Welcome to ArticleXI.com!
We are a group of environmental advocates united in providing a one-stop source for Virginia's environmental news. We each focus on different issues, but share the vision of a Commonwealth that preserves and protects its natural resources. Please join us!
A recent report found that "Pennsylvania's natural gas industry and its trade groups spent $3.37 million on lobbying between January and September 2011." During the same timeframe environmental groups spent $178,909. That's an 18 fold difference in spending between PA's natural gas industry and Pennsylvania's environmental groups interested in human and environmental health.
Similar lop-sided spending ratios can be seen throughout the country. In Virginia in particular, the flood of congressional lobbyists under the wing of one company, Virginia Uranium Inc. is a testament to the enormous spending disadvantage that Virginia's environmental groups have related to industry giants. But environmental groups in Virginia have something that money still can't buy on an effectively sustained basis: the power of people to mobilize around particular issues and affect the eventual outcome.
Once cynically scoffed at by executive heads of powerful energy companies like Dominion VA Power, the power of the people has manifested itself in effective political ways over the past year, culminating in one of the people's biggest victories on the human and environmental health front: the delay of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
While it's true that the environmental community in VA alone put a lot of valuable time and effort into mobilizing people around the Keystone XL pipeline, it was a policy victory that even some within the environmental community didn't foresee. It's the power of the people, stupid!
Our democratic political system rises and falls on the legitimacy of its political institutions. Even though Citizens United unleashed the spending frenzy of big corporations from across the country, our political leaders are still beholden to the majority will of the people. Thus, if the people come out and get involved in issues important to their lives, there's the strong potential to make a significant public policy impact that can help build a better future in Virginia and the country as a whole.
Success in the environmental and human health arenas won't be easy. But with sustained participation and enthusiasm, "we the people" can gain a greater portion of the reigns to our future. The future is ours for the taking, so let's take it!
EPA's first inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions finds Dominion-Virginia Power to be the state's
Biggest Climate Change Polluter
Following a year of bizarre and destructive weather, the US EPA has just released its first inventory of large emitters of greenhouse gas emissions. The data available on a searchable website shows Dominion-Virginia Power to be the state's largest emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The top three polluters in Virginia were all Virginia Power coal fired power plants: Chesterfield, Clover and Chesapeake Power Stations.
"We are pleased that Dominion is proposing to retire several of its oldest and dirtier coal units," said Glen Besa, Virginia Director for the Sierra Club. " Last September, Dominion announced the retirement of both the Chesapeake and Yorktown coal plants which among the top ten polluters in Virginia.
"The retirement of the Chesapeake and Yorktown coal plants is welcome news except that Dominion has announced its intention to replace that electricity with new gas fired power plants," said Besa. "Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it still is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, also in the top ten of the state's biggest polluters is the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station, a gas fired power plant in Fluvanna County ranked at number nine. "
"Our reliance on fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil, all contribute to climate change," explained Besa. "That is why it is critical that we begin the transition away from these fuels that are disrupting our climate and contributing to sea level rise. "
The inventory shows that 74.5 % of our greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters in Virginia come from power plants.
"There is an alternative to disrupting our climate, inundating our coasts and polluting our air," said Besa. "Wind and solar technology that we have today can move us along a path to a clean energy future. In building that future, Virginia will see thousands of new clean energy jobs. It is just a matter of political will."
"Unfortunately, if we wait too long to begin this transition to clean energy, the economic and human costs of climate change will be overwhelming. Just consider the costs of seawalls and levies throughout Hampton Roads, an area second only to New Orleans in vulnerability to sea level rise," stated Besa.
It's good to know that state agencies like the State Corporation Commission have the best interests of the public in mind. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Regulators with the State Corporation Commission (SCC) did the people of the commonwealth a huge favor by only allowing half of the price increase sought by Virginia Natural Gas ($25.1 million). The agreement between VA Natural Gas and the SCC gives the former a $11.3 million rate increase. This increase translates into an extra $3.47 per month for the average residential consumer.
VA Natural Gas has over 275,000 customers in southeast VA, a section of VA that is not ripe with wealth to begin with.
