The fight against a big, polluting coal-fired plant has many fronts, at the local and the state level – dailypress.com

The fight against a big, polluting coal-fired plant has many fronts, at the local and the state level – dailypress.com.   Posted using ShareThis. Please click on this link to read an excellent editorial from The Daily Press concerning the proposed coal-fired power plant in Surry County.

     Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Dendron planners and supervisors, and Surry County planners and supervisors assure citizens that the coal-fired power plant will meet all emission regulations and permitting requirements.  Do they realize that permits don’t disallow pollution, they PERMIT it?  It may meet the regulations, BUT IT WILL POLLUTE!

     In this case, the ODEC plant will emit 14 million tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (actually, not regulated yet), 920 pounds of lead, and 118 pounds of mercury annually.  Do the monetary benefits to Surry County outweigh the long-term health risks to its residents , to those down wind, and to our natural environment? 

     Were opponents of the plant been permitted to speak before the Surry and Dendron boards with elegant and lengthy Powerpoint presentations of their points of view?  

     Positive monetary benefits to Surry County are emphasized over and over, but the overwhelming scientific data about the negative aspects of the coal-fired power plants, as well as the concerns of those impacted by the intrusive facility,  have been largely ignored.

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

GCV Joins Fight to End Mountaintop Removal

Photo of a mountaintop removal operation in southwest Virginia courtesy of Southwings, www.southwings.org.

On January 19th, The GCV Board of Directors voted unanimously to support Senator Patsy Ticer’s bill, “The Streamsaver’s Bill,” (SB 564) to end mountaintop removal, the devastating coal mining practice in Southwest Virginia that destroys mountains, pollutes headwater streams,  eliminates biodiversity, and adversely impacts the health and welfare of area residents.

This Thursday, February 11th, the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will hold a special public hearing devoted to this issue.  The GCV will be among the conservation community gathering  in Richmond, the state capital, to show support for this bill at a 3:00 pm  RALLY FOR THE MOUNTAINS  and at the Senate hearing at 4:00 pm.   Join us in showing  your support, too!

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

GCV Conservation Shares Post from the Wire

Tiny Virginia Town Approves Giant Coal-Fired Power Plant

DENDRON, Virginia, February 2, 2010 (ENS) – The Dendron Town Council last night approved rezoning for Old Dominion Electric Cooperative’s proposed coal-fired power plant, which has sparked fierce and determined opposition from environmental groups and some local residents.

The 1,500 megawatt Cypress Creek Power Station would be the largest coal-fired power plant in Virginia and Old Dominion plans to build it in the miniscule town of Dendron – population about 300, total area 3.6 square miles. Dendron was a company town, built and run by the Surry Lumber Company, which closed in 1927.

About 150 people came to the meeting in the town’s fire hall to have their say as Old Dominion, a not-for-profit power provider to 10 local electric cooperatives in Virginia, attempts to jump through the regulatory hoops on its path to building the Cypress Creek Power Station.

To disprove claims that all opponents are outsiders, local residents wore stickers saying “Surry County Local – NO COAL.”

Most of the speakers at the Town Council meeting were against the proposed power plant, but Mayor Yvonne Pierce cast the tie-breaking votes to give the cooperative approval.

The Surry County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing Thursday for the part of the project that is outside the town limits.The vote gives the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, as well as other state and federal agencies, the green light to begin environmental impact studies on the site, said Old Dominion spokesman Jeb Hockman.

After the vote opponents of the coal-fired power plant vowed to fight on.

Kayti Wingfield, campaign coordinator for the nonprofit Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition, said, “Our fight over the last year has helped inform a lot of citizens in Surry County and elsewhere about the dangers of this plant – 50-plus years of dirty air, poisoned waters and blown up mountains to dig out the coal, not to mention fueling climate change that will have dire impacts on Virginia.”

Oppponents say that Cypress Creek would emit more than 20,000 tons of air pollutants each year, as well as 116 pounds of toxic mercury. It would also emit some 14.6 million tons of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

In a fact sheet on its website, Old Dominion counters that the air permit for the power plant will contain mercury limits that meet the state guidelines designed to protect human health and the environment. “In other words,” the company says, “the emissions of mercury lack sufficient concentration to adversely affect someone’s health from inhalation.”

But the environmentalists are concerned not only about mercury inhalation but also about the deposition of airborne mercury onto local waters where it enters the food chain and contaminates fish. They point out that there is no safe level of mercury ingestion.

