Los Angeles Times
Global warming has new battleground: coal plants
Environmental lawyers make a concentrated effort to stop new ones from
being built; a coalition claims 65 victories in the last year. But
industry groups are fighting back.
By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 14, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-coalwars14apr14,1,1861789.story

WASHINGTON -- Every time a new coal-fired power plant is proposed
anywhere in the United States, a lawyer from the Sierra Club or an
allied environmental group is assigned to stop it, by any bureaucratic
or legal means necessary.

They might frame the battle as a matter of zoning or water use, but
the larger war is over global warming: Coal puts twice as much
temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas,
second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.

The plant-by-plant strategy is part of a campaign by environmentalists
to force the federal government to deal with climate change. The
fights are scattered from Georgia to Wyoming, from Illinois to Texas,
but the ultimate target is Washington, where the Bush administration
has resisted placing limits on carbon dioxide and Congress has yet to
act on a global warming bill.

The campaign against new coal-powered plants has infuriated utilities,
which say the environmentalists' tactics are an abuse of the
regulatory and judicial systems. They are counterpunching with ads,
lobbying and court briefs of their own, bringing the clash over coal
to a pitch that rivals the environmental and legal fights over nuclear
power decades ago.

The environmental coalition, which includes the Natural Resources
Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental
Integrity Project, claims 65 victories over the last three years. The
Sierra Club is coordinating opposition to about 50 additional power
plant proposals.

"We have a national presence, so we're sort of mission control," said
Pat Gallagher, director of the Sierra Club's environmental law
program.

The goal: "We hope to clog up the system," said David Bookbinder, the
Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "It's putting pressure on
Congress to put together a comprehensive plan."

Utilities and industry groups acknowledge that the environmentalists
have been responsible for stopping some coal plants that otherwise
would have been built. But the number is "nowhere near" 65, said Jeff
Holmstead, a former EPA official who is now an industry lobbyist.

The partners in the anti-coal crusade are picking fights over any and
all generators that use coal "regardless of merit," said Brendan
Collins, a lawyer in Philadelphia who represents utilities and power
plant developers. "They are doing it in a way that is unfair."

Since a meeting in Washington last summer, the partners in the
anti-coal crusade have been focusing more squarely on carbon dioxide
emissions in their local skirmishes, hoping to create precedents for
dealing with a pollutant that is not federally regulated.

Their first high-profile victory came in Kansas last October, when
state regulators denied a request by Sunflower Electric Co. for an
air-quality permit for two 700-megawatt generators that would run on
coal in the town of Holcomb.

The Sierra Club petitioned the state's health and environment
secretary, Roderick L. Bremby, to deny the air-quality permit on
grounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

"I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information
about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to
climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if
we do nothing," Bremby said at the time.

Ever since, the state courts and Legislature have been haggling over
coal and carbon dioxide in Kansas, and Sunflower has been unable to
proceed.

Nick Persampieri, a Denver-based attorney for the environmental law
firm Earthjustice, represents the Sierra Club in opposition to the
Sunflower plant. He works closely with the Sierra Club's Kansas
chapter. "You could argue that power plants harm everyone all over the
country, but we always have somebody local to help us get standing" in
court, he said.

Bookbinder is the Sierra Club's point man against a proposed power
plant on tribal land in Utah, a case that shows the scope of the
anti-coal push.

Usually he focuses on big-picture, national litigation from his
Capitol Hill office. Bookbinder was one of the original petitioners in
last spring's landmark Supreme Court decision that the EPA has
authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. But when he found
himself with a block of free time last fall, he told Sierra Club
headquarters in San Francisco, "I'll take a coal plant."

He received this mission: Halt a project by six electric cooperatives
that run the Bonanza generator on the Uintah and Ouray Indian
reservation. The co-ops, operating as Deseret Power, want to add a new
unit with the capacity to manufacture 110 megawatts of electricity,
about a fifth the capacity of the average power plant.

Bookbinder spied a big opportunity in the small project. Because the
Bonanza plant is on property held in trust for Indians by the U.S.
government, it was the Environmental Protection Agency, not a state,
that issued the permit allowing the co-ops to proceed.

Bookbinder persuaded an administrative appeals board to consider
overruling the EPA's permit on the grounds that it would vent more
than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.
Oral arguments are scheduled for late May, and a decision is expected
near the end of the summer.

If Bookbinder is successful, a ruling would affect any project that
comes before the EPA, which has permitting authority for power plants
in eight states, all federally owned land, Puerto Rico, Guam and the
Northern Mariana Islands.

Deseret's lawyer, Steffen N. Johnson, declined comment.

But this time, industry groups are jumping into the fray in a big way.
"Where it's going to be precedential, we will be getting involved,"
said Russell Frye, who filed a half-inch-thick brief last month that
supports the power plant on behalf of seven powerful trade
associations, including the American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of
Commerce of the United States, the American Chemistry Council and the
National Assn. of Manufacturers.