Here's the issue my fellow Virginians. We are subsidizing what is essentially a middle-man for our natural gas needs on an inappropriate scale. Couldn't our state government do this? Isn't sustaining our way of life in VA something of a public good?
Why exactly are rates for natural gas distribution being increased, anyways? Last I checked there was plenty of natural gas to go around and to keep prices steady, if not declining.
Here's another issue: the SCC has clearly allied itself with the energy industry above and against the people of VA. If a government institution is not allied with the people that it is established to serve then that institution is no longer legitimate and should be dissolved or reformed.
The people of VA are tired of being dumped on by the powers that be inside the energy industry. Making a profit is one thing. Exploiting your customers is another.
Just as responsible parents wouldn't rush into making potentially life-altering decisions regarding their children, so to shouldn't responsible legislators of the General Assembly rush into making decisions about the future of uranium mining in Virginia until further research has been conducted and the legislators themselves have had time to digest the plethora of studies, analyses, and reports that have sprung up over the last two years alone. Putting residents of Virginia at risk is the antithesis of what our state government has been set up to do.
But even before residents of Virginia look at each analysis as equal in objectivity, we each have to ascertain who actually paid for each analysis and what their interests are in having the analysis performed. What are the interests and motivations of those seeking to lift the ban on uranium mining? What are the interests and motivations of those seeking to keep the ban in place?
Greed has all too often blinded those who have sought to undertake one project or another to the true consequences of their actions. Money is a powerful force that can turn facts into fiction, temperance into excess, and civility into rudeness. What's at stake in the case of uranium mining in Southside Virginia, however, are the lives and well-being of thousands of Virginians in southern Virginia. The potential for this issue to affect millions of additional Virginians is ever present, but little discussed, as well.
"Going green" seems to be a tough chore for Dominion VA Power. Dominion recently announced that it will pay $5,600 in civil fines for a 700 to 800 gallon fuel oil spill that occurred at its Yorktown Power Station on Nov. 1, 2010, hardly more than a slap on the wrist for Dominion.
The fine is expected to be paid as soon as the Virginia Water Quality Control Board pulls the measure through the formal bureaucratic process.
The latest incident of Dominion's highlights the uncertainties inherent in the extraction and transportation of oil, natural gas, uranium ore, or any other natural resource. The only problem with these natural resources is that "leaks" can have serious human and environmental consequences, consequences from which there may be no short-term remediation.
Moreover, given the temporary nature of many mining and extraction companies in particular, the logic of capitalism would dictate against long-term efforts at remediation oftentimes necessary to completely "clean up."
While Dominion VA Power is an exception in that it has firm roots in Virginia, its centrality to Virginia's economy and close political ties with many levers of government give pause to the idea that coherent regulations can reduce or eradicate environmental disasters arising from negligence, incompetence, or complete disregard of environmental safeguards.
700 to 800 gallon fuel oil spills, and other related incidents, by Dominion hardly seem like a simple mistake. It is a systemic problem that should be addressed immediately before there is no natural world left to value.
Dominion VA Power is at it again, attempting to stifle attempts by Virginians to utilize solar power in residential areas.
Dominion VA Power is proposing that a "standby charge" be charged to large-scale residential solar customers when the thermal panels of these residents aren't creating enough electricity.
Even less of a shocker, given the fossil-fuel friendly VA General Assembly (GA), the GA approved legislation that permits the standby rates for residential solar production systems ranging from 10 kilowatt hours to 20 kilowatt hours.
The VA State Corporation Commission is scheduled to hear the rate case on Nov. 3.
Dominion's move shouldn't be too surprising since allowing customers to use solar power would effectively cut into the profits of this fossil fuel generating utility.
What advocates of solar power should be most upset about are the half-truths and foot-dragging that has constituted much of Dominion's approach to increasing its renewable energy portfolio.
It's clear, then, that Dominion sees renewable energy as a source of power for the future and not necessarily one for the present.
Unfortunately for Dominion, many Virginia customers want to see an increase in the use of renewable energy to power their daily lives now. Dominion is aware of this, which is why they have made an effort to at least publicly state their intentions on moving towards different forms of renewable energy.
