Mississippi Supreme Court Questions Kemper Coal Plant

Supremes Question Kemper

Residents near a planned 582-megawatt coal plant protested the project that threatens to raise their electric rates by 45 percent.

by R.L. Nave
Dec. 21, 2011

In all the pages of court records regarding a dispute between environmentalists and an electric utility company–pages that one Mississippi Supreme Court justice characterized as the most voluminous he has seen in his eight years on the court–one important piece of information eluded the justices.

What changed between April and May for the Mississippi Public Service Commission to reverse itself and allow Mississippi Power Co. jack up the cap on a 582-megawatt Kemper County coal plant by $480 million dollars?

“So far I don’t find anything in the commission’s order itself–and haven’t yet found in the record–what it is that would help me understand that the commission is justified in making this factual conclusion that the risks are now balanced,” presiding Justice Jess H. Dickinson said last week.

Brandon Presley, the PSC’s northern district commissioner, has an idea. Presley voted against fellow commissioners Lynn Posey and Leonard Bentz, of the central and southern district respectively, on the cap increase.

“The only thing I saw change was letters came in from Barack Obama’s energy secretary and Haley Barbour,” Presley said.

Last summer, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Gov. Barbour wrote letters asking Presley to reconsider his opposition to Mississippi Power raising the price tag of the plant, which is now under construction. Presley balked at the idea, calling the project a bad deal for consumers.

“If President Obama or Governor Barbour like this plant so much, let them come up with a way to pay for it,” he told the Jackson Free Press last week.

Presley, along with consumer and environmental advocacy groups, has fought to oppose the plant, albeit for slightly different reasons at times.

“I have no problem whatsoever with clean coal technology,” Presley said. “I have a problem with asking the people of Mississippi to be guinea pigs.”

The Sierra Club opposes the 582-megawatt plant because it is slated to use experimental internal gasification combined technology to burn low-grade lignite coal. As the basis for its lawsuit against Mississippi Power and the PSC, the suit before the Mississippi Supreme Court, the Sierra Club also argued that the commission failed in its obligation to publicly explain its rationale for the reversal.

On April 29, 2010, Commissioners Posey and Bentz issued a decision limiting the ratepayer cost of the plant to $2.4 billion. Mississippi Power stockholders of Company would have to pick up any costs above $2.4 billion, they said at the time.

The Atlanta-based utility complained that it should be able to pass any additional costs down to the ratepayers, and warned that it could not afford to build the plant if not allowed to pass on all the costs, including those above $2.4 billion.

Less than one month later, the commission revised its decision May 26, allowing the company to charge ratepayers up to $2.88 billion for the plant. Mississippi Power did not publicly release the amount of the rate increase customers would shoulder as a result.

After being pressed by justices at the hearing, Sierra Club attorney Robert Wiygul said he obtained confidential information showing that ratepayers’ energy bills could rise as much as 45 percent.

Since the hearing, the justices are reviewing the remainder of the court documents and could bring the parties back to clarify some points before the three-judge panel or the full nine-member court. From there, they can remand the issue back to the PSC for review or strike provisions of the deal.

PSC Commissioners Posey and Bentz did not return calls by press time.

“I’m not counting any chickens before they hatch,” said Louie Miller, state director of the Mississippi Sierra Club. “I’m going to remain cautiously optimistic.”

Mississippi High Court Justices Seek Reasons why PSC Reversed Itself to allow Kemper Co. Coal Plant

JACKSON, Miss. — Three Mississippi Supreme Court justices asked repeatedly Wednesday where the state Public Service Commission laid out its reasoning when it modified its decision to allow the construction of a Kemper County power plant last year.

The Sierra Club is trying to get the Supreme Court to derail the $2.7 billion power plant, now under construction in Kemper County’s Liberty community. The environmental group argues the PSC broke the law by failing to lay out its reasoning clearly when it eased the financial terms under which Mississippi Power Co. could build what it calls Plant Ratcliffe.

A lawyer for Mississippi Power said the commission didn’t have to provide such reasoning, though. He said judges could find reasons to support the decision in the 30,000-plus pages of testimony and records submitted as part of the appeal.

Mississippi Power says rates will go up about 33 percent to pay for the plant. However, Sierra Club lawyer Robert Wiygul told the court Wednesday that confidential documents he has reviewed show rates would rise as much as 45 percent. The Mississippi Business Journal reported the same amount in August 2010, citing documents obtained through a public records request.

A unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co., Mississippi Power would buy lignite mined nearby, turn it into a synthetic gas, and burn the gas, capturing byproducts such as carbon dioxide and selling them. The technology is supposed to allow coal to be burned more cleanly and cut emissions of carbon dioxide, which scientists say contribute to global warming. Mississippi Power says the plant is needed to provide more electricity for its 193,000 customers scattered from Meridian to the Gulf Coast.

The Sierra Club opposes the project, saying that the technology behind the plant is unproven and that it’s undesirable under any circumstances to build new coal mines and new coal-fired power plants. The environmental group says it would be cheaper for Mississippi Power to build a natural gas plant or buy power from independent natural gas generators.

“The law requires the Public Service Commission to choose the cheapest and most reliable technology and power plant,” Louie Miller, executive director of the Mississippi Sierra Club, said at a pre-hearing news conference. “This is neither.”

The PSC originally voted in April 2010 to cap at $2.4 billion the amount that Mississippi Power could charge ratepayers for the plant. The company is also getting about $300 million in federal assistance. Commissioners also said the power company couldn’t charge ratepayers for the plant before it started operation.

Mississippi Power said it couldn’t build under those conditions and asked the PSC to reconsider.  (Previously suggested most corrupt in MS) Lawyer Ben Stone  said Wednesday that it needed wiggle room for cost overruns, and wanted to charge ratepayers early to cut the interest customers would pay on money borrowed for the project.

"Uncle Ben Stone", Haley Barbour, and Steven Palazzo

"Uncle Ben Stone", Haley Barbour, and Steven Palazzo

“We could not go to the financial markets without some relief in both of those areas and finance the plant,” Stone said.

If this scheme had any merit it could have found investors.  With a negative credit score and historical pattern of Lignite Coal plant failure, Investors know Mississippi Power and Southern Company’s Kemper Coal Plant is a money pit with no intention of making money. It will be fined, regulated with fees, and taxed right out of any possible profits.  Among other costs to run problems they will encounter.  The profit comes in when MS power can charge a percent of its overall costs to the ratepayers.  Criminal and truly un-American, isn’t it? 

 A month later, commissioners voted 2-1 to give Mississippi Power what it wanted, raising the cost cap by 20 percent, to $2.88 billion. The commission must still agree that company spending is “prudent” for it to collect any money, even below $2.4 billion. It also allowed Mississippi Power to start charging before the plant’s scheduled start in 2014. Under state law, Mississippi Power can keep the money even if the plant is never completed.