Old Dominion argues that Virginia’s mercury levels are declining and the Department of Environmental Quality states that only “3 percent of the mercury deposition occurring within Virginia can be attributed to EGUs [electric generating units] located within Virginia.”

Old Dominion selected the 1,600-acre site in December 2008. David Hudgins, director of member and external communications for ODEC, said the cooperative forecasts energy demand among its consumer-members will double in the next 20 years.

“The Cypress Creek Power Station will not only provide our consumer-members with safe, reliable and affordable energy, but it will also provide many significant short- and long-term economic benefits to Dendron and surrounding areas,” said Hudgins.

“From construction jobs to facility operations jobs and annual tax contributions, the economic benefits of this project, combined with our proven track record of responsibly managing similar operations, make this a win-win project for the local community,” Hudgins said.

But Tom Cormons, Virginia director of the nonprofit Appalachian Voices, said if the Dendron Town Council hopes to generate jobs by approving the power plant, they are mistaken.

“A new economic report shows that local residents would get very few jobs from the plant,” said Cormons. “For example, three construction jobs for Dendron residents. The majority voted without taking the time to review the new jobs report.”

Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the power plant would not create green jobs, although green jobs are exactly what the newly elected Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Republican, wants for the state.

“In his State of the Commonwealth address, Governor McDonnell challenged Virginians to make the entire state a ‘green jobs zone,’ declaring that Virginia is for lovers of renewable energy,” said Jaffe. “ODEC should step up to that challenge, abandon this old-style, coal plant proposal, and give Surry County a 21st century, green energy opportunity.”

Glen Besa, director of the Sierra Club in Virginia, said, “At $6 billion, this is the most expensive coal plant in the country, and ODEC is proposing to build it at a time when utilities all across the country are abandoning new coal plant projects. This would not be a prudent investment.”

There are still many regulatory hurdles to surmount before the plant can be built. The State Corporation Commission will have to issue a certificate of need for the plant, which would allow ODEC to raise rates to pay for the plant.

In addition, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the State Air Pollution Control Board have authority over two required air pollution permits.

Also, the Army Corps of Engineers has authority over a federal wetland permit, and will be doing a environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act to determine the need for the plant and assess alternatives.

Each agency will hold separate public comment periods and public hearings. So opponents of the power plant are still hopeful that there is time to block it.

“It is time for Virginia to join the rest of the nation and move away from dirty, dangerous and outdated sources of energy, especially coal,” said Chelsea Harnish with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “The opposition to this proposed coal plant is already strong and will only grow as more Virginians learn about the economic and environmental damage it will cause.”

Thank you to the Environmental News Service for allowing me to republish this article.  For your information, your next best opportunity to speak out against the massive coal-fired power plant is on February 4th at the Surry County Board of Supervisors Meeting at 7:00 pm at the Surry Government Center on 45 School Street in Surry, Va.

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

GCV Supports SB 564 and Opposes SB 442

Conservation Lobby Day, photo by Ann Hohenberger

  

On Monday, January 18th, during the first week of the 2010 General Assembly, representatives of the 47 member clubs of the Garden Club of Virginia made a strong showing at Conservation Lobby Day, an event sponsored each year by the Virginia Conservation Network and the Garden Club of Virginia.  The event was attended by environmental activists, preservationists, environmental scientists, politicians, lobbyists, and other concerned citizens.  Attendees were warmly welcomed by Nathan Lott, Executive Director of VCN, and Anne Doyle, Chairman of the GCV’s Conservation and Beautification Committee, before learning about the pressing environmental concerns facing Virginians in 2010.The GCV has formally endorsed the following positions on the two following environmental bills.  GCV members are strongly encouraged to contact their senators on behalf of GCV to ask for their support of SB564, a stream saver bill to stop the destructive practice of mountaintop removal in Virginia, and for opposition of SB 442, a bill proposed to change the code of Virginia to give the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules the power to review  and suspend the rules and regulations of any agency. Details on both bills follow:  

Water/Mountaintop Removal Issue: Stream Saver Bill   

Bill Number/Patron: SB 564/ Senator Ticer   

GCV Stance: Support  

• This legislation would end the practice of filling Virginia headwater streams with coal mining waste.
• Mountaintops and ridges are blasted apart with explosives and the resulting waste material is dumped into nearby valleys, permanently burying streams and poisoning waterways for miles downstream.
• Mountaintop removal coal mining destroys Virginia’s water quality, our geologically old mountains, our forests, and the economic viability of Southwest Virginia.  As of 2009, Virginia has nine active mountaintop removal permits.  Five of them, encompassing 2,498 acres, are “active/partial producing.”
• 67 Virginia Mountains have been leveled by this type of mining.  The EPA has documented 151 miles of Virginia streams as buried or mined-over as of 2001 (it’s most recent assessment).