It's up to Dominion whether it wants to keep tarnishing its already bruised public image or finally give in to the demands of its Virginia customers.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently released its 5th annual State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. The scorecard ranks all 50 U.S. states on their different energy-efficient policies and programs.
So, out of a possible 50 (50 being the worst possible score), Virginia ranked 34th.
While this score isn't a shocker to those of us who live in VA, it should be a wake-up call to business leaders and government officials who at the very least wish to clean up their public image.
State scoring was based upon "Utility and Public Benefits...Score," "Transportation Score," "Building Energy Code Score," "Combined Heat and Power Score," "State Government Initiatives Score," "Appliance Efficiency Standards Score."
Maybe worst of all, Virginia didn't move in rank from 2009 to 2010 in ACEEE's scorecard rankings.
Clearly, VA has a lot of work left to do to clean up its energy efficiency act. From public transportation, to recycling, to clean energy use, to water use, to overall public awareness regarding energy efficiency issues, VA still has a lot of progress to make.
Of course, VA can make it happen if strong political and business leaders take up the challenge.
So far, however, Gov. McDonnell and his administration in particular haven't gone far enough to increase VA's energy efficiency programs and policies.
If they, and anyone else for that matter, look close enough, they'll see that a move in the direction of energy efficiency will save lots of money too!
The Virginia Sierra Club recently announced its intentions to attend the second Virginia Energy Conference, held by our dirty energy-loving governor, Bob McDonnell. The conference will be held on October 17-19 and anyone in favor of clean, renewable sources of energy for VA are encouraged to attend.
For all of his promises to the contrary, Gov. McDonnell has focused his administrations attention on bolstering VA's coal, gas, oil, and nuclear commitments to the exclusion of renewables.
We can of course discuss the political cronyism that's obviously taking place, but the more important issues are the human and environmental ramifications that a continued reliance on nonrenewable sources of energy will have in VA.
First, committing to more "domestic" sources of nonrenewable energy will almost inevitably mean higher rates of diseases and illnesses related to the increased domestic production of nonrenewable energy. That is, more Virginians will become sick or die.
Secondly, Virginia's various and invaluable ecosystems will take unparalleled "shocks" that may lead to their irreversible decline.
The issue of uranium mining in southern Virginia is a great example.
Since uranium mining has never been done in a climate like ours, no one can say with a comfortable degree of certainty that such an endeavor will be benign in terms of human and environmental health.
But solar and wind power, just to give 2 examples, are benign sources of energy.
While Gov. McDonnell is rewarding his friends who aided in his election, he is doing so to the neglect of the interests of all other Virginians and their natural environment.
Dominion VA Power met with officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Monday to discuss the NRC's report on the impact of a 5.8 magnitude earthquake at Dominion's North Anna Power Station.
A public meeting with Dominion and NRC officials was also held on Monday afternoon at North Anna's nuclear information center in Mineral.
After the August 23 earthquake, the NRC's inspection team spent 3 weeks at the plant.
According to Dominion, North Anna's two nuclear reactors were shut down by seismic vibrations.
Dominion says that it has found no "significant" damage to structures, safety systems, pipes, valves, or the Lake Anna Dam over the course of numerous inspections.
Nonetheless, the earthquake brought to light the serious possibility of natural disasters causing unforeseen damage to VA's nuclear facilities.
In the wake of Japan's own nuclear disaster, the question of risk, of cost versus benefit, is more prescient now than it has been in decades.
For those that would claim that nuclear power is safe, they probably would not have predicted that an earthquake would have been able to shut down operations at North Anna for as long as it has.
While there are better, safer, and cleaner alternatives to nuclear energy, why not attempt to use them?
It's understood that the lobbyists for the nuclear industry have done a good job at holding the attention of our elected officials. It's up to us as citizens to make sure that our political representatives are listening to us, not lobbyists and their respective clients.
The Roanoke Times recently published an article claiming that a number of representatives in the VA General Assembly are waiting until the release of a National Academy of Science (NAS) study before taking a stance on the issue of uranium mining in southern Virginia. The report itself is due at the end of the year.