It is not prudent to charge ratepayers for an experimental CO2 capturing mechanism that fails to produce any electricity, and  is founded on global warming science fraud, and a cap-and-trade system not yet in adopted. 

The key issue in Wednesday’s case is not whether the plant is a good idea, but whether the PSC adequately laid out its rationale for what Miller labeled a “flip-flop” by commissioners Leonard Bentz and Lynn Posey, who voted for the amended conditions.

The Sierra Club said the PSC didn’t adequately explain. “That’s going to require some evidence you can see and really get your arms around,” Wiygul said.

He said judges shouldn’t have to pick and choose reasons from the overflow of material submitted with the appeal, and the three justices sitting Wednesday seemed sympathetic to that argument.

“I did not see and still do not find anywhere where the commission explained to the court why this was now not too risky,” said Associate Justice Randy “Bubba” Pierce. “I want to know what happened between April 29 and May 26. What additional facts were submitted to the record?”

Stone said the new facts were contained in Mississippi Power’s motion to reconsider and its post-hearing briefs. “It’s very obvious to us that all those matters are supported,” he told the justices.

More importantly, though, he said the PSC was not required to summarize its reasoning for court review. Stone said that a prior court case says that as long as the court can find the reasoning in the record leading to the decision, the court must let the PSC’s decision stand.

JEFF AMY  Associated Press

Johnny Dupree Pushes Harmful International Agenda

Kudos to the Lovely Mississippi Lady who put this together.

Before you judge Johnny Dupree’s actions as good or bad one must have an understanding and opinion on Agenda 21. Here

I went on a venture to see if Johnny Dupree supports Agenda 21. I went and looked (vaguely) through Hattiesburg’s Comprehensive Plan for 2008-2028… (Ironically enough called the “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN”- Pearl River County renamed their “Smart Growth” AGENDA 21 plan “Comprehensive Plan”)… anyways- i didnt spend long but browsed over Hattiesburg’s intentions- and did notice Hattiesburg would visit the idea of “annexing” more land… I’m not sure the difference (if there is much) between the Hattiesburg Comprehensive Plan and the Pearl River County’s Comprehensive plan… Hattiesburg’s plan is here:

http://government.hattiesburgms.com/city-departments/urban-development/hattiesburg-comprehensive-plan-2008-2028-and-land-development-codepdf  

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/assets/pdf/DB121966116.PDF

but i kept hearing about this “grant” that Johnny Dupre supported the city of Hattiesburg getting… so i dug a lil deeper… the grant Hattiesburg received was the 2010 Community Challenge/Tiger II Grant Program http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=OSHC_List_Comm_Chall_App2.pdf  In the amount of $150,000… BUT… it is also called the Sustainable Community Challenge Grant Program

http://www.columbiatn.com/PDFs_NewsNotices/HUDPress%20Release.pdf 

HUD Sustainable Communities Community Challenge Joint DOT TIGER II Awards FY 2010- you have to zoom in…http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/hud_dot_challenge_award_spreadsheet.pdf The Sustainable Community Challenge Grant is guided by the 6 Liveable Principleshttp://www.columbiatn.com/PDFs_NewsNotices/HUDPress%20Release.pdf 6 liveable Principles are:http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/aboutUs.html This grant of $150,000 is to develop the “Mid-Town Hattiesburg Master Plan” http://www.johnnydupree.com/press/tag/hud-community-challenge-grant And the “Mid-Town Hattiesburg Master Plan” is… The goal of the Mid-Town Hattiesburg Master Plan is to create a mixed-use district that enhances livability of an employment node and its surrounding neighborhoods through higher density and design standards. The concept for a mixed-use district for this unique area is to provide more housing choices adjacent to educational, medical, cultural, athletic, recreation, entertainment, shopping and dining venues and establish opportunities for less automobile dependency through better pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. http://www.planning.org/consultants/viewrequest.htm?RequestID=6655 This project is funded in part through the Sustainable Community Challenge Grant Program they list the “Comprehensive Plan” when you go to this website about the Mid-Town Hattiesburg Master Plan…http://www.hattiesburgms.com/mid-town/619-faq-mid-town-hattiesburg-master-plan- The Comprehensive Plan for Hattiesburg is… “The City of Hattiesburg currently is in the process of updating the comprehensive plan to reflect Smart Growth Principles”http://www.scribd.com/doc/2254140/Metropolitan-Plan-for-Hattiesburg-Section-3

This explains a lot… “The City of Hattiesburg adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in December 2008. The goals from the 2006 Charrette Exercise Report are included in the plan for a University of Southern Mississippi. The comprehensive plan is the foundation for the implementation of the goals from the Charrette and the creation of an overlay district.

During 2009, a leadership team was developed from local volunteers and project supporters. Three work teams were formed for Organization/Financial; Transportation; and Design Standards to work on developing the various segments of a master plan. Meetings were held and ideas and strategies were proposed. Funding for assistance to develop the master plan was sought later in 2009 and 2010 due to the time and involvement in creating the master plan for the area. The problem existing that while the community supports the development of the master plan for a mixed-use walkable district, the local financial resources and time of volunteers are limited thus preventing the development of the needed master plan.”

So i reckon in sum- the “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN” is the “MASTER PLAN” now?!?! they are just modifying it?!?!

http://hattiesburgms.com/quick-links/617-mid-town-hattiesburg-mixed-used-district-master-plan

2006  Charrette Exercise Report is included in Appendix B of the Comprehensive Plan. The specific pages of the report are B-45 through B-49.

http://government.hattiesburgms.com/city-departments/urban-development/hattiesburg-comprehensive-plan-2008-2028-and-land-development-code

“We knew when we applied for this grant that it would be extremely competitive, with 583 eligible grants applicants, only 42 state and local governments were awarded funds. Hattiesburg is the only city in Mississippi to receive the grant, due in part to the collaborative efforts of the community and business partners who have supported this project and see the future livability opportunities in mid-town Hattiesburg,” said Mayor Johnny L. DuPree.