Various business groups are discussing how to handle the
environmentalists' challenges in a more comprehensive way, but
industry sources said their members have such a wide range of
positions on climate change that it's been difficult. Some suggest
bringing conspiracy charges against the environmentalists if they can
find instances in which the national groups recruited locals to allow
them to file legal papers that they couldn't have filed otherwise. But
"no one has the guts," said one industry lawyer.

Instead, Collins and two law partners wrote an article for the spring
2008 issue of the American Bar Assn.'s natural resources journal,
advising clients to build in schedule and budget delays due to
litigation -- because it is inevitable.

"It's good for lawyers. It's good for me," said Frye. "But it's not
particularly constructive to have all these symbolic gestures that may
gum up the works but won't necessarily advance what we as a society
ought to be doing."

Stopping the Bonanza plant, he said, "might not give you more bang for
the buck than controlling an existing source" of carbon dioxide
emissions, "or replacing light bulbs."

Members of the environmental law brigade concede that stopping new
plants may not be as effective in reducing emissions as getting the
oldest, dirtiest, least efficient coal plants offline. Coal supplies
half of America's electricity.

"We'll need to find a way to go after them, too," Persampieri said.


Might as look at these two links to.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/213821_anwr28.html


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/27/113830.shtml

Any light switches turning on?????

Is it really oil companies that are blocking new energy or it it the Courts and self serving lawyers using environmental propaganda??


Ted Kennedy Wants Windmills Killed


Self-proclaimed alternative energy proponent Sen. Ted Kennedy has strongly opposed an environmentally friendly "wind farm” off the coast of Massachusetts – and now it appears Kennedy will have his way.

A proposal before Congress would limit the construction of wind turbines and most likely doom plans for the Cape Wind Project, the nation’s first offshore wind farm. [Editor’s Note: Read the book that first exposed Sen. Kennedy’s hypocrisy -- Go Here Now.]

Story Continues Below

"This is a dire moment for us,” declared Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind Associates spokesman, who said the proposal "would be totally fatal” for the project.

The Cape Wind Project would erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound and could provide three-fourths of the power needed by Cape Cod and nearby islands, which is now largely supplied by coal-fired plants.

But Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has called for a ban on all wind turbines within 1.5 nautical miles of shipping and ferry lanes, The Washington Post reports.

Young cited research in Britain suggesting that the wind turbines’ huge blades could interfere with shipboard radar, and he singled out the Cape Wind site – close to sea routes between the Cape and the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard – as especially unsafe.

Cape Wind officials call Young’s concerns a "pretext” for killing the project, according to the Post, and point out that in 2003 a contractor for the Army Corps of Engineers stated that the wind farm "is not expected to create negative impacts to navigational safety.”

But the project had a powerful enemy in Sen. Kennedy, who has voiced strong support for alternative energy projects – as long as they are not in his backyard.

In his book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” author Peter Schweizer first disclosed: "Senator Kennedy has introduced dozens of pieces of legislation over the years to encourage the development of solar, hydrogen, and wind as alternatives to oil and coal.”

Why, then, would Kennedy oppose the Cape Wind Project?

"The wind turbines would be built in Nantucket Sound, about six miles off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis,” Schweizer explains.

"The problem was not aesthetic; the Kennedys wouldn’t be able to actually see the turbines from their home. Instead Robert Kennedy Jr., who had been beating the drum for alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas.”

Sen. Kennedy publicly called for further study of the project – but "privately, he tried to get the study canceled,” Schweizer writes.

The federal Minerals Management Service is expected to issue a final verdict on the project early next year.

Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Post: "This is sort of backdoor politics at its worst, for the worst possible reasons.”

If you haven’t read Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book on Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore and other liberals who say one thing and do another – make sure you do. Ann Coulter calls it "the book of the century.” Check out our FREE offer Go Here Now.

Editor's note:
Michael Moore, Streisand, Franken, Clinton, Pelosi – Peter Schweizer’s book exposes their hypocrisy. Click Here for FREE Offer!

Most of the Bombs for oil cries come from the Political left and yet we find it isn't the oil barons and the conservative right that are blocking the oil fields as they kinda like the idea of tapping oil today and not holding on to it.


Alaska wildlife refuge's fate again hangs in balance
Republicans renew the push for drilling, but big oil wavers

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- Even on its best day, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an austere place, a sprawling block of land on Alaska's northern edge the size of South Carolina that is sparsely populated and two steps beyond remote.

Yet ANWR is looming large in Congress again, touching off a fierce battle over competing goals of protecting the environment and increasing domestic production of oil and gas. The pace -- and the intensity -- is expected to pick up in the coming weeks as congressional committees begin considering legislation to allow drilling in ANWR.
Map

While many key players and issues remain the same from 1987 when the battle began, changes this year have upset expectations on both sides.

Republicans, emboldened by bigger majorities in the House and Senate, believe this is the best chance they've had to finally pass a bill since 1995, when Congress approved drilling only to have it vetoed by President Clinton.

Critics point to their own changes. Foremost is a pronounced lack of interest in ANWR from some big oil companies. BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the business coalition formed to lobby for drilling in ANWR. Among big oil companies, only Exxon Mobil Corp. remains.

Thus the battle lines are set.