The NAS study was conducted as a result of one interest groups efforts to lift VA's 30 year old moratorium on uranium mining. Before the start of the 2012 VA General Assembly, a proposal to lift the 3 decades long moratorium is expected.
Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI), a partly Canadian owned mining company based in VA, has spent close to $100,000 over the past 36 months to lobby members of the General Assembly to lift the moratorium on uranium mining.
Aside from the dubious fact that VUI is partly owned by entrepreneurs residing in a foreign country and the novelty of mining for uranium in unprecedented climatic conditions, Virginians shouldn't be fooled by VUI's rhetoric about the safety of uranium mining in Virginia or its lofty claims of job creation or communal responsibility.
We live in a capitalist society, one that gives companies like VUI little incentive to "clean up the mess" once one has been created.
Given the nature of uranium mining and the radioactive tailings that are left behind on the surface as a byproduct, there will almost certainly be a mess, one that could lead to very adverse human and environmental health problems.
VA should aim for energy independence in a safe and sustainable manner. Uranium mining in VA will only create more problems than it helps solve.
The benefits of uranium mining in Virginia, sure, there are some. There are also benefits to undergoing chemotherapy, but you don't want to reach the point where you have to harm your body with radiation to sustain yourself! That is, there are viable alternatives to uranium mining in Virginia like wind energy, solar power, geothermal, and biomass that don't pack the harmful punch that uranium mining does.
If extracting radioactive materials out of the ground for energy use sounds like a frightening idea, that's because it is. But let's look beyond the "scary" factor of uranium mining. Even if uranium mining were relatively safe, there is no guarantee that Virginia and its residents will reap many of the benefits stemming from its extraction, refinement, and sale.
Indeed, the most certain aspect of uranium mining, judging from case studies of uranium mines across the country, is that they will leave a harmful environmental impact long after their final use. And given the sobering fact that Virginia is inexperienced in the process of uranium mining regulation, permit granting, and the like, it's most logical to conclude that this consequence may stand all the more chance of occurring.
Virginia Uranium Inc. has made a lot of claims about how "safe" their own operations will be as well as the benefits that their enterprise will bring to Virginia and in particular the economically stagnant areas of southern Virginia. But what if their operations don't turn out to be so safe if they are able to mine for uranium in VA? What will become of Pittsylvania County's residents or the public drinking water of Virginia Beach? Who actually knows that under EPA regulations, Virginia Uranium Inc. would be able to discharge wastewater consummate with the difference in average rainfall versus evaporation?
All of these questions, and many more, remain unanswered. The numbing silence is reflective of VUI's own blindness to anything but the benefits of mining for uranium in VA. Ultimately, once all of the facts have been laid out for the public, it should be those individuals who will be most directly affected by uranium mining who should be able to decide what course of action to pursue.
There's some tough talk being conducted by the EPA's senior adviser on the Chesapeake restoration, Jeff Corbin.
Corbin says that the EPA's strategy to restore the bay can stand up to challenges in court by development and farm groups.
Corbin notes that the EPA's pollution diet has the requisite science, the modeling and the legal backing to remain confident that it will succeed in court.
Of course, the EPA will have to fork out some serious dough in order to fight the numerous lawsuits that are thrown at it. This of course means that the U.S. taxpayers may be footing a serious bill.
But for those like Gov. Bob McDonnell and his rat-pack of apparent science-deniers, the lawsuits are necessary to stop what he sees as an $8 billion mandate handed down to Virginia by the federal government (the money McDonnell claims it will cost Virginia to restore the bay through 2025).
But of course, Gov. McDonnell has come up with such fuzzy numbers in the past and it's hard to take his estimates at face value.
But even if on the off chance the price tag of restoring the bay for VA is $8 billion, then so what? Isn't it still worth the costs? The answer is yes.
The answer's yes because as I've stressed before, the bay is more than a tremendous body of water, it IS a big part of what makes Virginia. Oh, and that also leaves out the thousands of tourists and their money that the bay brings to Virginia every year!