Johnny Dupree may not be fully aware of Agenda 21 and

Smart Growth- but he should know

what is in Hattiesburg’s Comprehensive Plan… and if he supports funding the Master Plan/Comprehensive Plan- and it has the Smart Growth principles- then whether he is aware of the connection or not- to me, that is support… HOWEVER… Haley Barbour opened the door for Mississippi to get Smart Growth in it’s counties…

The EPA is an ARM of the United Nations

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/the_un_states_envrio_protection_agency.pdf

THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler
SPPI ORIGINAL PAPER ♦ May 26, 2011

2

THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE …………………………………………………….. 5
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET ……………………………………………………………………………. 6
MISSION CREEP …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES ………………………….. 7
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS ……………………………………………………………………… 8
STRATUS CONSULTING INC. …………………………………………………………………………………… 13
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY ………………………………………………………………………….. 14
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS ………………………………………………………………. 16
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS ……….. 18
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler | May 26, 2011
THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
The EPA mounted a solid defence of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia after the “Climategate” scandal that broke just before the UNFCC COP 15 at Copenhagen in 2009. Their main purpose was to defend the IPCC because of the major damage done to its credibility by the e-mail revelations, and thus in turn damaged the flawed justification for the EPA endangerment finding. The EPA has a web page purporting to show Myths and Facts relating to “climate science”, in defence of their rejection of petitions against the Endangerment finding.
They were adamant that the science was not flawed or that the scientific process had been compromised. They had “carefully reviewed the e-mails” and found “no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.” They insist that they have relied on “major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science and that this approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.”
They were still promoting the scientific consensus in this EPA press release in July last year:
“America’s Climate Choices,” a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the most recent assessment of the full body of scientific literature on climate change, along with the recently released “State of the Climate” report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both fully support the conclusion that climate change is real and poses significant risk to human and natural systems. The consistency among these and previously issued assessments only serves to strengthen EPA’s conclusion.”
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
4
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports. In fact the Panel for America’s Climate Choices contains remarkably few climate scientists, but does have many political activists, including the President of the Pew Centre and the CEO’s of WWF and Environmental Defense.
The small number of climate scientists on the panel are established IPCC authors who are also activists in support of carbon dioxide control. The “State of the Climate” report is critiqued here.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA. The president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Eileen Claussen, is a former assistant secretary of state for Oceans, Environment, and Science and a former Special Assistant to President Clinton and Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs at the National Security Council. She has also served as Chairman of the United Nations Multilateral Montreal Protocol Fund.
Ms. Claussen was Director of Atmospheric Programs at the EPA where she was responsible for activities related to the alleged depletion of the ozone layer and Title IV of the Clean Air Act. She is also a member of the Pew Oceans Commission.
Lisa Jackson is a great fan of the Pew Centre and these quotes are from a copy of a speech to them, which is on the EPA website:
“Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks at the Pew Center for Climate Change, As Prepared” 25/06/2009
“Our hosts at Pew have some of the most talented and committed people in the field, from President Claussen, to the Regional Policy Coordinators doing the work on the ground.”
“I speak for EPA when I say that we’re counting on your partnership to help us advance the urgent environmental issues of the day, particularly climate change.”
“But I speak for myself when I say I’m counting on your help – on your counsel, your hard work, and your understanding.”
“I can’t think of a higher calling than coming back here to work with you to address the urgent, ongoing and in many cases, long overdue environmental issues our nation faces.”
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA.
5
She met with Eileen Claussen in closed session on October 20th 2010, in Washington, maybe looking for counsel on how to handle the challenges to her policies.
Jackson is a gung ho regulator and is well-practised in emissions legislation, as former Vice President of the Executive Board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program organized by northeast states to develop a regional cap-and-trade program.
She was hubristically bullish about her first year in office, on the EPA website:
“During my first year as Administrator, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, proposed the first national rules to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and initiated a national reporting system for greenhouse-gas emissions. All of these advances signaled historic progress in the fight against climate change.”
“Climate change must be considered and integrated into all aspects of our work. While the EPA stands ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that addresses the spectrum of issues, we will assess and develop regulatory tools as warranted under law using the authority of the Clean Air Act.”
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE
The EPA presents itself as a non-aligned body, working in the public interest and objectively taking on-board scientific reports, in order to protect the American people from the “air pollutant” CO2.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials, (non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding. Bizarrely, the EPA website says, “The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.”
They seem to forget the widespread integration into the IPCC reports of non-peer reviewed papers from NGO’s such as WWF and Greenpeace and the embedding of NGO’s into the IPCC process. They seem to forget the undue influence of a small core of scientists on the IPCC reports. The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials,
(non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding.
6
In a Time magazine interview on Friday April 2nd, Lisa Jackson was again “defending the science”:
“The biggest criticism that I’ve leveled – and I’ve done it in my hearing testimony – is that what the current efforts do is overrule scientists on a scientific finding. Congress is essentially passing a law that says, ‘We, a bunch of lawmakers, have decided what the science is on this issue,’” Jackson said.
The trouble is that the major input is not from climate scientists but from policy wonks and political science graduates, including some who publish “scientific” papers. Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET
Administrator Jackson is a woman on a mission; to save the planet. In a run of 150 speeches from 2009, she is protecting, saving or improving the planet, some 65 times. Her speeches are high on rhetoric but low on science, as in this hotch potch of familiar distortions in “Remarks on the Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases”, December 7th 2009: “Polar ice caps crumbling into the oceans, changing migratory patterns of animals and broader ranges for deadly diseases, historic droughts, more powerful storms, and disappearing coastlines.”
She seeks to imbue the EPA with the same sense of mission and this address for EPA employees sets out her international agenda:
TO: All EPA Employees
“Today our world faces unprecedented environmental challenges ranging from making sure our air, water and land are healthy to facing down the growing threat of climate change. At the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it is part of our mission to confront these challenges both at home and around the world.
While we have a long history of international collaboration on numerous global environmental issues, our bilateral and multilateral partnerships have taken on a renewed significance. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation is one of those vital partnerships. Since 1994, the Commission has been focused on developing innovative, collaborative solutions to reduce environmental impacts and promote mutual prosperity.
The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
7
Today at the CEC’s annual meeting, I will publicly announce EPA’s international priorities.”
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
MISSION CREEP
“It is our vision that by working with global partners we can advance our shared priorities, including adapting to climate change, ensuring national security, facilitating commerce, promoting sustainable development, protecting vulnerable populations and engaging diplomatically around the world.
Aren’t those the tasks normally entrusted to elected representatives?
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES
Countries need adequate governmental structures to enforce environmental protections.
The EPA will work with countries such as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
She was of course warmly welcomed at the UNFCCC in Copenhagen 2009 where she grandstanded the new EPA Endangerment ruling on greenhouse-gas emissions. The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
The EPA will work with countries such
as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
8
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
The input of the EPA into the IPCC reports is demonstrated by the fact that they provide funding for one of the core climate models, MAGICC/SCENGEN, a coupled gas-cycle/climate model (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that drives a spatial climate-change SCENario GENerator (SCENGEN). MAGICC version 6 is currently in use. The companion product, SCENGEN, is a global and regional climate change scenario generator.
The widely-used MAGICC model has been one of the primary models used by IPCC since 1990, to produce projections of future global-mean temperature and sea level rise. You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the AR4 conclusions. “Changes have been made to MAGICC to ensure, as nearly as possible, consistency with the IPCC AR4.”
The MAGICC manual says that “considerable input has come from the EPA, in that “Versions 4.1 and 5.3 (and intermediate versions) were funded largely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Stratus Consulting Company. In this regard, Jane Leggett (formerly EPA, now Library of Congress) and Joel Smith (formerly EPA and now Stratus) deserve special thanks for their enthusiastic support over many years.” Additionally it says that “the CMIP3/AR4 multi-model data set is supported by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy.”
Anything that doesn’t agree with their pre-determined conclusions is rejected:
“-1.8 forcing value as a lower bound (1.1 W/m2 below the best estimate) would lead to extremely low total historical anthropogenic forcing unless compensated by a large underestimate in some positive forcing term, and we consider this highly unlikely. We therefore retain +/-0.4 for the uncertainty range for indirect aerosol forcing.”
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the
AR4 conclusions.
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
9
Notice the acknowledgement: “Development supported by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”. This was in May 2008.
Although four separate bodies are shown as contributors to the model, implying independent scientific agreement, in fact all are connected via the IPCC, and by current or former positions at CRU and UEA, including model originator, Tom Wigley, at NCAR, who is a former Director of CRU. At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
The CRU is of course the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shown separately above to imply two independent bodies. NCAR and Stratus Consulting are both located in Boulder, Colorado.
MAGICC and SCENGEN contain the templates that produce the colourful global pictures showing a heating planet. Anyone can obtain the program and use the pre-installed databases to produce “new research” for any region in the world.
Here are some slides from a UNFCCC Climate Model Training guide:
At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
10
Dr Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at NCAR and a major figure in the IPCC, expressed his concerns about climate models in a Nature Science Blog post in June 2007:
 “There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”
 None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the
observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
 In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
 Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
11
In 2007, Professor Lenny Smith, a statistician at the London School of Economics, warned about the “naïve realism” of current climate modelling. In a New Scientist interview he said, “Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
Dial a Climate:
End result?
“Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
12
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff. She coordinates “CRS expertise on climate change, and leads responses on climate change science, federal funding, international cooperation and other topics, including China’s policies and performance”.