Supporters, including President Bush, say opening ANWR is a crucial first step toward easing the United States' reliance on foreign sources of oil. With modern technology, they say, the job can be done without harming ANWR's unique wildlife.

"I think we ought to allow for exploration in environmentally responsible ways in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Bush told the Detroit Economic Club this month.

"For the sake of this economy and for the sake of national security, Congress needs to pass an energy plan and get it to my desk as soon as possible so we can become less reliant on foreign sources of energy," Bush said.

Opponents strenuously disagree, arguing that opening a largely untouched refuge to industrial activity would destroy its unique wildlife and environment while contributing little to resolving the nation's energy woes. Even worse, they believe that opening ANWR would lead to increased drilling in other protected areas.

"If they are allowed to go into ANWR, where will they go next? Big Sur? Olympic National Forest? Puget Sound?" asks Brian Moore, legislative director for the Alaska Wilderness League, a group opposing drilling in ANWR.

Both sides have been maneuvering for weeks to gain advantage. There are dueling Web sites, opinion polls, news conferences and lobbying campaigns.

At issue is a 1.5 million-acre coastal plain within ANWR that was set aside by President Carter in 1980 so it could be studied to determine whether it had oil and natural-gas deposits. Drilling supporters say only 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acres would be affected by exploration, a virtual speck in the refuge's total of 19 million acres. Opponents counter that far more area would be affected by roads and pipelines connecting drilling pads.

No one knows for certain how much oil lies beneath ANWR. Industry officials estimate the total is between 6 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels. Opponents dispute those numbers as wild guesses.

Even if ANWR is awash in oil, it isn't enough to make a dent in the nation's energy needs or to offset the dangers of drilling in a pristine land, critics say.

"We can't produce our way out of the problems we have," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We have less than 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world, counting what's in ANWR. We simply can't do that."

The knowledge about ANWR's biology is more complete. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has described the coastal plain as a rich and important biological resource. It serves as the breeding ground for the Porcupine herd of caribou and sustains bears, wolves and a vast variety of migratory birds.

"Reducing America's dependence on foreign oil is an urgent priority," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., co-sponsor of legislation to permanently designate ANWR as a wilderness area, the highest level of protection.

"Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our country's last great wild places, for oil that would not reach refineries for seven to 10 years?" Cantwell said. "We should be developing a smart, forward-looking strategy to wean our economy off its addiction to foreign oil without sacrificing our country's wild places."

Drilling in ANWR, she said, "is symbolic of an ill-conceived strategy. Why are you taking this pristine place and turning it into something else?"

Drilling opponents are seizing on the oil companies pulling out of Arctic Power.

"The oil companies saying they don't want to lobby Congress for access to this piece of land is a huge setback," said Moore of the Alaska Wilderness League.

"Who's asking for it? Only a handful of people -- the Alaska delegation, the White House and some leaders in Congress. That's all. We're not only right on the facts and figures, we're right morally. They know they're wrong, and they're only pandering to big business," Moore said.

Republicans are also uncertain about tactics. Republican leaders in the House disagreed last week on whether ANWR should be included in a giant energy bill. Last year the inclusion of ANWR helped to kill the bill. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the committee writing the bill, said he prefers to leave ANWR out of the new bill to increase chances that an energy bill will pass.

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., quickly dismissed that approach. DeLay said he "wholeheartedly" supported including ANWR in the energy bill.

With the outcome in doubt, both sides are launching public relations campaigns.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who is leading efforts to allow drilling, will visit ANWR this week with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and at least two other senators.

"The case for greater self-reliance has never been more compelling. The case for environmentally sensitive energy development in Alaska has never been sounder," Domenici said in announcing the trip.

"We will see for ourselves how American ingenuity and innovation protects our environment and our wildlife while allowing us to develop our own energy."

Moore said several hundred opponents from 30 states will swarm across Capitol Hill the week of March 6 to persuade lawmakers to block drilling. Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee, says the lobbying won't work.

"Environmental special interest groups have distorted the facts about ANWR energy production to raise money and advance political agendas," he said. "In fact, ANWR has been a cash cow for their fund raising for more than a decade. It's time for ANWR to become a cash and jobs cow for all of the American people, not just a few."

Opponents, which include most major environmental groups and many Democrats, including all seven from Washington state, promise to dig in just as deep. They have successfully blocked Republican-led efforts the past five years to allow drilling to take place.

Despite the tough talk on both sides, the fate of the proposal is likely to lie in the arcane world of parliamentary procedure.

Republicans in the Senate concede they don't have the 60 votes needed to cut off the filibuster Democrats promise to launch to block any bill to open ANWR to drilling.

To get around that barrier, Domenici wants to add the ANWR provision to the budget resolution, a blueprint on how Congress plans to spend money in the coming fiscal year. That measure cannot be filibustered and needs only 51 votes to pass.

But even that approach has barriers. Congress failed to pass a budget resolution last year because of difference over spending priorities.

Still, Bush remains optimistic. He has included $2.4 billion in revenue from oil leases at ANWR in his budget for next fiscal year.
P-I Washington correspondent Charles Pope can be reached at 202-263-6461 or charliepope@seattlepi.com[b][/b]