Regulatory/Citizen Input Issue: Change Code of VA to Suspend any Regulation Therein   

Bill Number/Patron: SB 442/ Senator Wagner   

GCV Stance:  Oppose  

• This bill would give the authority to suspend Virginia’s regulations to an appointed commission, the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules.
• Basically, this bill cuts the people out of the process.  It is the overreach of the power of a single committee in Richmond.  The Joint Commission on Administrative Rules could review the rules and regulations of any agency to determine whether or not to suspend it.

Tom Cormons, Mike McCoy, Kathy Selvage

  

You can keep track of all environmental legislation this year by clicking here. The bills are updated automatically as they move through the process, so bookmark this site and check back often. Here, too, you can vote for or against bills, and enter your “testimony” in the comments section for each bill.  Members, please contact your legislators on behalf of the GCV about SB 564 (support) and SB 442 (oppose).  Remember, positions that you take on other legislation must be on your own behalf.  

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

You Have Got to be Kidding!

When an overwhelming consensus of scientists warn that we must take immediate action to avoid passing the “tipping point” to avert the most extreme consequences of global climate change, Delegate Will Morefield, Republican from Southwest, Virginia, introduced House Bill 1357 on January 22, 2010: “A BILL to amend and reenact §10.1-1300 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 10.1-1306.1, relating to Department of Environmental Quality; carbon dioxide.” 

 The intent of this very bad bill is to prohibit Virginia’s Air Pollution Control Board and the Department of Environmental Quality from restricting the emission of greenhouse gasses, i.e., carbon dioxide. Numbered 10.1-1300 , the definition of air pollution would be amended with this sentence: “Carbon dioxide shall not be considered air pollution.”     

Section  10.1-1306.1 is an amendment that reads: Authority of the Board; Department; carbon dioxide.

Neither the Board nor the Director shall take any action to restrict the emission of carbon dioxide.  Any federal law or regulation that purports to prohibit, limit, or control in any way the emission of carbon dioxide shall be without authority, void, and of no force within the boundaries of the Commonwealth.       

As such, neither the Board nor the Director shall:       

1. Regulate or adopt any regulation that restricts the emission of carbon dioxide;       

2. Issue or amend any permit to restrict carbon dioxide emissions; or       

3. Allocate funds, personnel, or any resources to efforts directed at the restriction of carbon dioxide emissions, including research, study, or investigation of any kind.  

Proposed when we Virginians clearly need to step up to the plate and do our part in combating climate change, I don’t think this distasteful bill will ever make it far.  But you never know.  So stay tuned. To track this bill, please click here.  The opinion of this bill is my own, and not of the Garden Club of Virginia.

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club   

 

More Albatross Sadness

Photo Courtesy of Chris Jordan

We all are  familiar with the 1942 Battle of Midway, known as the “turning point of the Pacific” in World War II, and memoralized in countless movies, board games, and video games.  The WWII aircraft carrier bearing the name USS Midway commemorates the battle as the USS Midway Museum in San Diego, CA.       

Are you aware that a battle of another kind occurs every year on this small Pacific atoll, halfway between North America and Asia?  Sadly, tens of thousands of albatross chicks die from strangulation or starvation caused by plastic objects thought to be food that are plucked from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and fed to them by their parents. The plight of these poor babies is documented by photographer and cultural activist, Chris Jordan, in a compelling series posted on his website.  Please view the photos in the series by clicking here. To see a poignant presentation entitled Midway: Message from the Gyre, click here, and be sure to turn up the sound!  

Photo Courtesy of Chris Jordan.

Chris notes that all the decaying birds are photographed just as he found them–nothing was moved or altered. The stomach contents of the babies are clearly recognizable. It is difficult to believe that these poor creatures were hatched on a remote stretch of land more than 2000 miles from the nearest continent.  

 

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

Garden Club of Virginia Participates in Conservation Lobby Day

On Martin Luther King Day each year, Conservation and Beautification Committee members, Conservation Chairmen and committee members, and other volunteers from the 47 member clubs of the Garden Club of Virginia (GCV) join the Virginia Conservation Network (VCN) for Conservation Lobby Day in Richmond, Virginia.   We review the most up-to-date conservation priorities within Virginia, and visit our legislators in the General Assembly to present our views on specific conservation legislation.   The morning agenda includes in-depth presentations on a variety of conservation issues ranging from clean energy and clean water to public transportation and land preservation.   Speakers come from both the private and public sectors, including the GCV, the State legislature, and numerous conservation and preservation organizations.