Leggett worked for the EPA for more than 15 years, having been director of the Climate Change Division from 1995-2001 during Carol Browner’s tenure and senior advisor on climate change mitigation and risk analysis to the EPA from 2001-2006. She was a convening lead author of the 1992 IPCC special report on emissions scenarios to 2100, (SRES). At EPA, she represented the U.S. Government on climate change at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD).
Jane A. Leggett is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff.
[She] is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
13
STRATUS CONSULTING INC.
Also mentioned is Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus Consulting, who has been an IPCC author since 1998. Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science, such as the EPA in reaching their endangerment finding. This is a list of his involvement in the climate change agenda.
 Coordinating Lead Author for the synthesis chapter on climate change impacts for the IPCC Third Assessment Report, TAR.
 Lead Author for IPCC AR4 WG II Ch. 19 Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change
 Contributing Author AR4 WG II Ch.17: Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity
 Lead Author on the Summary for the Policy Makers Report for both the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports
 Lead author for the U.S. National Assessment on climate change impacts and technical coordinator on vulnerability and adaptation for the U.S. Country Studies Program.
 Co-ordinator of the Pew Center Global Climate Change series.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy. He put his name to the February 2011 “Scientists’ Statement on the Clean Air Act” carried on the Democrat website. The letter repeated the EPA statement about the scientific evidence, quoting the same sources:
“The scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that climate change poses a clear threat to public health. Numerous scientific studies, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States and the National Academy of Sciences’ report, America’s Climate Choices, show that if heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, global warming is likely to cause more extreme heat in our cities, severe water shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts
Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy.
14
from sea level rise, and extreme weather. The economic and social costs of such impacts are potentially calamitous.
The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed—all without diminishing economic growth.”
Smith worked for the EPA from 1984 to 1992, where he was the deputy director of the Climate Change Division, an analyst for oceans and water regulations, and a special assistant to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
He was a co-editor of EPA’s Report to Congress: “The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States,” published in 1989. He has written on climate change impacts and adaptation issues for the U.S. Country Studies Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Office of Technology Assessment, the Electric Power Research Institute, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. He has produced papers on Technology Transfer to Developing Nations for the UNFCCC.
Stratus has carried out work in Africa for USAID and the U.S. Country Studies Program “to assist West and Central African nations in the design and development of climate change assessments.”
Smith has co-published with scientists such as the late Stephen Schneider of Stanford and Tom Wigley of NCAR, including this poster presentation with Wigley in 2005 on the merits of MAGICC-SCENGEN, Using Climate Model Output to Understand and Adapt to Climate Change Joel B. Smith. Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, Colorado, Tom M, L Wigley, National Canter for Atmospheric Research. Boulder, Colorado.
It was part of an assessment of the Aspen Ski and Snow Industry, co-ordinated by the Aspen Global Change Institute, which is funded by NASA, NOAA, The National Science Foundation (NSF), The Department of Energy (DOE), The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), a UN body.
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY
Stratus Consulting Inc. has been built into a sizeable company on the back of extensive consultancy work for the EPA and other agencies, which must run into several hundred million dollars. “The company has been awarded 942 government contracts since 1999. Many, but not all, involved work for either NOAA, the EPA or the Justice Department. From 1999 to 2007, Stratus Consulting pulled in an average of 64 contracts per year. From 2008 to 2010, the average per year nearly doubled — to 121 per year. So far, the company has generated only
15
three contracts in 2011”. They received the second-largest amount of money, $22.73 million, from the contracts stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In 2007, they picked up a five year contract worth $39.4 million. “Stratus Consulting has worked with EPA on climate change issues, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, since 1996, said Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus. “We’ve been looking at energy efficiency programs within a number of states,” he said. “We’ve also looked at consequences of climate change and done work on the science of climate change.”
But they are not climate scientists.
They describe themselves as assisting in crafting federal guidance and providing analytical support for regulatory development at the U.S. EPA for the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and global climate change. They have extensive input into the EPA web sites and into their data management processes:
 EPA home page
 EPA’s environmental education web sites
 EPA’s High School Environmental Center
 Data Quality Act/EPA Information Quality Guidelines
 Information Quality Guidelines
 Critical evaluation of EPA audit regimes
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan
 Business rules to support EPA’s Facility Registry System
 EPA’s Quality System
 EPA Integrated error correction process
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan.
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
Joel Smith and a Stratus colleague edited the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Some of the other Stratus staff who are also heavily involved with the EPA and other agencies are shown here, there are many more:
Charles N. Herrick, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Stratus Consulting, Inc. is a former Associate Director of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Assistant Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, (acid rain). He has also been a senior analyst with NOAA’s Office of the Chief Scientist,
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
16
a position recently revived by NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco, to bring in an “acid oceans” scientist.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Lauraine G. Chestnut is an economist and a contributing Pew Centre author with Joel Smith and David Mills to a 2010 paper “U.S. Market Consequences of Global Climate Change”. She has served on EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis.
Robert D. Rowe, Stratus Chairman, is an economist and has been a consultant member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
Leland Deck, Managing economist. Economic benefits analyses for EPA air regulations, air pollution analyses for the IPCC, the California Air Resources Board, (CARB) and other government bodies. A former senior economist with the EPA, he has a PhD in economics, an MA in economics and a BS in geology.
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She was a member in 2010, of the NAS/NRC panel, “Toward a New Era of Climate Change Science: America’s Climate Choices Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change”, with Pew’s Eileen Claussen, which EPA quotes as one of the validations for their rejection of petitions against Endangerment Finding.
She is currently involved in eight government programs, including this one funded by the EPA in conjunction with Stratus Consulting, entitled Impactful Communication of EPA’s Climate Change Research. She was an IPCC author for AR4 and was invited as Lead Author, Coastal Systems (Chapter 5) of WG2, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (withdrawn for personal reasons). Contributing Author, Coastal Systems chapter of WG2, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
She is the Review Editor 2009-2011, for Chapter 1 of the IPCC Special Report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.”
Susanne Moser is not a climate scientist and has a PhD and an MA in Geography.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
17
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding:
“At a Senate hearing this morning, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson defended her agency’s recent finding that carbon is a pollutant and minimized the role that data from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change played in that decision.
Jackson defended the IPCC data as still worthwhile, while also arguing that the EPA relied on other data, not just the IPCC’s, for the finding. She refused at one point to directly answer whether the IPCC still represented the best data in climate change science.”
Yet she is contradicted by her own documents:
Endangerment Findings Technical Support document
This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act.
The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.”
This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there are a couple of chemists, engineers and one meteorologist. Some are also IPCC authors and many are involved in the production of the proposed regulations, for example:
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management.
18
Melissa Weitz is an environmental protection specialist in EPA’s Climate Change Division, within the Office of Air and Radiation.
“Her areas of work include rulemaking for the proposed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, offsets protocols and policy analysis, and the national greenhouse gas inventory.”
She has a B.S. in Animal Science and a Master’s degree in Energy and Environmental Policy.
David Chalmers has “managed research, analysis and communication efforts on adaptation and ocean acidification and provided technical, analytic and management support to coastal adaptation projects funded through EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries program.” He has also “produced key elements of EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. He has an MA in International Affairs and a B.A. in Environmental Science.
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS
Darrell Winner, who is acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment at EPA and a former National Program Director for Global Change Research at EPA. He was a member of IPCC Working Group II, AR4 Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Appendix III: Reviewer of the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report. He has a Ph.D in Environmental Engineering Science and a B.S in Chemical Engineering.
Leif Hockstad, another “environmental engineer” with EPA, was a COP-15 negotiator and a Lead author of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Bill Irving is Chief of the Program Integration Branch of EPA’s Climate Change Division and a “technical expert” on the United States delegations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He has been with the EPA since 1997 and was a co-ordinating Lead Author of the IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Mr. Irving holds a Bachelor’s degree from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, and a Master’s degree in International Affairs from Columbia University.
Dina Kruger is the current Director of the Climate Change Division at EPA. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Washington, and a Master’s degree from the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. She was the presiding officer for the Proposed Rulemaking for EPA’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act, Monday, May 18, 2009. Kruger was a Review editor for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Lisa Hanle was another Lead Author for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, along with another eleven EPA employees.
In order to add gravitas, the document has Federal Reviewers, but again they are not all climate scientists, although they are IPCC authors. Some are members of the U.S. Global Change
19
Research Program and some are members of the panel on America’s Climate Choices, which are the bodies in which the EPA places so much faith and which, according to Lisa Jackson, form the basis of the science behind the EPA Endangerment finding. By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
In particular we have these big hitters in the climate debate, as reviewers of the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. He has been quoted as saying:
“Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.”
He was a member of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices until his new appointment.
Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and contributing editor of the RealClimate blog. IPCC Lead Author and modeller.
Susan Solomon, NOAA Senior Scientist, Co-chair, IPCC Working Group 1, 2002-2008. She was recently challenged about the Inspector General’s report relating to FOA requests concerning the IPCC. She is a member of America’s Climate Choices Panel.
CONCLUSION
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
The major involvement of IPCC authors in the process, the extensive use of contractors who are former EPA employees and IPCC authors, the use of reviewers who are also IPCC major players and members of the US scientific panels quoted by the EPA, all leads to an incestuous “group
By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
20
think” situation, which has no place in the determination of public policy on energy and the
economy.
Cover photo of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announcing
that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to public health,
as posted on nydailynews.com. Background photo of the
United Nations flag from topnews.