The quest to rapidly deteriorate America's air and water, to exterminate untold numbers of species, and to eradicate unspeakable numbers of public lands and its existing habitat continues in earnest in the House of Representatives by our good friends the Tea Party Republicans. When $1.6 trillion was stripped from the EPA budget earlier this year in April, the effects on environmental programs were then thought to be disastrous. Now, with even deeper cuts to the EPA's and Interior Department's budgets, the negative impacts will be multiplied.
What these Republican lawmakers do not care to understand is that environmental health is tied directly and indirectly to economic health. If, for instance, you're a big agribusiness farming company who continually damages your soil through negligence, you will lose money in the short-run, the long-run, or both. Or, if you are a utility that burns coal for electricity, it's good business practice to not poison surrounding communities of inhabitants, individuals who are also more than likely your customers.
That this issue is even being discussed, is even being questioned, owes a lot to the brilliant rhetoric and illogical basis upon which many within the Republican Party have made arguments against environmental protection. They point to the uncertainties inherent in science or they speak conspiratorially about the "liberal agenda," an agenda which has as much basis in truth as Big-foot but one that still has the effect of stirring conservative constituents into rapid political action. It is a line that liberals feel compelled to defend against instead of focusing on the issues of real importance and substance.
Gov. Bob McDonnell recently issued an executive order to transition thousands of state vehicles in Virginia's fleet to alternative forms of fuel.
The executive order was signed on Tuesday by McDonnell at the Office of Fleet Management Services in Richmond.
McDonnell also pushed a new Virginia law that would allow Virginia's retailers to provide additional charging locations for electric vehicles.
According to McDonnell's executive order, a plan to transition Virginia's vehicle fleet is to be finished for his review and approval by January 1.
Reducing Virginia's, and the U.S.'s, reliance on foreign oil "makes sense" according to the Virginia governor, which is why he called for a shift to fuels like biodiesel, electric, and other mixes.
Of course, one would have liked to have seen these moves sooner. But the transition orchestrated by McDonnell illustrates that fact that conservative policy-makers and environmentally conscious Virginian's can work together to promote each other's goals.
It's also noteworthy that a conservative governor has "gone green" (kind of) in the midst of a political environment that appears to scold anyone who promotes progressive environmental policies.
Indeed, maybe conservative politicians are the individuals most politically able to get away with conservation-type policies, even if their primary motivations are different from the environmental community's.
After the nuclear-reactor incidents in Japan, there were individuals in the U.S. audacious enough to scoff at warnings from anti-nuclear advocates that nuclear energy poses risks that have not been properly controlled and that probably cannot be properly controlled with current technology. Some advocates of nuclear energy attempt to point out that newer technologies in nuclear energy will solve many of the problems that anti-nuclear advocates deride. But new nuclear technologies still do not address the problems posed by older nuclear power plants and their reactors. These same reactors have seen an increase in radioactive leaks over the past few years.
The last fact is an important one because it underscores the stratified nature of information that has usually entered the debate around nuclear energy. That is, many of the most horrific facts about nuclear energy don't usually get entered into the public debate surrounding nuclear energy because doing so would probably scare a lot of Americans or induce them to change their minds about the perceived advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. For instance, if I told you that every nuclear reactor in the U.S. has had a radioactive leak at some point in its history, would you still favor nuclear energy? Or how about the fact that in 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified before Congress that there was a 45% chance that a "severe nuclear accident" would occur in the next 20 years. The fact that it hasn't, then, is something close to a miracle.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, although it's looking more and more like it has become one. The Republican Party, for the most part, seems willing to brush the risk aside to embrace a nuclear future for the U.S. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has largely stuck to a more precautionary position, not necessarily deriding nuclear power but also not advocating it without relatively strict limitations. Of course, these strict limitations look good on paper but are apparently rarely ever enforced with such stringency. So here's another reason to finally kick nuclear energy to the curb: the supposedly rigid regime of regulation ensured by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has come under fire for not ensuring that its own regulations are being carried out. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that this will change substantially anytime in the near future.
User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club and/or the League of Conservation Voters. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.
ArticleXI.com is paid for and authorized by
Virginia League of Conservation Voters PAC, 530 East Main Street, Ste. 410, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 225-1902 and
Sierra Club VA PAC, 422 E. Franklin Street, Suite 302, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 225-9113.
