Contracting

Green Me UP-Scotty

scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan
https://www.facebook.com/GreenMeUPScotty

Coal and E.P.A. Proposes New Emission Standards for Power Plants

Adaptation to all the proposed rules constitutes an extraordinary threat to the power sector — particularly the half of U.S. electricity derived from coal-fired generation-

• first national standard and will require all plants to come up to the standard of the cleanest of current plants

Is this why the Big Coal and Big Oil Firms are Lobbying to Cut the Funding for the EPA?

	Mar 17, 2011	New York Times
	WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed the first national standard for emissions of mercury and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants, a rule that could lead to the early closing of a number of older plants and one that is certain to be challenged by the some utilities and Republicans in Congress. Lisa P. Jackson, the agency's administrator, said control of dozens of poisonous substances emitted by power plants was long overdue and would prevent thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of cases of disease a year. Ms. Jackson pointedly included the head of the American Lung Association and two prominent doctors in her announcement to make the point that the regulations were designed to protect public health and not to penalize the utility industry. She estimated the total annual cost of compliance at about $10 billion (This is the Same Projected Cost for New Nuclear Reactors), in line with some industry estimates (although some are much higher), and the health and environmental benefits at more than $100 billion a year. She said that households could expect to see their electric bills rise by $3 to $4 a month when the regulation was fully in force after 2015. Ms. Jackson was acting under a court-ordered deadline to produce a draft rule by Wednesday. "Today's announcement is 20 years in the making and is a significant milestone in the Clean Air Act's already unprecedented record of ensuring our children are protected from the damaging effects of toxic air pollution," she said. Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of Americans. She said that installing and maintaining smokestack scrubbers and other control technology would create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 permanent utility sector jobs. Even before the formal unveiling of the rule, some utilities, business groups and Congressional Republicans cast it as the latest salvo in a regulatory war on American industry. They cited a number of recently issued E.P.A. rules, including one on industrial boilers and the first of a series of regulations covering greenhouse gases, which they argue will impose huge costs on businesses and choke off economic recovery. "E.P.A. admits the pending proposal will cost at least $10 billion, making it one of the most expensive rules in the history of the agency," a group of utilities, the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said in a report this week. "Adaptation to all the proposed rules constitutes an extraordinary threat to the power sector — particularly the half of U.S. electricity derived from coal-fired generation." The group questioned Ms. Jackson's assertion that the technology needed to reduce emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium and other airborne pollutants was readily available and reasonably inexpensive. The need to retrofit scores of plants in the same short period of time will tax resources and lead to delays, it said. A spokesman for the utility industry's largest trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, said it would be easier for some utilities to comply than others, particularly those that rely more heavily on nuclear power and those that have switched to natural gas for part of their generating capacity. One utility executive said compliance would not be unduly burdensome. "We know from experience that constructing this technology can be done in a reasonable time frame, especially with good advance planning," said Paul Allen, senior vice president and chief environmental officer of Constellation Energy. "And there is meaningful job creation associated with the projects." Public health advocates said utilities had delayed the rules for more than two decades with court challenges and lobbying campaigns. "If you think it's expensive to put a scrubber on a smokestack, you should see how much it costs to treat a child over a lifetime with a birth defect," said Dr. O. Marion Burton, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who stood with Ms. Jackson in announcing the rule. Roughly half of the nation's more than 400 coal-burning plants have some form of control technology installed, and about a third of states have set their own standards for mercury emissions. But the proposed rule issued Wednesday is the first national standard and will require all plants to come up to the standard of the cleanest of current plants. The new rules bring to a close a bitter legal and regulatory battle dating back to the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act, which first directed the E.P.A. to identify and control major industrial sources of hazardous emissions. By 1990, however, federal regulators had still not set standards for toxic emissions from power plants, and Congress, in the face of stiff resistance from utilities and coal interests, passed legislation directing the E.P.A. to study the health effects of mercury and other emissions, and to detail the cost and effectiveness of control technologies. In 1998, the agency finally complied, delivering a comprehensive report to Congress detailing the health impact of numerous pollutants, including mercury, which by then had been linked conclusively in multiple studies to serious cognitive harm to fetuses. In December 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the E.P.A. finally listed power plants as a source of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration E.P.A. faced its own deadlines to devise and put into effect controls for power plant pollution. But rather than issue emissions standards in line with federal law, in 2005, top agency officials instituted a controversial cap-and-trade program for mercury, despite a warning from agency lawyers that the move would throw the issue back into the courts and almost certainly be reversed. As predicted, a coalition of states and environmentalists sued the agency, arguing that the cap-and-trade program would not limit other toxic emissions like arsenic and would allow the dirtiest power plants to pay for the right to pollute, putting nearby communities at risk. In 2008 a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A., giving the agency three years to develop standards for mercury and other pollutants. The long delay has meant that emissions of some major pollutants have grown in recent years. The E.P.A.'s most recent data shows that from 1999 to 2005, mercury emissions from power plants increased more than 8 percent, to 53 tons from 49 tons. Arsenic emissions grew even more, rising 31 percent, to 210 tons from 160 tons. The E.P.A. will take public comment on the proposed regulations for the next several months. It anticipates publishing a final rule at the end of this year or early next year. The rule would take effect fully three or four years later.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com