Worst Scam is Good Business For Mississippi?

The article below is an example of how the media is used to publicize Kemper Coal plant propaganda. Can anyone hear them saying, “Come into the Gas Chamber for a nice warm shower?”  Lets expose the deceptions.

Kemper Lignite plant has little to do with coal, energy, or Mississippians and much to do with Cap and Tax, promoting Agenda’s of international Governments, and crippling America.  The Southern Co is following the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocols to redistribute the wealth and land.  While Tom Fanning CEO of Southern Co suggests their companies are against bigger expanding regulatory government the truth is he is fully cooperating, volunteering Mississippi to bridge the gaps for more regulations.  Who can blame them since their cooperation allows them to help write the new regulations.

Those Promoting Cap and Trade say we will have “basic availability“- We will not, because Southern co is moving forward with the Kyoto Protocols voluntarily which will lead other coal companies to be mandated to follow their new regulations they are helping to write.  Fanning says we will then lose up to 50% of coal plants but fails to say it is due to his new regulations he helped write. 

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2011/05/20/summit-speakers-take-whacks-at-u-s-energy-policies-rules/

Reliability will be clearly lost due to the number of closed coal plants.

Affordable energy, is the biggest lie of them all because the regulations, by design are intended to cause ALL coal plants to eventually go bankrupt even Kemper County’s plant, according to Steven Chu Department of energy.

 

Development: Energy is a key

12:05 PM, Sep. 2, 2011|

The key to economic development always
is an educated, available and motivated

workforce, but it also is the basic
availability of reliable, affordable energy.

Mississippi has made strides in both of
those components, but especially the latter.

Gov. Haley Barbour has stressed and
promoted Mississippi’s energy resources.
Those resources continue not only to
expand, but more important, to diversify.