At the end of the morning, the GCV breaks out of the general meeting for a working lunch during which we discuss  legislation specifically endorsed or opposed by the GCV .  We also receive helpful training on how to lobby legislators.  In-depth studies of the issues actually begin weeks earlier by the Conservation and Beautification Committee , and approval from the Board of Directors is gained before members may speak on behalf of the GCV.  Based on what we think we can accomplish during the legislative session, the GCV generally supports or opposes a shorter list of bills than VCN.   

Conservation Chairmen and committee members are strongly encouraged to make appointments with legislators on this day well in advance.  If you’re unable to make your appointments, don’t worry — legislative assistants are almost always available to hear our positions. 

This year we meet on Monday, January 18, at Centenary Methodist Church, 411 E Grace St, Richmond, 23219, four blocks west of the state capitol. Public parking is available nearby, including on the street, and in a lot one block north at Broad St. and 5th St. N.  Check-in begins at 8:30 a.m., and the meeting begins at promptly at 9:30 a.m. Registration is required; please click here to register.

Other useful tidbits for the day include:

• Before Conservation Lobby Day, read about current conservation issues in the VCN’s 2010 Conservation Briefing Book.
• Have paper and pen on hand to write and sign a personal note to your legislators about the GCV’s conservation positions.  This is especially important  if you are unable to personally meet them on this day.  
• After Conservation Lobby Day, follow-up with a personal thank you note to your legislators for their time, or the time of their assistants,  and be sure to reiterate the GCV’s conservation positions. 
• Conservation Chairmen, you are the conduit for information about the GCV’s positions between the GCV and your club members.  The proposed bills are very fluid and quick to change during the legislative session, and bills we support can quickly change to ones we oppose.  Stay informed about these bills, and especially important, keep your club members updated on our positions and ask them to contact legislators.  Emails are quite effective for disseminating information, and you will likely receive many from the Conservation and Beautification Committee that you can pass on to your membership (follow your club’s protocol).  Keep the power of the GCV’s large membership in mind, and remind your club members that we can accomplish more with greater participation in the legislative process. 
• You must have approval from the GCV Board of Directors to use the name of the GCV in support of or opposition to specific issues.  Of course, you may speak on your own behalf for or against issues not approved by the GCV Board. 
• Bills before the House are prefaced HB, and Senate bills, with SB.
• Dress warmly and wear gloves; Conservation Lobby Day always seems to be held on the coldest day of the year!

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

GCV Member Ponders the “Green” Christmas Tree Question

My sister, Ann Hohenberger, wrote on the GCV horticulture blog a few weeks ago about the debate over  the “greener”  Christmas tree–artificial or cut.  She notes that, unlike the artifical trees of yesteryear,  today’s look amazingly real. However, she still perfers the “real” tree, picking the perfect one for its shape, trunk, and freshness. After the New Year, she recycles the tree in the woods for the enjoyment of the many wild creatures that inhabit her property.

A Google search of “real or fake Christmas trees?” turned up 64,400,000 results in .95 seconds.  The first result was my favorite for its up-to-date facts and concise answers.  In the popular environmental website,  Treehugger, Pablo Paster answers the question by analyzing all the individual parts of an artificial tree and estimating their carbon emissions, including the steel frame, the glass, PCV, and copper pre-strung lights,  and the polyethylene needles.  Since most fake trees are made in China, he includes emissions for shipping, too. Based on sales data from 2001, he postulates that  fake trees purchased this year produced around 600,000 tons of greenhouse gasses.  Pablo compares the artifical tree data to the CO2 annually sequestered by live trees, an average of 172 kg.  At first, his calculations indicate that an artificial tree is the more environmental choice, but then we learn that  CO2 sequestration actually increases on tree farms because of the vigorous growth of young trees.

I must confess, I bought an artificial tree three years ago.  I love its perfect shape, that it is prestrung and all the lights work all the time, and that it is so very lifelike.  I also love that it doesn’t aggravate my allergies.  But I miss searching for the perfect tree on the tree lot after Thanksgiving.   I miss the conifer tree smell that used to permeate my house during the season.  And I miss returning the tree to nature in the woods behind my house.

Sigh.  I suspect that this is the last year I will use the “perfect” artificial  tree in my home.

Check out Treehugger and all its interesting advice and analysis by clicking here.

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

The Garden Club of Virginia Resolves to Oppose the Cypress Creek Coal-Fired Power Plant

Cypress Creek

     An active association of forty-seven garden clubs, whose members collectively form a group of more than 3,300 civic leaders from around the Commonwealth, the Garden Club of Virginia exists to celebrate the beauty of the land, to conserve the gifts of nature and to challenge future generations to build on this heritage.  We encourage our members to be informed advocates for proper land management practices, particularly those involving long-term protection of air, water, and soil qualities; and we encourage local organizations and governing bodies to support responsible residential and commercial development.

     With these objectives in mind, the Garden Club of Virginia Board approved a resolution on December 11, 2009  to oppose the Cypress Creek Coal-Fired Power Plant proposed by ODEC for Dendron in Surry County.  The resolution follows:

GCV Resolution

WHEREAS, the Garden Club of Virginia strives for the preservation of Virginia’s beauty and natural heritage-including clean air and water, healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and intact landscapes-from the Tidewater and the Chesapeake Bay to the mountains and streams in the western portion of the state;

WHEREAS, the coal-fired power plant proposed for Hampton Roads by Old Dominion Electric Co-operative could:

•  Exacerbate mountaintop removal coal mining, a practice that permanently destroys the mountains, forests and headwater streams of southwest Virginia-treasured and irreplaceable parts of our natural heritage that provide clean water to communities, harbor a diversity of plants and animals unequaled in other regions of the United States, and enrich the lives of residents and visitors alike;
• Annually emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide, making it a major contributor to climate change, a severe threat to Virginia’s more than 3,300 miles of tidal shoreline, its agricultural sector, and its sensitive wildlife habitats;
• Annually emit thousands of tons of the air pollutants that cause smog, soot, ground-level ozone, and acid rain, impairing human health and natural ecosystems;
• Contribute significantly to excessive levels of nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay-the most serious problem facing the Bay-through deposition of airborne nitrogen oxide emissions, worsening algal blooms that deplete oxygen levels, killing fish and shellfish and creating “dead zones” in the Bay;
• Also emit a large quantity of airborne mercury in close proximity to the Chesapeake Bay and major tributaries, contributing to mercury deposition leading to the contamination of fish and other aquatic life in waters already subject to fish consumption advisories due to excessive mercury levels;

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Garden Club of Virginia will work to oppose construction of the proposed plant and continue to advocate for investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy in the state.

     With this move, the Garden Club of Virginia has joined the former Director of the VA DEQ and 2008 recipient of the GCV Dugdale Award Bob Burnley in opposing construction of the Cypress Creek plant.  Groups fighting to stop the plant include the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Chesapeake Climate Action Network; Wise Energy for Virginia; Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards; Sierra Club; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Surry Justice; and the Southern Environmental Law Center. 

Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club

Coal-Fired Power Plant in Dendron Recommended for Approval by Surry County Planning Commission

The little town of Dendron, population 300, as it appears today. The house pictured on the left, above, is shown in the artist’s rendering, below, which clearly puts the dimensions of the enormous power plant into perspective.

     On November 14, the Surry County Planning Commission voted eight to two to recommend approval for each of the nine land-use applications for the 1,500-megawatt, coal-fired Cypress Creek Power Plant proposed by Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) for the small town of Dendron. Dissenting votes were cast by John Stokes and Misti Furr, who is also a member of the Dendron Town Council. Afterward, the commission closed the meeting without public comment.

   The applications now go to the Dendron Town Council on January 4 and the Surry County Board of Supervisors on January 7 for consideration. If they receive local approval, which is expected, the next steps are between the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and ODEC regarding many and varied details of their permit application. DEQ then releases the permit request to the public. DEQ requires 35 citizen requests for the Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) to consider the matter. There will then be multiple hearings and opportunities for public comment before the APCB, and the APCB has 365 days to vote. ODEC then applies to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) issues a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Providing all permits are approved, construction could begin as early as mid-2013, and the first generator would go online in 2017.

Artist’s rendering of the ODEC coal-fired power plant 1/4 mile behind the town of Dendron. The smokestacks would measure 600′ tall.  For scale, the rendering below depicts the 600′ Trump Towers in Dubai.   How far in the  distance will two 600′ towers be visible?   Surry County is very flat territory.

A rendering of the Trump Towers in Dubai puts 600 feet into perspective.

   Merry A. Outlaw, Williamsburg Garden Club