Not true, there will be no expansion of energy sources because of the closures about to take place in Mississippi and all over America if this global warming scam/kyoto Protocols is not stopped. 

Mississippi Power President and CEO Ed
Day told The Clarion-Ledger Editorial
Board last week that the company is
proceeding rapidly on its new “clean coal”
power plant in Kemper County.

There is nothing clean about Lignite coal it is a low-grade brown wet mushy coal and if one pours a bottomless amount of money at it you might be able to remove 65% of the CO2. This is the most inefficient way to utilize coal imaginable.  This is a scam!

The $2.5 billion plant will use Mississippi’s
vast stores of lignite coal in a cutting-edge
process that will not burn, but gasify the
coal and produce energy. The CO2
byproduct will be captured and sold to
state oil producers who use it reclaim old
wells.

Selling this CO2 will be a legal battle because Carbon trading has not yet passed and now we have objective science proving there is no manmade global warming because our coal plants are giving off Carbon DioxideIt is a SCAM! Selling a scam on the stock exchange is illegal!

The Kemper plant will add a new type of
energy-producing resource to the
company.

The lignite is cheap, plentiful and easy to
mine, producing a long-term consistent
fuel cost.

LIE.  The cost will be the most expensive venture America has ever seen in EnergyProve this statement Wrong, I dare you.

It is interesting new technology, with jobs
and an important addition to the state’s
energy portfolio.  How many Jobs?

You put the Meter readers out of work, close Coal plants, put families out of their homes, and businesses go under.  There is NOTHING job building about the Kemper County Coal Scam.

Kemper is just one of the important
developments: Kior’s planned five bio-fuel
facilities in Mississippi; the Gulf LNG project
in Jackson County at the Port of Pascagoula;
Entergy’s planned upgrade of the Grand
Gulf Nuclear Station; and the expansion of
the Chevron refinery facility in Pascagoula.

In addition, there are new solar
manufacturing facilities.

Advance Mississippi – a coalition of
business, education, utility and economic
development leaders – has promoted the
creation of a sound state energy policy that
is a major component necessary for the
state’s future economic growth.

Sounds like a comment straight out of the hand book of the United Nations’ Agenda 21.  I bet if you looked up Advance MS you will find the links to Agenda 21. I did and yes the connection is clearly the United Nations’ Agenda.

Former TVA chairman and former Tupelo
mayor Glenn McCullough heads the
Advance Mississippi effort. As he has
pointed out, there is more capital
investment in energy than any other

industrial sector in the U.S. Southern states.

Mississippi is reaping some of that
investment and is poised to reap more
benefits.

INVESTMENT!?  LIE!!!  They are sowing Cap and Trade regulations and ALL of America will reap that destruction. 

The Obama administration has stressed
the growth of green energy and companies
like Mississippi Power are experimenting
beyond its traditional operations.

This is at no risk to Southern Co investors, because ratepayer are paying for the experiment.  If Mississippi Power or Southern Co had to pay for it, the Kemper County Scam would not have proceeded without international or George Soros  funding.  The new books of regulations must be written before they can be enacted.

Most important, the nation needs a sound
energy policy that balances interests by
protecting the environment while providing
efficient, affordable energy.

Sounds nice but is straight out of the United Nations handbooks, again.  It is All about the ENVIRONMENT not the people. Gaia is the reason in the fine print if you read it.  

Mississippi is on the right track in that
department.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20110904/OPINION01/109040314/Development-Energy-key?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|s

Southern Co. regulators fret over EPA rules

Coal Trader (11-Aug-11)

By Mark Watson

State regulators in Southern Company’s footprint are working to mitigate the cost and reliability effects of what one Georgia Public Service Commission member calls a “train wreck” of new federal environmental rules.

The way Southern Co mitigated it was by volunteering to be the first in America to comply to the non-existent Cap and Trade?  No, they put the burden to pay for the Kemper Plant upon the people of Mississippi.

Last week, Southern, the nation’s second-largest coal-fired electricity generator, filed at the Environmental Protection Agency an estimate that its subsidiaries would have to pay $13 billion to $18 billion to comply by 2020 with the so-called maximum achievable control technology rule to cut mercury and other toxic emissions.

The parent company of utilities in Alabama, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi estimates that the new rules could result in about 40% of its 26,199 MW of installed coal-fired capacity either being retired or transitioned to natural gas.

On Monday, a Southern spokeswoman said any of this coal-fired generation that is not highly controlled – defined as lacking both sulfur dioxide scrubbers and devices to control the emission of nitrogen oxide – is “on the table” for possible retirement.

What Kemper is all about is capturing 60% carbon dioxide let’s not misguide the public.  We are all about minimizing pollution but Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

More than half of Southern’s coal-fired generation – 14,267 MW, to be exact – lacks one or both types of air emissions control equipment. Here are the numbers, broken out by state:

**Alabama – 8,729 MW of coal-fired generation, of which 4,410 MW is not highly controlled, with the highest concentration of highly controlled capacity in northern Alabama;

**Florida – 1,573 MW of coal-fired generation, of which 438 is not highly controlled, with all of the highly controlled capacity in the western Panhandle;

**Georgia -14,301 MW of coal-fired generation, of which 7,823 MW is not highly controlled, with the highly controlled capacity in northern Georgia; and

**Mississippi -1,596 MW of coal-fired generation, none of which is highly controlled, with all of it concentrated along the Gulf Coast.

Also last week, Southern’s Georgia Power subsidiary asked the Public Service Commission to retire the Mitchell Plant’s unit 4C, with 33 MW of capacity, in March 2012, and to retire the Branch Plant’s Units 1 and 2, totaling 569 MW, effective at the end of 2013. The Mitchell Plant is in southern Georgia, and the Branch Plant is in central Georgia.

Mississippi will be retiring plants as well.  This is being kept confidential until after the elections. But jobs will be lost.

Georgia Power also seeks certification of four power purchase agreements totaling 1,562 MW of capacity found through a request for proposals for periods that begin in 2015 and extend 12 to 15 years thereafter.

“I believe that through our [integrated resource plan] process … we’ll continue to see Georgia without a reliability issue, but at what cost remains to be seen,” said Stan Wise, Georgia PSC chairman, on Tuesday. “It’s something my colleagues and I are very concerned about. Clearly, it’s an exceptionally tight time line for what has been a 50% coal generating state. We’re going to see a dramatic change in the way we’ve done business in this state.”

In an email, Georgia PSC member Tim Echols said, “Georgia Power has a great record of reliability. That will not be an issue, regardless of fuel.”

Wise said he has discussed what he called “the train wreck we’re facing in the next decade” with Georgia’s senators. While the commission has ordered the installation of air scrubbers, these processes take time, and the short deadlines in the EPA rules may leave Georgia regulators with “the only avenue we have in this state … to shutter a plant or transfer it to another fuel source.”

We should be joining forces with Texas to fight overbearing irrational regulations the Obama administration is laying out to destroy our economy.  The timeline should be delayed!

In contrast with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Georgia lacks a large amount of underutilized gas-fired generation capacity controlled by independent power producers, Wise said.

But an industry observer who works with independent power producers in the region said the Southeast may, in fact, have underutilized gas generation that would be available to fill in the gap from Southern’s retired coal-fired generation.

“There are many, many less independent power producers there than in the past, but I wouldn’t make a blanket statement that the generation’s not there,” said the observer, who asked that his name not be used. “Historically, they haven’t been run very much.”

Replacing coal-fired generation with new gas-fired generation, which would be funded by ratepayers, could mean a big blow to Georgia consumers. “You can be sure that when the costs of these rules are passed on to the ratepayers, it will get their attention,” Wise said.

But Echols said he has “no worries as long as natural gas prices stay down.”

In Mississippi, Leonard Bentz, the PSC member who represents the Gulf Coast region served by Southern’s Mississippi Power subsidiary, said it would be “irresponsible” for utilities to switch much of its generation to natural gas.

What is irresponsible is to force the people of MS to buy an experimental Lignite Coal plant in compliance to Obama’s Green agenda. And even worse, was to do it secretly.

“Do you think for one second that gas prices are going to stay low?” Bentz said Tuesday. “I don’t. … I’m not going to be a part of getting gas-heavy on generation. You need a good, diversified fuel mix.”

This is all about deception folks.  Steven Chu  expressed his goal to “bankrupt” every coal plant in America through regulations.  Bentz said, Let Mississippi be first.  And make the ratepayer buy the plant but not to increase the rates until after his re-election. 

It would be equally irresponsible to shut down Mississippi Power’s coal-fired generation when the utility regularly hits records for summer demand, as it has done in the past two years, Bentz said.

It is criminal to force one of the poorest states to buy a risky coal plant scam causing the poorest to suffer to their deaths in the heat. Say it will bring jobs as businesses close and lay-off.   But Bentz did just what Obama wanted.

“Reliability is probably one of the biggest determining factors in my decision-making process, a fraction above cost,” Bentz said. “When people’s bills get high, the phone rings off the wall, but when the lights go out, the phones blow up from all of the calling.”

Following the political agenda seems like the determining factor.  It took only 72 hours to change the minds of the Bentz and Posey after recieving the persuasive letter from Haley Barbour who was hoping for a presidential run at the time and kissing up-to liberals. 

In a joint e-mail, the Alabama PSC said it learned from Alabama Power that “under the currently proposed implementation schedules, reliability will be jeopardized.”

“For that not to occur, the EPA must extend its stringent compliance periods and adopt a more flexible approach,” states the e-mail. “Otherwise, customers could potentially suffer reliability impacts and incur unnecessary costs due to compliance penalties, inflationary pressures, material supply and labor shortages, as well as the potential for multiple outages occurring at one time.”

The Alabama commissioners’ email said they “plan to maintain an open dialogue … concerning these issues” with their congressional delegation and other government officials.

Bentz said he has been discussing the new EPA rules with Mississippi’s congressional delegation.

But not discussing it with the people of Mississippi.  Again I want to see a fight against Cap and Trade not a volunteer to be the first to comply mentality.  Bentz keeps saying, “We will be the first in energy.”  But what he means is, we will be the first fools to be involved in the “train wreck.”

But Echols said he expects that Congress will not forestall the EPA rules unless Obama loses the 2012 presidential election.

“The EPA is a powerful agency,” Echols said.

Mark Watson

The red italics is inserted opinions and is not part of the original Coal Trader article in black. Brandon Presley voted against the Kemper County Lignite coal plant and has been an advocate for the people of Mississippi on this topic.

Jones County Residents Face Higher TAXES and ELECTRIC BILLS Come 2012 0

Jones County may pay higher taxes, on top of their higher electric bills during our economic crisis.   Are Jones County city offices, schools, hospitals, local businesses, and so on including the secret 2012 electric rate increases in their projected budgets?  The confidential rate increase revealing itself, without adequate warning for planning, would be detrimental. 

Our Public Service Commissioner Leonard Bentz was so very wrong when he concluded America’s economy would be fully on the mend so ratepayers could easily afford the big hike in their electric rates in 2012 to pay for the experimental Kemper County Cap and Trade Coal Plant.  Others know the concealment and postponement was actually to assist his re-election by hiding the rate increase until after the election.  Got’ta keep the crooked politicians in power.

It was Public Service Commissioners Leonard Bentz and Lynn Posey whose votes forced the entire state of Mississippi to comply with the Cap and Trade regulations even though our Government failed to successfully pass Cap and Trade.  Mississippi is the first to invite infinite REGULATIONS and a pathway for Obama’s REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH through ECONOMIC JUSTICE.  If we build it (Cap and Trade) they will come, and now all of America will know it was Mississippi who led the way.

Leonard Bentz is proud to say; “Mississippi is leading the way in energy!”  It’s like saying Mississippi is leading the way for another phase to destroy America with over regulation.   The Obama’s agenda will now have an example in Mississippi to be able to place Limits on CO2 emissions from all American coal plants that will also lead to Carbon trading options on the Stock Exchange.  Now who does that benefit?  Wall Street?  Let’s remember CO2 makes plants grow, our food comes from plants and plants give off Oxygen. We can’t live without plants. Carbon Dioxide is NOT A POISON until contained in high concentrations like we are about to do with Carbon Capture.

We believe the United Nations is very pleased that Obama was able to find fools actually willing to comply with the nonexistent Cap and Trade scheme. Perhaps they are laughing that Mississippi even found a way to make the people unknowingly pay for Carbon Dioxide Storage in their electric bills so there is no risk to the investors.

Disgrace is upon Commissioners Bentz, and Posey, for succumbing to the pressure letter from Obama’s Energy Czar, Steven Chu. And shame on Gov. Haley Barbour for passing out favors to the Obama administration to prop up his futile presidential run out of the wallets of his own people. Coincidentally, Barbour directly profits from the building of the Kemper Power plant, so please do not lose sleep regarding Barbour’s wallet.

Thank you to Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley for accurately predicting the harm in Cap and Trade being paid for by Mississippi ratepayers at this time.  We appreciate Presley for not betraying the trust of Mississippians. You were the only genuine advocate for the people. And this gratitude is coming from conservative Constitutional Republicans, Libertarians, as well as sensible Democrats.

If you have read something here you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know.  We want the truth to be told.

mississippicoal@mail.com

Posted: Aug 09, 2011 4:11 PM CDT Updated: Aug 09, 2011 4:53 PM CDT

JONES COUNTY, MS (WDAM) – Jones County supervisors are struggling to make tough cuts for the upcoming fiscal year.

Supervisors have asked all department heads to cut 5 percent out of their projected budgets. Officials said the county has seen a 3 1/2 percent decrease in car sales and property taxes.

Meanwhile, The Jones County School Board is not seeking more money in 2012 but is requesting the same amount as last year.

Supervisors said they believe that request could cause taxes to increase by a mil.

Copyright 2011 WDAM. All rights reserved.

Barbour Names Virden Jones for PUS

Executive director of the Public Utilities Staff

Gov. Haley Barbour has appointed Virden Jones as executive director of the Public Utilities Staff

JACKSON, Miss. — Gov. Haley Barbour has appointed Virden Jones as executive director of the Public Utilities Staff.

Jones begins the new position immediately and must be confirmed by the Senate.

The Public Utilities Staff works with the Public Service Commission to represent the interests of ratepayers, utilities, state agencies and the broad public interests of the state of Mississippi.

Jones has worked as director of the Electric, Gas and Communications Division at the Public Utilities Staff since 1999. He joined the agency a year earlier as financial modeling manager. As director, he oversaw rate reviews and fuel audits across utility sectors.

Jones, a certified public accountant, previously worked as chief financial officer at Pay Telephone American Inc. and as a registered representative at Morgan Keegan & Co.

Jones named PUS executive director – Regional Wire – SunHerald.com.

Thomas A Blaton On the Experimental Lignite “Science Project”

Mississippi Power Kemper County Lignite Project

Tom’s speech below will explain his views regarding this Mississippi Power Project: 

I am running for Public Service Commissioner, Southern district, in order that the public should be represented.  I am opposed to the 45% electric bill increase which Mississippi Power Company will need to pay for this experimental lignite science project in Kemper County.  Mississippi Power used its considerable political influence to obtain the passage of Senate Bill 2793 which allows regulators to charge the consumers for the construction of experimental technology even if the technology does not work.  This is nothing less than radical liberal corporate socialism.

    I am opposed to the public utilities filing rate increase documents in secret.  At the request of Mississippi Power the rate impact information is maintained by the Public Service Commission as a confidential, non public record.  No one knows how much it will cost.  And in this light, the Public Service Commission voted two to one to allow Mississippi Power to go forward with this science project. Never have so few taken the power from so many.  At the radio forum in Purvis, Mr. Bentz accused me of lying about the 45% increase.  The only organization allowed to see the entire record is the staff of The Mississippi Business Journal, a very conservative newspaper.  It is their studied opinion that the increase will be 45%.  Mr. Bentz should not believe his own rhetoric that this percentage is made up by the Sierra Club. 

    Large electric rate increases cause taxes to go up. Even today, our schools, our cities, and our counties are raising our taxes in order that they will be able to pay Mississippi Power for this science project when the electric bills go up next year.  This tax increase is the biggest tax increase in Mississippi history.  We should all give credit to the leadership of Phil Bryant and the Republican Party who worked diligently to make sure that the residents of South Mississippi may have the privilege of paying these huge new taxes. 

When you consider that Mississippi Power distributes mostly within towns and cities, the situation becomes even more unjust.  Laurel is 55% black and has an medium income of  65% of the Mississippi median.  Meridian is 54% black with a median income less than 85% of the state median. Hattiesburg is 47% black.  Waynesboro is 57% black with 31% of the people living below the poverty level.  Consider this:  the casinos on the coast receive large electric rate discounts.   The rich folk in Lamar County do not have to pay extra to make up for these discounts given by Mississippi Power because they do not buy electricity from Mississippi Power.  But the poor and black folk do. 

Power Companies should be made to play fair not favorites.          

Every economic model put forward by Mississippi Power shows that the cheapest fuel and method of generation is to burn natural gas.  Only Mr. Bentz and the management of Mississippi Power exhibit the primitive, non competitive notion that the price for natural gas is volatile.  Mr. Bentz says that gas is $4.00 one day and $15.00 the next.  That just is not so.  And why compare day to day gas purchase practices with a 25 year coal lease with an ultra cheap royalty to the landowner.  There is enough known reserves of natural gas to run Mississippi Power into the next century. And when adjusted for inflation, natural gas is cheaper now than thirty years ago when it was run by the government. 

Nowhere in the testimony before the Public Service Commission does anyone mention the fact that when electric bills go up substantially, old folks die.  It is estimated that for every job created by the lignite science project, an elderly person will die from temperature related illness every year.  Over the life of the lignite project, more than ten thousand old folks will die.  Mr.  Bentz, Mr. Posey, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Barbour, this is not a good trade. 

    It is too much power for a power company to have. 

    Between 1999 and 2003, Haley Barbour received 2.9 million dollars to lobby for Southern Company, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, and other energy industries.  He paid the Southern Company back with 2.9 BILLION dollars of the public’s money so that they can build the experimental lignite science project.  Haley was satisfied being paid only one tenth of one cent on every dollar he delivered to Southern Company.  Folks that is chump change.  I cannot believe that we were so gullible to elect someone Governor of our state that is so cheap. Cheap. Cheap. 

We will never get out of the economic cellar as long as we tolerate these liberal Republican policies which destroy our natural wealth for the benefit of the Yankee carpetbaggers and their liberal fellow travelers. 

You may recall my efforts to block the Republican plan to use Richton Salt Dome as a nuclear dump.  You may recall my efforts to stop the dumping of New York City’s garbage in Stone and Greene Counties.  You may recall my efforts to stop gravel mining in Okatoma Creek.  I opposed Kirk Fordyce’s plan to build 2,000 pig farms in North Mississippi with no sewage controls.  All of these efforts were successful.  I never asked for a dime in compensation. 

I lead the legislative efforts, as a citizen activist, to create The Scenic Streams Program.  When I activated my telephone tree, the switchboard in the state capitol building caught on fire.  I was active in rewriting the gravel mining laws of Mississippi to protect our streams and in the rewriting of the laws regarding hazardous waste dumps in Mississippi. At my suggestion, our state set up one of the most successful hazardous waste recycling efforts in America.  I helped build the public support for the Pine Belt Regional Landfill. 

I ask for your vote for Public Service Commissioner, Southern District.  I will work for you.  I am strong enough, tough enough, and smart enough to stand up to the utilities and their paid lobbyists.  Let’s stop the 45% electric bill increase. Lets repeal Senate Bill 2793. Elect Thomas A. Blanton your Public Service Commissioner.  I really will save you money! 

*Note:  the Senate Bill 2793 is now Mississippi Code section 77-3-101 through 77-3-109. 

http://thomasatomblanton4psc.com/home.html

Coal Plant CEO on Obama’s Carbon Capture Process

%d bloggers like this: